Biomass Plant to Burn Used Tires in M...

Biomass Plant to Burn Used Tires in Mendocino

Posted in the Ukiah Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Stop Harwoods Biom ass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#1 Feb 16, 2010
Fact Sheet: Biomass Incineration

The Burning Issues with Biomass
by Mike Ewall

Green energy to bring us wind mills AND incinerators

While the new green energy marketplace is bringing a 10 megawatt wind farm to southwest Pennsylvania, it has also targeted poor, minority communities in the state of Delaware with a 22.5 megawatt construction and demolition waste incinerator.1

A few years ago, if a corporation wanted to build a construction and demolition wood waste incinerator in your community, they would come in and tell everyone that you'd be getting a "co-generation plant to burn clean wood chips." Now that there is a green energy marketplace developing due to electric utility deregulation, these same incinerator pushers are now coming into communities promoting themselves as "green energy biomass co-generation power plants" that would "take pollution out of the air."2

This is only the beginning. There are proposals in many other states to burn all sorts of things in order to provide "green" power.

The term "biomass" has been used to include all sorts of combustion schemes, such as:

* Incineration of wastes, including...
o Municipal Solid Waste (Garbage)
o Sewage sludge
o Tires
o Wood waste (construction/demolition, urban tree trimmings, paper and lumber mills wastes, etc.)
o Agriculture crop wastes (often laden with toxic pesticides)
o Animal factory wastes (corporate hog factory wastes, dairy factory wastes, chicken feces & bodies, etc.)
* Burning of "energy crops" (tree or crop farms)
* Cutting down trees from forests to burn in industrial wood burners
* Digesters (Anaerobically composted animal factory waste, sewage sludge…)
* Combustion of contaminated landfill gases
http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/
Horrible News

United States

#2 Feb 16, 2010
Stop Harwoods Biom ass wrote:
Fact Sheet: Biomass Incineration
The Burning Issues with Biomass
by Mike Ewall
Green energy to bring us wind mills AND incinerators
While the new green energy marketplace is bringing a 10 megawatt wind farm to southwest Pennsylvania, it has also targeted poor, minority communities in the state of Delaware with a 22.5 megawatt construction and demolition waste incinerator.1
A few years ago, if a corporation wanted to build a construction and demolition wood waste incinerator in your community, they would come in and tell everyone that you'd be getting a "co-generation plant to burn clean wood chips." Now that there is a green energy marketplace developing due to electric utility deregulation, these same incinerator pushers are now coming into communities promoting themselves as "green energy biomass co-generation power plants" that would "take pollution out of the air."2
This is only the beginning. There are proposals in many other states to burn all sorts of things in order to provide "green" power.
The term "biomass" has been used to include all sorts of combustion schemes, such as:
* Incineration of wastes, including...
o Municipal Solid Waste (Garbage)
o Sewage sludge
o Tires
o Wood waste (construction/demolition, urban tree trimmings, paper and lumber mills wastes, etc.)
o Agriculture crop wastes (often laden with toxic pesticides)
o Animal factory wastes (corporate hog factory wastes, dairy factory wastes, chicken feces & bodies, etc.)
* Burning of "energy crops" (tree or crop farms)
* Cutting down trees from forests to burn in industrial wood burners
* Digesters (Anaerobically composted animal factory waste, sewage sludge…)
* Combustion of contaminated landfill gases
http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/
Hopefully somebody puts a stop to this madness!

Biomass when the rest of the world is worried about global warming?

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#3 Feb 17, 2010
Horrible News wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully somebody puts a stop to this madness!
Biomass when the rest of the world is worried about global warming?
They are burning that and worse in Mendocino County today…………

They can burn any type of waste other than nuclear waste……………They were doing that for years but it was not working well.

Tires are clean compared to PCB………………

And this place does not make electricity……………..It uses it……………..

Where is the outrage in that?????

Not a peep…………
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#4 Feb 17, 2010
Fact Sheet: Biomass Incineration
http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/factshee...
[Printable PDF version of this factsheet]
Biomass Basics
Bioenergy is an umbrella term for "biomass" (incinerating for electricity production) and "biofuels" (converting to liquids for burning as transportation or heating fuels). The biomass term has meant burning of: municipal solid waste (trash), tires1, construction/demolition wood waste, crop and animal wastes, energy crops, trees, gas from digestion of sewage sludge or animal wastes, and landfill gas.2 Biomass can include any non-fossil fuel that is arguably "organic."
"Green" biomass (like energy crops) is often a foot in the door for more toxic waste streams. Plants that start off burning "clean wood chips" can easily turn to burning more contaminated fuels (which may be cheaper or even free), or get paid to take really dirty wastes like trash or tires. Economic pressures encourage use of these dirtier fuels.3
"Alternative" vs. "Renewable" vs. "Clean & Green"
All of the above terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean different things. Just the term "renewable" can mean different things in various state or federal energy bills, laws and programs. Non-profit groups and private energy certification programs all have their own definitions as well. While these terms generally mean "not fossil fuels and not nuclear," even coal technologies have been included in state and federal "alternative" and "renewable" energy policies.4 Almost universally, many sorts of incineration schemes have been included in the various renewable energy laws, usually in the guide of "biomass" and landfill gas. "Clean" and "green" are rarely, if ever, defined and are terms of general environmental benefit with no generally accepted meaning.5
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#5 Feb 17, 2010
Renewability does not usually mean clean or green. It's only used to describe whether an energy source is replenishable and replenished on some reasonably short time scale.6 Renewables aren't necessarily cleaner than other fuels. Since biomass incinerators are considered renewable, they are given an advantage over cleaner (but still quite polluting) fossil fuels like natural gas.7 Since all of these words have been abused to include polluting smokestack industries, no combination of these words can be counted on to convey only zero-emission technologies like wind and solar.

