power plant

[Tom]

Your thoughts?

[Unregistered]

Typical of Walpole, while the rest of the world is looking into 'green' energy sources, our EDC and selectmen are looking into 'smokestacks'.
I write this out on this site knowing very few care about what goes on in this town, and the developers know that to be true.
Brockton is fighting the same situation and they think they are being targetted becuase they are not well off.
yet, Brockton have started using brownfields for solar 'bright fields.'
Look out here come 250' smokestacks over walpole.

Very sad indeed.

[Unregistered]

Acid Rain: NOx emissions from power plants can form acids in the atmosphere that fall to earth as rain, fog, snow or dry particles. This acid precipitation (known as "acid rain") is often carried hundreds of miles by the wind. Acid rain damages forests and causes lakes and streams to become acidic, killing the fish. Acid rain also damages buildings, historical monuments and even cars.

Oxygen Depletion: NOx power plant emissions also cause over fertilization of water bodies. Too much nitrogen causes algae blooms. When the algae die, they settle to the bottom where the decay process consumes oxygen and kills marine life. This overabundance of algae not only robs oxygen, but it also blocks light that fish, shellfish and aquatic vegetation need to survive.

Coastal waters are especially vulnerable to over-fertilization. Recent studies indicate that 33 percent of the nitrogen load in the Albermarle-Pamlico estuary (NC) and 15 percent of the load in the Long Island Sound come from air deposition. EPA's Great Waters Report estimates that 27 percent of the nitrogen entering the Chesapeake Bay can be attributed to atmospheric deposition. Moreover, a recent study by the North Carolina Sea Grant, found that 46-57 percent of new nitrogen deposits in the North Atlantic resulted from air pollution. Solving the problem of excessive nitrogen loading of surface waters starts with reducing NOx emissions from power plants.

Regional Haze: NOx emissions from power plants also cause visibility impairment, known as regional haze. Nitrate particles and nitrogen dioxide block the transmission of light and remain suspended in the atmosphere for long periods of time as they are carried by the wind. These light scattering particles degrade visibility on a regional scale in our national parks and other scenic areas. For instance, annual average visibility at Great Smoky Mountains National Park has been reduced to 22 miles, compared to natural conditions of 93 miles.

Forest and Crop Damage: NOx is the primary ingredient in ozone smog. Ozone smog is one of the most pervasive and detrimental pollutants known to affect vegetation, causing more injury to trees and crops than any other air pollutant in the United States. Ozone interferes with photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert water and sunlight to food.

Research has shown that current ozone concentrations result in reductions in wood growth in forests of the Northeast of over 10 percent. There is strong scientific evidence showing that current levels of ozone are reducing crop yields, particularly in sensitive species - soybean, cotton, and peanuts. Annual crop loss from ozone for soybeans alone in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio has been calculated to fall between $198,628,000 - $345,578,000.

Think Green !!!

[Unregistered]

Let go of the past and the nostalgia about smokestacks in east walpole.
These type of plants employ about 20 to 25 workers and the workers probably won't be living in Walpole. Those who will prosper are the landowner, the power plant company, the attornies who represent the company, and the PR guys who will try and sugarcoat the project.

[Unregistered]

Clean? ,It simply is not. It may be less dirty but it is not clean.
Competetive Power proposes a fossil fuel fired (natural gas and Ultra Low Sulfur Distillate [diesel]) electrical power generating plant.
The burning of any fossil fuel produces some emissions.

The ENF (Environmental Notification Form) Certificate issued by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) states “Emissions associated with the project include: 82 tons per year (tpy)
of particulate matter; 98 tpy of Carbon Monoxide (CO); 7 tpy of Sulfur dioxide (SO2); 17 tpy Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC); 87 tpy of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx); 1,134,000 tpy of Carbon dioxide (C02 ); and less than 10 tpy of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).” This is a combined average of over 6 million pounds per day.

