DARRINGTON — People won’t have much to fear — but the environment might — from the contaminants of a proposed power plant’s new smokestack.
Lichen, lakes and wilderness views might be in jeopardy because they’re more sensitive to such contaminants than humans, according to the U.S. Forest Service.
A private company, Northwest Energy Systems Co. of Kirkland (NESCO), is trying to get permits to build a 20-megawatt electric cogeneration plant. It would burn wood waste from the Hampton Lumber mill to generate steam that could be piped back to the lumber drying kilns at the mill. The plant would employ up to 26 people and pay $460,000 in property taxes to Snohomish County and Darrington. All those plans could go up in smoke if the Forest Service’s wilderness concerns cannot be addressed.
But company representatives dispute the Forest Service’s findings, and the state Department of Ecology, which is reviewing the air quality permit, will have to sort through those differences.
Janice Peterson, the air quality specialist in charge of reviewing the state permit for the Forest Service, has written an unprecedented letter to the Ecology Department.
She warned that the plant would have adverse impacts on the Glacier Peak Wilderness about 10 miles away.
Peterson wrote that the plant’s smokestack would cause three times the acceptable amount of nitrogen to be deposited in the wilderness, based on computer models of the company’s estimated output.
The nitrogen would land in the wilderness because of up to 242 tons of nitrous oxide per year the plant would emit from its smokestack, based on NESCO estimates.
In an interview, Peterson said the federal Clean Air Act requires the state agency not to issue the permit if such adverse impacts exist. Excess nitrogen can contribute to acid rain, which can harm fish, lakes, lichen and trees. That harm could also lead to a change in the mix of plant species, she said.
Eric Hansen, an air quality consultant for Darrington Energy, said the impacts would not be bad enough to warrant stopping the project.
"It’s not clear to us that their position is completely justified," Hansen said of the Forest Service letter.
He said the Forest Service’s standards are overly protective.
"This nitrogen deposition, at the worst-case location in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, is the equivalent amount of nitrogen as an ounce of Scott’s Turfbuilder fertilizer spread over an acre a year," Hansen said.
But Peterson said the Forest Service has tough standards in pristine areas for a reason.
"We’ve come to find out humans are not as vulnerable as ecosystems, not as sensitive," Peterson said.
The area’s many alpine ecosystems are especially fragile, she added.
The plume of vapor from the plant’s smokestack also would be visible from the wilderness for about 24 days a year, which Peterson called "alarming." Federal guidelines require the agency to conclude that a project would have an adverse impact if it would be visible from the wilderness for more than a few days a year.
Hansen strongly disagreed that visibility would be an issue, because the company’s studies estimated wilderness visitors would have a 1-in-400 chance of seeing the flume from the plant’s smokestack.
The discrepancy comes from different interpretations of the same data, Peterson said.
"I feel it is unfortunate to have reached this conclusion, as the Forest Service in Washington has never come to the point of writing an adverse impact letter to the Department of Ecology," Peterson wrote.
But state, not federal, regulators have the final say.
Doug Brown, an air quality specialist for the Department of Ecology, said no decision has been made. His agency is responsible for approving the permit.
Brown said his agency is still consulting with the Forest Service, NESCO and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, which would administer the state air quality permit if the ecology department approves it.
He said he is waiting for a response from NESCO, but no deadline is pushing the issue.
"We will not be putting out a draft permit until all those issues are settled between us all," Brown said.
Peterson said the plant’s proximity to the wilderness played a key factor in her decision.
"If they were constructing in Arlington, there would probably be no problem," Peterson said.
The Clean Air Act would still permit the plant to be built if the company could find and reduce an equal amount of air pollution in the Darrington area.
Peterson said that might be possible with some of the visibility concerns. But reducing 242 tons of nitrous oxide emissions "would be tough," Peterson said.
In the past, she said, some industries have found creative solutions with other contaminants, paying for school districts to convert buses from dirty diesel engines to cleaner alternatives, for example.
In Darrington, wood stoves and outdoor burning are suspected by state regulators as being the primary pollution source. One alternative might be for the company to buy more efficient, cleaner-burning wood stoves for its approximately 1,300 residents.
Hansen said the company might be willing to do so, but he doubted it would cut enough nitrogen out of the air because home stoves tend to kick out different contaminants.
Hansen said he hoped the state and federal regulators would take into account the significant sulfur dioxide reductions — as much as 70 tons per year — that the power plant would cause by allowing the Hampton mill to shut down its oil-burning boilers.
Like nitrogen, sulfur dioxide is also a major contributor to acid rain.
For Hansen, the environmental concerns are ironic because cogeneration plants are known to be relatively better for the environment than most power plants that rely on burning fossil fuels such as oil or gas.
Cogeneration plants cleanly burn a more renewable resource — wood.
"In fact, this electricity would be marketed as green energy," Hansen said, adding he is preparing an official response to send to the Department of Ecology.
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.