Renewable energy policies support incineration. There are five main advantages available to technologies that are labeled "renewable": tax credits, subsidies, research grants, renewable portfolio standards, and green pricing programs.

Biomass competes with wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal for the renewables market. Wind is becoming one of the cheapest energy sources altogether and is about 10 times cheaper than solar. Biomass (especially landfill gas) is the cheapest except for where there are good wind sites. We are likely to see many more biomass burners because they can be built in many more places than good wind sites can be found. Since there is already a market for incinerators (based on the economics of the waste industry), biomass competes most directly with wind, the cleanest and most promising power source. Eliminating biomass from renewables definitions means wind would get better funding.
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#6 Feb 17, 2010
Biomass = Combustion = Pollution
All biomass combustion technologies put pollution in the air in order to make "green energy." Even with the best air pollution controls, a single plant can still release millions of pounds of regulated pollutants each year.8 Environmental regulations are surprisingly weak and air pollution permits fail to require that any toxic emissions be monitored on a continuous basis.9 Air pollution controls only effectively transfer toxins from the air to the ash, which will eventually pollute soil and water where it is dumped. Most of the biomass wastes/fuels contain chlorine, creating dioxins10 (the most toxic chemicals known to science) when burned.

Anything that creates pollution in the course of producing electricity shouldn't be considered clean, green or renewable. Wind and solar, even though they have some environmental impacts in their construction don't have to keep polluting in order to make electricity. Even though environmentalists tend to think of "biomass" as grass and trees, the vast majority of what is actually proposed by industry (and of what is already benefiting from pro-biomass renewable policies) is trash incineration, construction & demolition wood waste incineration and landfill gas burning.

Waste Incineration
Waste incineration is the worst category of biomass. Providing increased waste disposal capacity worsens the waste problem by lowering the costs associated with waste generation. It also destroys resources (some of which are best recycled or composted), and turns them into toxic ash and toxic air emissions. Wastes that cannot be reused, recycled or composted cleanly ought to be stabilized through digestion, then landfilled rather than incinerated.

What makes waste dangerous is not its volume, but its toxicity. People don't usually die from waste falling on them, but exposure to toxic constituents of wastes can cause all sorts of health and environmental problems. When wastes are incinerated, their toxic constituents are liberated into breathable air emissions and the toxic ash contaminates groundwater. The ash that is left then has a higher surface area and is more dangerous in a landfill, where rainwater will leach out the toxins more readily than if the waste is left unburned. Incinerator ash has been promoted for such applications as ingredients in cement, fill for reclaiming mines, fertilizer, biochar11 (charcoal), industrial tile and road base. These are more dangerous than landfilling, bringing contamination closer to where they can harm people.
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#7 Feb 17, 2010
Incineration has become a dirty word since activists have stopped hundreds of incinerators since the 1980s. Newer types (gasification, plasma arc and pyrolysis) claim not to be incinerators, but share the same fundamental problems.12
The Fuels
Trash incineration comprises 28% of existing "biopower" capacity in the U.S. In the extended Mid-Atlantic area (Virginia to New York), trash incineration makes up 66% of such capacity.13 Waste and energy corporations have a lot to lose if trash incineration is not considered renewable.