Admittedly, it may be the least dirty fossil fuel technology available today, but it still produces all the emissions listed above. In fact, the certificate later states, “The project requires a mandatory EIR [Environmental Impact Report] and an Air Quality Permit from MassDEP.
Therefore, it is subject to the EOEEA Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Emissions Policy, which requires GHG information to be provided during the MEPA process.”
Further, it details “The proponent has provided an estimate of C02 emissions in the ENF; the DEIR should update this figure as necessary. In accordance with the EOEEA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy, the DEIR should identify and describe all greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project and should propose measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate project-related greenhouse gas emissions.
The proponent should consider the six GHGs covered by the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (C02); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N20); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulfurhexafluoride (SF6).
The proponent should consider both direct GHG emissions (e.g. stack and fugitive emissions from the proposed power plant) and indirect emissions (e.g. emissions from vehicles driven by employees and delivery trucks).
” These are the greenhouse gasses (GHG) associated with the current debate over the spread of global warming."
Perhaps more importantly, will this plant exceed any of the set limits in its emissions in the next tten or so years and yet be allowed to continue to operate at these excessive levels as has happened at other facilities throughout the state?

[Unregistered]

Here are some other aspects of having a powerplant the poster may have forgotten about.

In this day and age having a powerplant of any kind near a populated area would be putting the public in danger in the event some nutcase extremists decide to target such a plant. Do you remember all the hipe after 9/11 with the powerplants in Massachusetts? I not just talking about Pilgrim... All gas and oil plants were on alert, in some case with a bunch of trigger happy guards.

If the powerplant is not targetted then what about the exit point of the Gas line powering the facility. Has anyone seen on the news what a 36" pipeline looks like when it blows???

There is other forms of pollution other than smoke. There is noise and other forms of emissions coming out of a Gas Powerplant; what about EMF?

Have you heard the hum of a powerplant? Would you like to hear it 24 hours a day if you lived near the proposed site.

In short, a powerplant is a bad idea for such a populated area as Walpole.

[Unregistered]

a simple solution: ask this group to tell of us a similar sized facility located nearby, and give us the address. Give us the opportunity to do a drive-by to get a sense of the project.

we may be pleasantly surprised.

unless we get other sources of tax revenue, the future only holds that its all going to come out of our pockets.

[Unregistered]

There are two power plants in Bellingham, and there is another power plant in Charlton ,MA that people should go and look at. The Charlton plant is owned by the same company that wants to build one here in Walpole and is a 360MW combined-cycle natural gas turbine facility. It has a lovely 250 ft. smoke stack that sends nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide into the air. If you care at all about your health and the safety of your community, a power plant is a bad idea. There is considerable RISK involved with this type of plant, not to mention what will happen to the property value of people's homes in Walpole. I'm sure the folks in Symphony Park are not going to be very happy when the value of their property goes down because of their proximity to a power plant. It is frightening that some people think that a power plant is a good idea , and are willing to tolerate all sorts of risks just for some revenue. Also, at this point no one knows how much revenue the Town will receive if the power plant is built here because that price has yet to be negotiated.
The risks far outweigh any revenue the Town will receive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Unregistered]

Just get on 495 towards Bellingham and follow the two smokestacks.

[Unregistered]

Look, I understand that the town needs tax revenue. By why is it the town attract the worse industries that one can imagine?
You all know the litany:
Junk yards, sludge, propane farms, regional trash transfer stations.. it is pathetic.
I ask our town leaders and the EDC: Why can’t you look for forward thinking solutions?
In the era of global warming, asthma in children at an all time high, you are we inviting in a power plant.
And please don’t insult my intelligence by saying it is clean.
Certainly cleaner then older technologies, but not clean.
Remember Clinton asked ‘How do you define sex’, I ask you ‘How do you define clean?’
Do not sell out our town!

[Unregistered]

I saw the one in Bellingham! It is HUGE!
Way out of scale for this town.
Go look 155 maple street.

[Unregistered]

I am confident that the town of Walpole can attract a more suitable company. But, at the end of the day it is all amount the MONEY.

There is a larger profit to be made if the landowner sells the property to a larger company.

