RUSSELL BIOMASS WATER PERMIT BASED ON SPECULATION, OPPONENTS SAY,
AND HEARING OFFICER IS BIASED.
DEVELOPER TO PREVENT EXPERTS FROM TESTIFYING.
The Russell Biomass wood burning power plant faces new challenges in fighting the appeal by local citizens and of the water withdrawal permit granted by DEP in July, 2008. The permit allows RBM to consume by evaporation for cooling at least 190 million gallons of water a year (or 5.5 trillion gallons over thirty years) without paying for a drop. Estimates of the company’s profits over thirty years exceed $1,000,000,000, according to the citizen’s expert testimony filed with DEP.
In addition, Dr. Piotr Parasiewicz, of the Rushing Rivers Institute, a world renowned expert on river ecology, submitted written testimony to DEP saying that the river habitat assessment used by DEP for the permit is based on “speculation”. Massachusetts regulations require that DEP should base such permit approvals on “best science”, but Dr Parasiewicz asserts that the state ignored available science and lacked sufficient factual basis to grant the permit, and that Russell Biomass’ permit application “appears to be full of errors and inaccuracies.” DEP’s conclusion in granting the permit that the water withdrawal “will have no significant impact on the Westfield River” is simply not supported by the facts. Not surprisingly the developer brought the motion to strike Dr. Parasiewicz pre-filed testimony and prevent him from testifying in person.
A large coalition of groups, including BEAT, MassAudubon, Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions, and the Westfield River Watershed Association are also opposing the permit. Additional testimony came from Mr. Henry Warchol of Westfield, who has devoted his entire life to protecting the Westfield River and restoring the Altantic Salmon. Andrea Donlon river steward of the CRWA filed testimony. Attorney Peter Schilling, of Trout Unlimited, testified that the plant will threaten fish survival in the Westfield River, and compromise the successful restoration of the federally endangered Atlantic salmon, which has cost $600 million over the last twenty years. Local citizens and business owners whose livelihood is tied to local tourism and fishing on the river also submitted written testimony to DEP saying the agency did not adequately assess the harm to their recreational and business interests from the permit.
In another important development, on January 22, Connecticut River Watershed Association and Ten Citizens of Russell moved to disqualify the DEP hearing officer handling the appeal because of his bias and repeated erroneous rulings that favor the owners of the RBM plant at the expense of the ecology of the Westfield River and local communities in the valley.
DEP’s refusal to conduct a fair hearing, in combination with the inaccuracies and faulty science of the DEP permit approval process, have served as a rallying point for citizens and environmental groups throughout the Commonwealth. These groups and individuals continue to support the idea of affordable, environmentally friendly power generation, and will maintain their good faith efforts to have the owners of the plant and DEP comply with the laws of the Commonwealth.
As Dr. Parasiewicz so aptly summarized this conflict, “It is not that we don’t want new Green jobs in Massachusetts. As a river scientist, I am very familiar with the perils of climate change that New England faces, and I believe that this Biomass Plant, if properly permitted and inspected, could be one small step towards ending our dependence on fossil fuels in the United States. That being said, in this new paradigm we must be cautious and perform due diligence in our planning to prevent environmental damage in other areas. Once the proper research and planning has been done on this well-intentioned project, I will be delighted to re-examine the evidence and, if appropriate, support the building of this facility. As of right now, however, the developer seems to be more concerned about saving on the costs of an air-cooling system than with acting responsibly and limiting environmental footprint of the facility. If this facility is built according to the current guidelines, it would not be producing truly ‘sustainable’ power.”