Tires contain many toxic constituents, which make burning them hazardous. Halogens in tires cause hazardous emissions when burned such as dioxins, furans, PCBs, and chlorobenzenes. Toxic metals such as mercury, lead, arsenic and chromium are also released when burning tires.14 Many other hazardous air pollutants are released from burning tires with studies having shown tire burning to be dirtier than coal.15 While not widely promoted as biomass, tire burning has been considered in some federal biomass research programs16 and corporations have promoted tire incinerators as renewable energy facilities – seeking to benefit from state renewable energy mandates.17

Wood waste is a very broad category. It includes - but is not limited to - wood pallets, construction / demolition wood waste, land clearing and right-of-way tree trimmings, Christmas trees, tree and shrub trimmings, paper and lumber mill waste, and wood products industry wastes. It can even include trees that have been used to suck up toxic chemicals from contaminated soil in "phytoremediation" projects.18 Wood waste can come contaminated with wood preservatives, binders, paints, glues, chlorine bleach, plastic laminating materials, chlorinated adhesives, or phenol and urea formaldehyde resins, nails/staples, or other non-wood materials. Treated woods are usually coated with creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper chromium arsenate (CCA).19 It is difficult to sort out treated wood (which can be up to 50% of wood waste)- even trained workers miss 30% of it.20 Burning CCA-treated wood will release cancer-causing arsenic and chromium VI. Although arsenic is no longer used in new wood treatment,21 this will be a problem for decades to come. Most CCA wood is still in use and its presence in the waste stream is increasing.22 Since copper is a catalyst in dioxin formation,23 a small bit of CCA wood will greatly increase dioxin emissions from wood burners.
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#8 Feb 17, 2010
Some wood burners that are permitted to be taking "clean" wood wastes have been allowed to accept a certain percentage of chlorinated wastes, since some wood waste suppliers are unable to completely isolate all vinyl-coated material.24 In construction/demolition wastes, there is likelihood of PVC (polyvinylchloride25) contamination from many sources common in building materials.26 Wood burners also emit formaldehyde, acrolein, phenols, benzene, napthalene (present in creosote), and PAHs, not to mention NOx, SOx, VOCs, and particulate matter. Wood storage piles present fire risks, and outdoor piles risk wetness from rain, which leads to higher emissions when burned.

Waste wood that is truly clean ought to be reused or made into paper, but not burned. Industrial wood burners, even if they start off burning a relatively "clean" supply of wood wastes, often end up seeking to burn more hazardous types of waste. In some cases, wood waste facilities have sought to burn wood tar waste.27 In other cases, state agencies have allowed industrial wood burners to dispose of their oily water by spraying it on their wood fuel.28 Some states actively encourage industrial wood burners to burn waste tires.2,30 It has been argued by some corporations that they need to co-fire tires in order to become "leaner and meaner" in the deregulated electric market.31 Many industrial wood burners are already permitted to burn tires, plastics, treated wood waste, black liquor solids (toxic, chlorinated paper mill wastes) and/or other paper mill sludges.

Agriculture wastes include, but are not limited to, orchard tree crops, vineyard, grain, legumes, sugar, and other crop byproducts or residues as well as nuts, shells, hulls, and other food processing wastes. Crop wastes should be tilled back into the soil to promote soil health, tilth, fertility, and nurturing of the organisms remaining within the soil. Where this is impractical, crop residues ought to be composted or recycled into paper products, not destroyed in incinerators.

While animal factory wastes could include corporate hog factory wastes, dairy factory wastes, beef feedlot wastes, and more, these are usually too wet to be burned (though are used in digesters to provide "biomass" power).32 However, poultry litter (chicken and turkey manure and the wood chip bedding it falls on) is dry enough to be incinerated for electricity production. Britain's Fibrowatt has proposed many throughout the U.S. and Europe.33 They have successfully lobbied state and federal politicians to get poultry waste incineration included in renewable energy laws.34 Due to weaker pollution control requirements on biomass incinerators, new poultry waste incinerators are more polluting than new coal plants for some of the major criteria air pollutants.35 Community groups in several U.S. states and in other countries have organized to stop poultry waste incinerators, sometimes joined by farmer advocacy groups, since farmers see poultry litter as valuable fertilizer.
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#9 Feb 17, 2010
Energy crops are typically fast growing trees (like poplar or willow) or grasses like switchgrass. These are prime targets for genetic engineering. Biotech grass seed has been found to contaminate native grass as far as 13 miles away.36 Wheat straw has been found to have 7 times as much chlorine as coal in an Idado study.37 Chlorine in wheat straw caused corrosion to the boilers.38 There are no organic requirements for these crops. Toxic herbicides and wastes used as fertilizers have introduced contaminants to switchgrass crops,39 that can be taken up by the crops. In phytoremediation schemes, plants suck up toxins from contaminated sites.40 Contaminants are released when these trees and grasses are later burned.