This is a similar to the issue that occurred when the land was sold to build out the Preserver . . . .

I guess the town can’t always by out large tracks of land like we did in NORTH Walpole when we purchased Adams Farm.

[Unregistered]

if a plant like this can add significant revenue to the tax base, we should seriously consider it

[Unregistered]

Our problem lies solely within the Town. We have Businessmen, landowners, some Selectmen, the EDC and maybe others, who feel that ANY type of business is good for Walpole even if it will create a negative image or risk citizen's health. As someone stated, YES it's all about the money and the TOWN well, that's secondary. What happened to entertaining CLEAN industry?

[Unregistered]

You know that legalized prostitution would bring to the town also... let consider that too!

[Unregistered]

I think we should consider putting the names of two sites in a bag and picking one. The choices are Adams Farm and Sunny Rock Farm. The power plant goes there.

[Unregistered]

why didn't I think of that! :)

[Unregistered]

these plants could switch to oil at times?

dated article, but relevant...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/22/more_use_of_oil_eyed_for_power_plants/

[Unregistered]

To hmmmm......gas/oil?

Thanks, very relevant article. It is this type of research that is needed to inform people.
I am just upset that every time, this type of idiotic ideas seems to be done uncover.
Our Selectmen are supposed to represent us, not just make arbitrary decisions that can affect the health and character of this town.
Why do some people know about and others don’t?
What is wrong with the Times?
Things are done so covert in this town.
Am I the only one that feels that way?

[Unregistered]

The Power Plant in Bellingham, based on the arial shots, does not have neighborhoods around it. This is unbelievable that our town planner would even consider this. Does he live in this town? If there was an explosion where would these people in these neighborhoods go? I hope our town planner has room in his house. I rather offer this site for a Casino, seems to be the rage. I understand this would generate much needed money for this town but lets get real. We rather give up the wetlands and the health of our community for some short term gain and long term issues. Our planners are not looking at long term and this is pathetic. I would be surprised if this is passed or allowed to be built. I also thought I read people who live close to power plants have higher cancer rates. Has anyone looked in to that?

[Unregistered]

It's a full moon 24/7 in Walpole.

Town officials don't want age 55 plus housing but want a power plant. The reason - fear. They fear that older voters might not support schools. Power plants don't vote. They want the school system of Wellesley and the industrial base of Brockton, Salem, Charlton, and Dighton.

They don't want 40Bs but they want 40Rs. The reason - money. 40R is a glorified 40B except that the town gets $3000 per unit once. They don't want a 40B at Walpole Woodworkers but want a 40R downtown near the train station.

It's almost as if they have lost sight of the fact that the town is a sum of all its neighborhoods.

[Unregistered]

To Full Moon,
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Let me go a little further and suggest another reason that the AQV in S. Walpole was shot down by the EDC, is that none of local landowners or developers was going to be able to line their pockets.
We know the land considered for the power plant has a local owner, the attorney for the power company is local, not so for the propose AQV.

[Unregistered]

Take a look at Chelsea and Everett with the power plants over there. The Town of Walpole will be known as "Chelsea With Trees."

[Unregistered]

That is the heritage of the town: water power. Did you ever take a look at the dam behind the high school? I'll bet we could generate some electricity there, and at least power the High School. (or the lights at the new FWAK Field).

Its being done nowadays with new micro-turbine technology.

Not sure of the Horse-Power that could be generated, but that dam is quite a little drop.

wind power...water power...no pollution (maybe a little noise).

[Unregistered]

Hi. I belong to Billerica Watchers. If you think this power plant can take years to site, think again! We're currently battling a large "peak plant" in our rural neighborhood! It's being fast-tracked. We're spending thousands of dollars out of pocket and it's an uphill battle. Plants are currently being proposed in: Billerica, Chelsea, Braintree, Lowell, Weymouth, Milford, and Middleton (that we know of). Please feel free to contact us if you'd like info. We meet on a weekly basis. My email is judmar1@aol.com.

