PORT ANGELES — A coalition of seven environmental groups — including a group that has protested a proposed biomass facility in Port Townsend — filed an appeal Wednesday against city approvals of Nippon’s proposed energy-producing biomass project.
The appeal, filed with the city of Port Angeles, challenges the environmental impact statement approved by the city and the shoreline management permit granted to Nippon Paper Industries USA by the city Planning Commission on Sept. 22.
Three environmental groups from the North Olympic Peninsula — Port Townsend AirWatchers, Olympic Forest Coalition and Olympic Environmental Council — are part of the appeal.
The others are No Biomass Burn of Seattle, the Center for Environmental Law and Policy of Spokane, the World Temperate Rainforest Network and the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Only challenge in state
There are seven proposed biomass power projects — which burn wood waste from saw mills and logging sites to create electricity — in the state but Nippon’s project is the only one in the state facing an appeal, said Duff Badgley, who runs No Biomass Burn and coordinates anti-biomass efforts.
The proposed projects, encouraged by federal tax credit and demands for renewable energy, have galvanized some environmentalists who believe the process is not sustainable and threatens forest health.
Proponents of biomass power say it doesn’t threaten the forests because only slash, branches and other debris usually burned at logging sites, is removed.
Council to hear appeal
The City Council will hear the appeal this month, but a date has not been set, said City Manager Kent Myers.
Nippon wants to build a new $71 million biomass boiler to produce steam needed for the paper-making process and produce 20 megawatts of electricity that it would sell.
Its current 1950s-era boiler also burns biomass but only produces steam.
The groups appealing the Nippon project challenge the validity of the environmental study, saying it doesn’t require Nippon to meter how much water it uses for the project from the Elwha River, and that it inadequately addresses air pollutants — some of which, such as dioxin, would be increased.
They also contend that the shoreline management permit should have listed Nippon’s proposal as an electric utility.
Impact on river
Shirley Nixon, a Port Angeles resident representing the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said that the project’s impact on the river is neglected in the conclusions of the environmental study because it doesn’t require a meter to be installed at the mill.
“They can’t have it both ways,” she said, referring to comments from Nippon that the new boiler will be better for the environment and reduce emissions.
Nippon gets all of its water from the Elwha River, and consumes up to 12 million gallons per day, said Harold Norlund, mill manager.
It will use an additional 3 million gallons per day with the new boiler.
Norlund said he is confident that the company is able to account for the water it consumes through a meter on its discharge outfall.
When asked about the steam the mill emits, he acknowledged that not all of the water the mill uses gets discharged.
“That’s a small amount,” he said, referring to the steam.
Norlund said the mill meters the water at the outfall because it is required to do so by the state Department of Ecology.
It’s not required, under its annual contract with the city, which supplies the water at a cost of $15,500 per year, to meter how much is going into the mill.
Myers said he didn’t know why the city hasn’t required the mill to add the meter, but he added that one will be added at the new intake pipe at the river.
The National Park Service built the new intake over the last year as part of the Elwha River restoration project, and is responsible for adding the meter, Myers said.
He said he didn’t know when that will be done and whether the previous intake was metered.
Nixon said meters need to be at both ends to account for water that leaks out of the pipe.
A power utility?
Diana Somerville, a Port Angeles area resident speaking for the seven groups, said that the project should be considered a power utility under the shoreline management program because its purpose is to sell electricity.
Jeffree Stewart, a shoreline specialist with Ecology, said that the city’s shoreline master program requires a project considered to be a power utility to receive a conditional use permit in order to be placed near a shoreline.
Sue Roberds, city planning manager, said the city believes that the boiler wouldn’t meet that definition because it’s part of the mill and not its own facility.
Stewart said he had concurred with city staff on the matter during a brief phone conversation.
But he said Wednesday that he wasn’t aware at the time that Nippon intends to sell all the power the boiler produces, and added that he may not come to the same conclusion if he did a more “careful review.”
“By the definition” in the shoreline program “I could come to a different conclusion,” Stewart said.
Badgley said the Port Townsend Paper Company’s proposed biomass boiler, would produce up to 25 megawatts of electricity for sale, ill be appealed if permits are granted.
But he didn’t know which groups may be join him with that challenge.
Gretchen Brewer, director of Port Townsend Air Watchers, said the group hasn’t decided if it will appeal that project.
Somerville said the seven groups have not discussed that yet with each other.
“We only had a chance to talk about this,” she said of the Nippon project.
________
Reporter Tom Callis can be reached at 360-417-3532 or at tom.callis@peninsuladailynews.com.