Gas-based biomass includes digester gas and landfill gas. Digesters essentially compost waste in a vessel, producing a gas that is mostly methane. This can make sense for sewage sludge and animal wastes, but renewable energy policies shouldn't subsidize waste management for animal factories.41 Landfill gas burning for energy is toxic and actually worse for global warming than not burning for energy. See our landfill gas factsheet for details.42

Sustainable Ag and Zero Waste Solutions
Sustainable agriculture is an energy and climate solution, but not by growing and burning things. Biomass incineration is not a waste or energy solution, though, as it is the most polluting and energy-wasting way to manage materials.43 "Zero waste" strategies (including reduce, reuse, recycle...) can nearly eliminate the need for landfills and incinerators, benefiting the climate and saving energy and materials.44
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#10 Feb 17, 2010
Footnotes
1. Tire Derived Fuel www.energyjustice.net/tires
2. Landfill Gas www.energyjustice.net/lfg/
3. Viking Plant, PA example. See footnotes 27 and 28.
4. Examplesninclude: the Federal Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the PA AEPS (Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard.
5. National Association of Attorneys General "Environmental Marketing Guidelines for Electricity" Revised Draft, Aug 12, 1999. http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990012.shtm
6. Ibid. http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990012.shtm
7. Natural gas includes many contaminants such as organometallic compounds and radon. Combustion releases many toxic metals including lead and mercury as well as dozens of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Natural gas lines can also be contaminated with PCBs
8. Fibrowatt’s Fibrominn facility is permitted to emit 5 million pounds (2,500 tons) of regulated pollutants.
9. Continuous Emissions Monitors Continuous Emissions Monitors
10. Dioxin Information http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/
11. Ernsting and Smolker. Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation: Fact or Fiction? February 2008. http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbr...
12. Incineration and Incinerators-in-Disguise http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration/
13. Operating Biopower Capacity (1999), by Fuel Type, World Electric Power Plants Database, Utility Data Institute / McGraw-Hill Companies, June 1999. The extended Mid-Atlantic area includes Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York.
14. Greenpeace, "Tire Incineration and Toxic Emissions: New data from the Modesto Incinerator, Westly, CA." http://www.energyjustice.net/tires/files/gree...
15. Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club, "Comments on Resolution 97-425 to Authorize Tire-Derived Fuel Use in Cement Kilns and Utility Boilers for Energy Recovery," submitted to California Integrated Management Board, October 22, 1997. The comments showed there to be increases in the following pollutants emitted from co-firing whole tires with coal vs. burning only coal: NOx, SO2, CO, particulate matter, chlorine, benzene, dioxins, PAHs, chromium VI, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. http://www.energyjustice.net/tires/files/carm...
16. "Summary of the First Annual Biomass Resource Assessment Review Task V," August 24th, 1995." At the end of this meeting report, they listed research priorities, in which burning tires was listed as a low research priority which didn't receive any votes, but which is "important and should not be overlooked entirely." http://rredc.nrel.gov/biomass/portland.html
17. ERE’s attempt to get tires in the PA AEPS; also a car company in Detroit had promoted tire burning as rewewable (Ecology Center had it in its newsletter one year)
18. Phytoremediation http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/phyto.ht...
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#11 Feb 17, 2010
19. Pentachlorophenol is a chlorinated compound, which will form dioxins and furans when burned.
Feldman, Jay, M.A. and Terry Shistar, Ph.D., "Poison Poles -- A Report About Their Toxic Trail and Safer Alternatives," National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, 1997. http://www.ncamp.org/poisonpoles/
20. Solo-Gabriele, Helena and Townsend, Timothy "Educational Outreach and Stain Distribution Project for Identifying Copper-Treated Wood", January 2005, Report # 0232003-05 (1.75mb) http://www.hinkleycenter.com/publications/fin...
21. The Environmental Protection Agency retricted us of arsenic and CCA for only certified pesticide applicators by the end of 2003. http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cc...
22. Solo-Gabriele, Helena, and Timothy Townsend, "Generation, Use, Disposal, and Management Options for CCA-Treated Wood," May 1998,#98-1 (972 Kb). http://www.hinkleycenter.com/publications/CCA...
23. A compilation of scientific studies on metals serving as catalysts for dioxin formation can be found here: http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/catalysts.html
24. Karakash, John, CRSS Viking Operations Inc., letter to Richard Maxwell, PA Department of Environmental Resources Air Quality Management Division, March 22, 1993. This letter states that a wood waste supplier to the Viking wood waste incinerator in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania is "unable to completely isolate all vinyl-coated material." The PA DEP has allowed both of the main suppliers to this wood waste burner to supply wood waste with an average .04% chlorine content (16 pounds per 20 tons of waste). http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/
25. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) http://www.ejnet.org/plastics/pvc/
26. For example, all household electrical wire sold in the U.S. is coated with PVC plastic. Since this wire is made of copper, it's an extremely dangerous mixture to have burned, since the copper will catalyze increased dioxin formation out of the PVC.
27. Maxwell, Richard, PA Department of Environmental Resources, note to John Karakash, CRSS Viking Operations Inc., 9/15/1994.
28. Maxwell, Richard, PA Department of Environmental Protection, letter to Steve Henry, Viking Energy of Northumberland, "re: Oily Water Waste," 8/1/1998.