[Unregistered]

Better yet, contact your elected officials and let them know what you think about the power plant. The power plant discussions started last December. Here's a story from this website:

A company looking for a site for a gas-fired electric power plant is still interested in Walpole, Town Administrator Michael Boynton told Town Meeting Monday night (May 7,) adding that no one is working to attract the project.

Boynton provided updates on the power plant and Chapter 40B proposals at the request of TM Rep. Cliff Snuffer, who said he didn't see going through the summer with information about "serious projects" left unsaid.

Competitive Power Ventures approached the town in December to say that it is interested at a site for a 500-megawatt plant in the vicinity of the Walpole Industrial Park, near where a major natural gas transmission pipe crosses high-tension power lines. In January, Boynton continued, representatives of the company met with him, development officer Don Walsh and selectmen Al DeNapoli and Chris Timson.

The company explained that the Walpole location was one of 30 or so sites it was looking at in southeastern Massachusetts, he said.

We didn't shake hands and say come on in, Boynton said. But at the same time, the company was not shown the door, he added.

There have been no meetings since then, "but we know they're still interested."

[Unregistered]

I personally do not want to live near a power plant due to health and safety concerns that will come up. I am not too sure if I was a business owner in the Industrial Park I would renew my lease due to a Power Plant coming in as well. I moved to Walpole 7 years ago. I loved this town when I moved in. I loved the downtown which had very few vacancies when I moved in. I do want to point out the town planner and Town Administrator were different at the time. I am kind of questioning, do these 2 people live in Walpole? My guess would be no. A mayor of City would not want this to happen, becuase he lives there and he is voted in. My assumption is that everyones property values will go down, people will move out and seniors/children will have health issues greater than normal. So I ask, is this the best that Walpole can do? Is this the best that our new Town Planner/EDC can come up with? Can we fire him and hire the one that is working in Norfolk? It seems odd that Norfolk is having no issues cleaning up there part of 1A but we can not lure companies to our part. We have a 4.7 million dollar surplus, very shocking to me when I read this. Can we use a very small percent of the money to lure acceptable business to 1A and our Down town. Serioulsly what are we waiting for? Please note several years ago Bellingham almost was a host town to 2 Power Plants. They should thank Franklin for taking them to Landcourt.

[Unregistered]

so sad really...the officials here seem to spend more time fighting citizens and calling them NIMBYs instead of protecting the town from land uses that are bad from a public health and safety standpoint....you never hear of Westwood, Sharon, Norfolk, Dover getting power plants, landfills, propane...just Walpole,...this town needs a breath of fresh.....a board of selectmen who really care about the town, who show up prepared, and who can think beyond how much money they can get for schools by accepting anything that comes along...

[Unregistered]

Competitive Power Ventures has not only hired atty James Brady ( same JB as "citizen of the year" same JB as wanting to have a hand in 40 B on Baker st ) to help with the process of placing a power plant on Industrial Road owned by Tony Lorusso ( same TL ..man of the Year ) but also have hired a lobbyist / PR firm called the Mills company....to educate you dumb rubes.
Seems that the Walpole site is oh so sweet they will pull out all stops to GIVE IT TO WALPOLE...aided and abetted by our favorite sons.
The well wher we go to draw our information will now be polluted by these lobbyist PR types who have already taken several of their early townie friends to "visit " the power plant in Charlton ( was lunch provided ?)..remember the movie WALL STREET ..GREED IS GOOD?....They will speak POWER PLANT IS GOOD and the truely uninformed will fall in line !
Hold on to your hat ...nose...wallett....the vultures are hovering...get your shotguns ready

[Unregistered]

I suggest contacting Governer Deval's office, since he was the one who was quoted in the Boston Globe --"No New Power Plants".

Billerica Watchers has support from Senator Greene, Representative Miceli, and Havern (who has recently resigned). If you have elections coming up, watch carefully who is accepting donations and who may be claiming they are "green" (Tsongas is one in our area).

