DARRINGTON — Questions are still lingering in the air, but answers are getting closer to home.
Many residents are worried about how a proposed sawdust-burning power plant’s smokestack might foul the air in their mountain town, which is susceptible to air inversions that trap haze near the ground.
But the stovepipes sticking out of their own roofs are likely to cause more of a problem than the smokestack from the power plant, according to state and federal officials.
A few weeks ago, town leaders invited state and federal environmental regulators to come to town to answer questions from residents about the plant.
Last week, the regulators took up the invitation.
Responding to why his agency did not have air quality monitoring instruments in Darrington, Jim Nolan of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency cautioned people to be careful what they asked for.
"The monitoring is probably going to identify that residential wood burning, both indoors and outdoors, is a bigger issue" than the power plant, Nolan said.
That’s because the plant would be required to install the best available clean-air technology on its smokestack.
He emphasized that his agency had no plans to monitor contamination from residential burning unless the town specifically requests it.
Based on experiences regulating similar plants elsewhere, such as the Kimberly Clark mill in Everett, Nolan and other colleagues from the state Department of Ecology and the U.S. Forest Service tried to reassure the crowd of more than 75 people.
"The emissions from this facility are going to be relatively insignificant compared to what we’re used to regulating," Nolan said.
The plant would burn wood waste from the Hampton Timber mill next door. The burning would generate steam that would crank a turbine and create 15 to 20 megawatts of electricity.
Kimberly Clark’s plant, by comparison, generates roughly 40 megawatts.
The electricity could be sold to public utilities and the steam could be sold to the mill, which would use it to help dry its lumber.
The mill, in turn, would provide 70 percent of the plant’s wood waste. The rest would have to be trucked in, but it would mean less truck traffic overall, because currently the mill hauls all its sawdust many miles away to composting companies.
Several residents were concerned about what would happen if the economy soured and mill had to shut down. Could the plant change from burning wood waste to something more toxic?
Not without applying for a new permit, Nolan said.
"A change in fuel is a change in permit," Nolan said.
Town councilman Dan Rankin pressed the issue.
"So after it’s up and running, they can’t start burning railroad ties, tires, telephone poles?" Rankin said.
Nolan and colleagues shook their heads no.
Janice Peterson of the U.S. Forest Service said she still had some "concerns," primarily regarding nitrogen oxides and visibility of the smokestack’s plume from nearby wilderness areas.
She said her agency and the state were still trying to work out their different standards, but they weren’t necessarily deal-stoppers.
Her comments made some residents uneasy however.
"If you’re anxious about it, I’m anxious about it," said Dr. Gary Schillhammer of the Darrington Clinic.
The plant will be required to install equipment that detects air contaminants and records must regularly be sent to state regulators. The plant could be subject to yearly random inspections as well.
Reporter Scott Morris: 425-339-3292 or smorris@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