29. Illig, Richard, PA Department of Environmental Protection Residual Waste Coordinator, Internal Memorandum "re: MMI at Viking Energy of Northumberland September 26th, 1995," 10/5/1995. This memo states: "Currently, Viking is experimenting with the burning of other materials at their Michigan facility. Some of the alternate fuels considered include creosote wood and tires among other materials. The Northumberland facility is also encouraged to consider the use of wastes as alternate fuels."
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#12 Feb 17, 2010
30. Pennsylvania's Waste Tire Recycling Act encourages the burning of tires. See the PA Department of Environmental Protection website for details: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwa...
31. Harrison, Vicki, "Supervisors: Burning issue may require expert opinion," The Daily Item, A1, August 20, 1998.
32. There's an exception in a proposal for direct combustion of hog waste in North Carolina. Visit the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League for further information and resources. www.bredl.org/
33. FibroWATCH: The Campaign to STOP Fibrowatt and Poultry Litter Incineration http://www.energyjustice.net/fibrowatch/
34. Such as the Federal Renewable Energy Tax Credit. State level subsidies exist in at least MN, NC, and AR. Specifically, see House Bill 1180, "The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999" became Public Law No. 106-170 when passed on 12/17/1999.
35. Alternative Resources Incorporated, A Review of the Air Emissions from a Fibrowatt 50-MW Power Plant Fueled with Poultry Litter, Prepared for Fibrowatt, LLC, Feb, 2000. This report shows that NOx and carbon monoxide emissions from Fibrowatt's proposed turkey litter incinerator in Minnesota would be a little higher than coal plant emissions. It also shows that acid gases (sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride) and particulate matter (PM10) would be about the same as coal plant emissions.
36. "Genes From Engineered Grass Spread for Miles, Study Finds," New York Times, Sept. 21, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/business/21...
37. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID. "Selective Harvest of Higher Value Wheat Straw Components," study reveals corrosion to the boilers from chlorine present in the biomass.
38. Idid.
39. 2-4D, poultry litter, sewage sludge, effluent...
40. Phytoremediation. http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/phyto.ht...
41. Anaerobic Digesters. http://www.energyjustice.net/digesters/
42. Landfill Gas Factsheet. http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/
43. Zero Waste for Zero Warming report prepared by GAIA. According to EPA statistics cited in the report, Recyling mixed paper saves 9 times the amount of energy generated by incinerating the paper. http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/GAIA_Inc...
44. Zero Waste Materials. http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration/ Also, see GAIA: Zero Waste
http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/factshee...
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#13 Feb 17, 2010
Our History
http://www.earthjustice.org
Earthjustice was founded as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in 1971. Since then, it has become the leading nonprofit environmental law firm in the country.
Mineral King valley. Photo by John Rasmussen.
In 1965, the Sierra Club launched a campaign to protect the spectacular Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada in California. The opponent was Walt Disney Productions, which intended to turn this secluded valley into one of the world's largest, most elaborate ski resorts.
After a number of unsuccessful attempts to halt the project through the political system, the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club authorized the filing of its first lawsuit -- directed at preventing the development of Mineral King -- in 1969.
A San Francisco attorney working at a reduced rate took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which heard the argument in 1971 and handed down the decision in 1972. The Sierra Club technically lost, but was allowed to return to the lower courts to try again. It did so; the project was again blocked pending completion of an environmental impact study.
By this time, Disney had grown tired of the notoriety the case had generated and pulled out of the project. The result of the litigation was the preservation of Mineral King and the confirmation of citizens' rights to seek review of environmental disputes in courts of law.
Meanwhile, Don Harris and Fred Fisher, two of the volunteer attorneys involved with the Sierra Club legal committee during the Mineral King case, established the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in San Francisco in 1971 -- an organization fully independent from the Sierra Club with its own board of trustees, staff, and contributors.
From day one Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund used the law to even the odds against powerful special interests, putting the organization at the center of major environmental issues -- from protecting the water we drink and air we breathe to safeguarding cherished places like Yellowstone National Park and the Tongass National Forest.
We have provided legal representation -- at no cost -- to more than 600 clients, ranging from large national groups such as The Wilderness Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the National Audubon Society, to smaller state and community coalitions, such as the Alaska Center for the Environment and the Friends of the Everglades.
Over the years, we added a Policy and Legislative department to deal with legislative backlash against our courtroom victories and to protect the laws we rely on. We created an International Program to address human rights, trade and environmental issues, and developed a Communications department to focus on public education.
In 1997, we changed our name to Earthjustice, to better reflect our role as a legal advocate for not just the Sierra Club, but hundreds of others clients as well.
What has not changed since the Mineral King days, is our commitment to enforcing the law -- still the most powerful tool we have for protecting our precious environment.
Thanks to the more than 120,000 generous individuals that support our work, as well as the charitable foundations, and our board of trustees, Earthjustice will continue to protect the earth's magnificent and fragile places, and the rights of our families to live in healthy communities with clean water and clean air.
http://www.earthjustice.org
Say No to Harwood Biomass