Since power plants are "sited" at the state level, this is a state level process . They steam roll over local boards, appeal decisions and get sited. Here is a fact to think about "there has never been a power plant denied at the Siting Board".

There is power in numbers and enough people write the governer, or get media coverage on this issue, we may be able to truly stop this.

States need to provide, by April 2008, how they meet the particulate matter standards set as part of the Clean Air Act: http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/documents/Mar07/factsheet.htm

So, these plants are 1. trying to get in under the deadlines 2. creating smaller plants to get under the RGGI rules (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative)

If anyone tries to tell you that we need the energy, we don't. If the electric companies would take the 15% hike they gave us last year and made the repairs and upgrades to the lines and transformers. And if anyone tells you this will lower your electric bill, it won't. If anyone tries to tell you, it will cut back on the "coal-fired" plants, it won't (I did ask this question out-right---and they had to answer truthfully). If they tell you gas burns cleaner, yes - it does, HOWEVER, ask about the particulate matter and the what's the level in your area. And ask for the percentage, it's only about 40% cleaner --- AND, there are many, many booming industries for solar and wind. And since Massachusetts is touted as a leader in technology -- why build fossil plants??? (yes ---gas is a fossil fuel ---)

The bottom line, we will ultimately pay for this, our health insurance deductables, our home values, and money from us via our taxes or higher . Generating Facilities pay for offsets for emissions, the offsets are passed to the consumer via your electric bill.

Also, if the state doesn't meet the PM standards (which it probably won't), we the taxpayers will get charged for that, since we will start being charging us for SUV's, light trucks, etc. -- so once again, the cost of clean air is passed to us the taxpayer:

http://www.environmentmassachusetts.org/newsroom/clean-air-news/clean-air-news/report-states-to-achieve-large-cuts-in-global-warming-pollution-from-cars-and-suvs#PdUMxyOh_FQccB5GjXboGA

[Unregistered]

All politics is local. Start here and not the governor's office. Let the elected officials know who met with the company last year know that Walpole doesn't need a power plant. The company hasn't filed an application yet so don't waste your time with Deval Patrick. He didn't meet with the company but the Town Administrator, the EDC officer, Don Walsh, and Selectmen Timson and DeNapoli did last winter. Stand up and be counted and don't worry about whether these guys are going to like you or not. If they cared about you, they would have told the power plant company to look elsewhere last December.

[Unregistered]

This isn't the first time that power plant companies have sized up Walpole. IDC Bellingham conducted a site selection process in the late 1990s and we were Number 2 on the list. Bellingham hit the jackpot:

The Company used this site ranking analysis to evaluate these 19 candidate sites in the Towns of Oxford, Millbury, Sutton, Upton, Blackstone, Mendon, Bellingham, Walpole, Attleboro, Rehoboth and Dighton (Exh. IDC-1, at 5-14). Based on the site scoring, the top five ranked sites were: (1) the proposed site, called Bellingham 1 (217); (2) the Walpole 2 site (187); (3) the Attleboro 2 site (184); (4) the Blackstone 1 site (180); and (5) the Mendon 1 site (178) (id. at 5-28; Exh. TAB-2, Table 5-1 (rev.)). The Company stated that it next conducted a comparative evaluation of the Bellingham 1 site in relation to the other four top ranked sites, and determined that overall the Bellingham 1 site was superior to the other top ranked sites (Exh. IDC-1, at 5-29 to 5-33). The Company listed the relative disadvantages of the other top ranked sites compared to the Bellingham 1 site as follows: (1) the Walpole 2 site was 25 acres smaller than Bellingham 1, had the potential for site contamination due to an onsite auto wrecking facility and junkyard, required utility interconnections potentially crossing endangered species habitat, and required siting in an USEPA-designated sole-source aquifer;(28)

[Unregistered]

To all you folks you are against this very bad idea, I have some suggestions:
1. Email and or call our town officials.
2. Call the Walpole Times and ask why there hasn’t been one word written about what is going on.