Jackson St Forest, CA

#14 Feb 17, 2010
Suit filed against biomass plant
By ANITA FRITZ
Gazette Contributing Writer

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

GREENFIELD - Four opponents of a proposed 47-megawatt biomass wood-burning power plant on Butternut Street have filed an appeal with the state Land Court in Boston in an attempt to reverse the July 8 decision to allow the plant.

The challenge to a Zoning Board of Appeals decision is the second filed within a week. An abutting business, Applied Dynamics Inc., filed a lawsuit in Franklin County Superior Court last week.

Michael Fee of Pierce and Mandell P.C. of Boston, the lawyer representing the abutters, said he filed the appeal at 2:30 p.m. on Monday.

Greenfield business owner and 322 Adams Road residents Leonard P. and Susan W. Weeks, two of the appellants named in the appeal, said the ¿'whole biomass project is an incredibly big sham being played on our town of Greenfield'' and that is one of the reasons they filed the appeal.

Leonard P. Weeks said he believes the wood-burning plant will not be a clean, renewable source of energy. He said he is concerned that the ¿'fallout zone'' for pollution will reach up to five miles and is also concerned about truck traffic to and from the plant and the noise it will produce.
http://www.gazettenet.com/2009/08/12/suit-fil...
Just Say NO

Jackson St Forest, CA

#15 Feb 18, 2010
Facts About Tire Incineration in Cemex Cement Kiln

Download: Facts About Tire Incineration In Cemex Cement Kiln (PDF)
http://www.greenlink.org/uploads/pdfs/cemex_t...

Contents of this Package (segmented PDFs)

1. Letter from the Green Environmental Coalition

2. Letter from Local Pahtologist at Miami Valley Hospital Ohio Sierra Club letter of support

3. Violations - Federal Notice of Violation and Warning Letter from Regional Air Pollution Control Agency

4. Motion of Appeal by Green Environmental Coalition before Environmental Review Appeals Commissions (ERAC). The Motion for Stay has been withdrawn for the time being.

5. Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)

6. Test Tricks Used by cement companies to pass stack tests

7. Continuous Emissions Monitors and Estimated Start-up costs

8. Estimated number of large trucks entering the Cemex facility daily

9. Kentucky Recources Council questions Cemex about tire burning
Montanans Against Toxic Burning
Tire and Waste Incineration at Lehigh Texas Plant - Health Risks
Statements to California Integrated Waste Management Board - Health Risks

10. Lorenzo Zambrano, Cemex, CEO, statement re: turning off cement plant alarm systems

11. National Alliance formed against Cemex operations

12. Rubber is a Resource and should not be wasted. Uses other than fuel.
Just Say NO

Jackson St Forest, CA

#17 Feb 18, 2010
The Modesto testing program analyzed for only a handful of the many pollutants likely or possibly present. Data presented in the report are discussed below, but it is important to remember that they offer a profile of only a small portion of total emissions from the incinerator.
Polychlorinated dioxins and furans. The facility was found to be emitting dozens of different dioxin and furan isomers at a mean rate of .16 grams/year (Assuming 7000 hours of operation per year). A toxic equivalency approach (which expresses the toxicity of a mixture of dioxins and furans relative to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic dioxin congener) shows mean dioxin emissions of .0236 grams/year.
While these quantities of dioxin may appear small, they can pose a significant risk to public health. To provide perspective, dioxin emissions from the Modesto incinerator can be compared to EPA's "risk specific dose," the dose which EPA estimates will pose a one per million cancer risk to the general population (the maximum dose EPA considers "acceptable"). Daily dioxin/furan emissions from the Modesto tire incinerator are equivalent to a maximum "acceptable" daily dose for 187 million individuals (assuming humans weigh 70 kg). Expressed another way, annual dioxin/furan emissions from the facility are equivalent to a LIFETIME maximum dose for more than 2 million people.
Other halocarbon pollutants. Other chlorinated combustion products released from the Modesto incinerator include extraordinarily toxic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic compounds which may augment the direct toxicity of the dioxins and furans.
Tests at the facility found emissions of PCBs, dichlorobenzene, trichlorobenzene, tetrachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, chlorophenol, and dichlorophenol. All of these compounds are highly toxic and are known or suspected carcinogens, as well. Total emissions of chlorinated benzenes and chlorinated phenols averaged 154 grams/year; PCB emissions averaged 28.6 grams/year.
Non-chlorinated hydrocarbons. No attempt was made to identify or quantify the full range of hydrocarbon pollutants from the facility, which are likely to range from relatively non-toxic compounds like ethane to more toxic pollutants such as benzene and xylene and the highly carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Only a handful of PAHs were tested for, and the total quantity of those pollutants detected, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens and all of which are toxic, is shown below:
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 3,250 grams/year
Naphthalene
Acenapthylene
Acenapthene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Just Say NO

Jackson St Forest, CA

#18 Feb 18, 2010
HEAVY METALS
Tires are known to contain at least 17 heavy metals. In an incinerator, heavy metals cannot be destroyed, but can only be distributed to air emissions or incinerator residuals. Stack emissions of heavy metals were quantified for aluminum (83 pounds per year), arsenic (.11 lbs/year), and chromium (9.9 lbs/year). Arsenic and chromium are both considered potent carcinogens.
ASH RESIDUES
The Modesto facility generates fly ash from its pollution control devices and bottom ash from the furnace itself. The ash can be presumed to contain the same selection of pollutants present in the air emissions, often in greater quantities. The California report provides no data on toxic pollutants present in the ash from the Modesto facility. However, stack gases leaving the furnace and entering the pollution control device were found to contain the dioxins, furans, PCBs, chlorobenzenes and phenols, and arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium, manganese, nickel, lead, and mercury.
Fly ash from the facility is a legally hazardous waste due to its high zinc content. It is sent to a zinc smelter in Monterey, Mexico, which recovers a portion of the zinc in a smelting furnace. No attempt is made to recover, treat, control, or dispose the other heavy metals or toxic pollutants present in the ash. Greenpeace is opposed to the international trade of hazardous wastes, especially waste exports to nations with weaker environmental standards, scarce provisions for public participation in environmental policies, and limited resources to provide technical and regulatory oversight for environmentally dangerous practices.
ENERGY ISSUES
The incinerator generates about 14 MW of energy. That quantity of energy could be saved by merely replacing about 245,000 standard lightbulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. Modesto has 108,000 residents -- if each person replaced about two light bulbs in his or her home or office, the energy provided by the tire incinerator would rendered immediately unnecessary. Other conservation and efficiency measures offer even greater potential to eliminate the perceived need for environmentally unsafe energy sources.
Further, incinerating tires and manufacturing new ones from virgin petroleum feedstocks wastes energy that could be saved by recycling or retreading tires. In the 1940s, 60 percent of the nations tires were retreaded or recycled; today the total is about 10 percent. Retreading a tire once saves 65 percent of the energy and 60 percent of the petroleum feedstock necessary to make a virgin tire. Because combustion can recover only a portion of the energy contained in a material (the rest is lost as light, heat, unburnt material, friction, etc.), destroying tires which have been used only once is hardly an efficient use for petroleum, a non-renewable, finite, polluting, and politically contentious material.
Just Say NO

Jackson St Forest, CA

#19 Feb 18, 2010
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED TIRE INCINERATOR
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED TIRE INCINERATOR
Erie Renewable Energy (ERE) proposes to have 100,000 dirty tires delivered to its central city site daily. That site is within ½ mile of 4 public schools. They will grind and incinerate (burn) 2 million pounds of tires per day and emit 8,000 lbs of toxic, one micron particles, out the 300 foot smoke stack every 24 hours for the next 40-50 years. Annual emissions total 2,900,000 pounds consisting of particulates small enough to be absorbed by humans The DEP does not regulate one micron sized particles even though they have been proven to be a greater health threat then larger particles.
The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the odds of cardiovascular disease significantly increase with the increase of fine particle pollution.
Along with significant Co2 emissions, 117 tons of ash will be need to be disposed of per day.
ERE could store up to 1,000,000 tires at a time at its site. There is a history of catastrophic tire fires occurring throughout the United States and Canada.
The ERE business plan is to generate electricity and sell it to the grid. Is this expensive electricity needed? If the grid is forced to purchase the electricity at a higher price it will cost you the consumer.
If the plant were built and was operating it would employ 60 people. But the emissions will threaten amongst others, the Curtze Food Corps 310 employees, Erie and Chautaqua County’s $350,000,000 grape, and agriculture industries.
Lake Erie’s fresh water and fishing industry is adjacent to the plant and according to local and national biologists will suffer from this toxic operation.
Tires contain significant dioxins, pcb’s, lead, carcinogens and toxic chemicals.
There is only one small operating tire burning incinerator in the U.S. It is located far out in the country. A plant in California burned for weeks and cost the State tens of millions of dollars. The owners walked away. The Sterling Heights plant caught fire. The owner could not operate without taxpayer subsidy and closed.
A small group of people have gathered five thousand signatures to date from citizens opposed to the worlds largest tire incinerator being built along Lake Erie.(see Springirth, Rabat Document above)
On December 6 ERE filed their application for emission permit with the PA DEP.
In the permit it is estimated that 80% of the tires would be delivered via rail. There will be 70 trucks per day with no estimate of the number of rail cars.
The ash remaining per day that needs to be disposed of:
32 tons of bottom ash per day
85 tons of fly ash per day
Over 21,000 gallons 19% aqueous ammonia will be stored on site.
Criteria Pollutants for CFB (circulating fluidized bed) units - tons per year
Particulate total -10 230 tons per year
SO2 179 tons per year
NOx 354 tons per year
VOC 27.6 tons per year
Pb .033 tons per year
CO 690 tons per year
(the above emissions represent 4 tons or 8,000 pounds per day emitted from the tire burning operation).
The emissions from the cooling systems adds 6.79 tons per year of particulate.
Just Say NO

Jackson St Forest, CA

#20 Feb 18, 2010
The evaporation rate from the cooling towers is 801 gallons per minute which is 1,153, 440 gallons per day of water into the air.
HAP (hazardous air pollutants) and other emissions, pounds per year unless specified
Hg 3
Cd 3.68
As 2.21
Zn 3.49 tons per year
Ba 23.73
Be .109
Cr 14.07
Co 4.92
Cu .174 tons per year
Mn 22.71
Ni 16.00
Ph .074 tons per year
Se 5.17
Ag 1.67
HC1 13.80 tons per year
Diox/Fur .007
H2SO4 10.12 tons per year
Ph .074 tons per year The number of waste tires stored in Pennsylvania has steadily declined over the last several years. All of the waste tires in Pennsylvania tire piles would run this plant for 60 days (6 million in piles per PA DEP Meadville office).
Come see our new convention center and the worlds largest tire incinerator is just 2.3 miles away. Visit our schools just one block away from the tire plant. Also, Presque Isle State Park is very close by!!!!!!!
On Oct 3, 2007 Erie City Council voted on a nonbinding resolution requesting that Erie Renewable Energy provide an Environmental Impact Statement. This statement would analyze the many ways this tire plant could effect the environment in the future. It would address many of the things the PA DEP will not. There were three council members who voted against the citizens health and well being. Please contact these three immediately and ask them to reconsider their stand on this important regional issue. Those voting against the public were James N. Thompson, Curtis Jones Jr. and Joseph V Schember. As of March 12, 2008 there has been no official response to Council from ERE regarding the resolution. This is not the action of a corporation who wants be a good neighbor.
Biomass Group Facts

United States

#21 Feb 18, 2010
The Mendocino County Woody Biomass Working Group (WBWG) is a community group consisting of environmental advocates, foresters, city council members, members of the board of supervisors, local business owners and non-profits. The group is in the initial stages of conducting a feasibility study for locating a woody biomass facility in the County. Part of the mission of the group is to ensure that any facility integrates the 3-Es -environment, the economy and social well-being (equity). The group will not support a facility that compromises any one of these 3-Es. The group's feasibility study will look at characteristic of between five to ten locations in the County in order to determine what type of biomass technology and scale could be appropriate for each site. No technology is yet being promoted at any location in the county. The scope of the proposed feasibility study is and other information about the group can be found at:
http://cemendocino.ucdavis.edu/Biomass_Feasib...
Stop Harwoods Biom ass wrote:
Fact Sheet: Biomass Incineration
The Burning Issues with Biomass
by Mike Ewall
Green energy to bring us wind mills AND incinerators
While the new green energy marketplace is bringing a 10 megawatt wind farm to southwest Pennsylvania, it has also targeted poor, minority communities in the state of Delaware with a 22.5 megawatt construction and demolition waste incinerator.1
A few years ago, if a corporation wanted to build a construction and demolition wood waste incinerator in your community, they would come in and tell everyone that you'd be getting a "co-generation plant to burn clean wood chips." Now that there is a green energy marketplace developing due to electric utility deregulation, these same incinerator pushers are now coming into communities promoting themselves as "green energy biomass co-generation power plants" that would "take pollution out of the air."2
This is only the beginning. There are proposals in many other states to burn all sorts of things in order to provide "green" power.
The term "biomass" has been used to include all sorts of combustion schemes, such as:
* Incineration of wastes, including...
o Municipal Solid Waste (Garbage)
o Sewage sludge
o Tires
o Wood waste (construction/demolition, urban tree trimmings, paper and lumber mills wastes, etc.)
o Agriculture crop wastes (often laden with toxic pesticides)
o Animal factory wastes (corporate hog factory wastes, dairy factory wastes, chicken feces & bodies, etc.)
* Burning of "energy crops" (tree or crop farms)
* Cutting down trees from forests to burn in industrial wood burners
* Digesters (Anaerobically composted animal factory waste, sewage sludge…)
* Combustion of contaminated landfill gases
http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ukiah Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Homeless arsonists Fri Tony 1
Buy Donald Paintings Sep 21 booger on sleeve 1
News Gang ties alleged in torture case (Jan '10) Sep 20 Unforgettable Impact 1,215
Trump to Vote for Hillary? Sep 20 Padre Poorly 1
Folks Say Putin Loves Trump Sep 18 pall ryann 1
Clear Water Ranch (Feb '09) Sep 15 Martin 184
N Korea Wants Trump as President Sep 12 Swerts 2

Ukiah Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Ukiah Mortgages