Understand that this has going on since last December. It is all very low key so that the people of Walpole won’t know what hit them until the construction begins.
The time act is NOW

[Unregistered]

Keep an eye on the proposed by law re-write that has been taking place ...most of the changes that came from the EDO are to be looked at very carefully.
They will hold a meeting in the main meeting room on Tues Oct 2nd @ 7pm
This is your/our chance for input and most important change..
Power plants
40 R
40 B
Sewer extentions
Age restricted changes

[Unregistered]

The Walpole Times is fast becoming a "neutered" newspaper.

[Brown Bear Returns]

The power plant proposed for Walpole will burn natural gas, the same fuel used in my kitchen to boil water for spaghetti, the same fuel used to heat my house and heat my domestic hot water. The byproducts of burning methane are carbon dioxide and water (both of which are very good for plants). They're not talking about an oil-fired or a coal-fired plant. Get off the hysteria kick.

[Unregistered]

Welcome back Brown Bear!

It appears that goldilocks would find this power plant "Just right!"

[Unregistered]

My Brown Bear, what a big stove you have.

[Unregistered]

Power plant,
40B's, (East St, Carriage Lane area, Gatehouse, Sharon/Walpole line; etc, etc)
40R's, (possible downtown Kendall site)
More bar rooms now than banks
Police Log in the paper now it's own section
Our claim to fame The WALPOLE PRISON,
Such a beautiful future!

[Unregistered]

Who can argue with the scholarly Brown Bear, who obviously has done his research?

[Unregistered]

A lot of hot air seems to be floating around this topic. But where are the facts? Have any reports about the plant been filed with the state? The town? I for one would like some information beyond the rants, scare tactics and occasional silly post. I'm sure there are a lot of legitimate issues regarding this concept, but it seems to me that the only way we can make an informed decision is to be informed. It would be very useful to hear from engineers, town officials, and other experts as to the pros and cons of this proposal, why Walpole is under consideration and what the impacts on our town will be.

[Unregistered]

Does Brown Bear have two 250 foot tall smoke stacks above his stove? If not he should catch a clue an start and stop comparing his stove to a power plant.

[Unregistered]

Why don't you do your own research instead of waiting fro someone else to do it for you? Some of the town officials don't know anymore than you do or some of the posters on this site.Take a look at the Bellingham plant on Maple Street. The Walpole plant will be similar. There's lots of info on the web to educate yourself. Look at the picture of the plant in the link about the plant on walpole news.

[Unregistered]

The Walpole Power Plant will be similar to Bellingham Power Plant and will use diesel fuel as backup supply. Info from Energy Facilities Siting Board:

A. Summary of the Proposed Project and Facilities ANP Bellingham Energy Company ("ANP Bellingham" or "Company") has proposed to construct a natural gas-fired, combined-cycle, electric generating facility with a nominal net electrical output of 580 megawatts ("MW") in the Town of Bellingham, Massachusetts ("project") (Exh. BEL-1, at 1-5). The proposed project would be located on an approximately 20-acre footprint located within an approximately 125-acre parcel of undeveloped land (id.).


In addition to its natural gas and electrical interconnections, the proposed project includes the following major components and structures: two single shaft power islands, each of which consists of an Asea Brown Boveri ("ABB") GT-24 combustion turbine, a heat recovery steam generator ("HRSG"), a steam turbine and an electric generator, a dry low nitrogen oxides ("NOx") combustion system and a selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") system for control of nitrogen oxides; two dry condenser cooling towers; and two 180-foot exhaust stacks. Additional project components include a 1.5-million-gallon demineralized water storage tank, a 1.0-million-gallon raw water storage tank, and two 14,000-gallon ammonia storage tanks. The project is designed with the capacity to operate at its standard baseload level,

[Unregistered]

My two children have immune problems. I am worried that this could affect their health. This isn’t what I expected when I bought in Walpole.
I knew it wasn’t Dover or even Westwood, but I didn’t think it would end like Everett or Brockton.
I am a single Mom trying to do my best for my children. I have to work and take care of my family. I trusted the officials in this town to look out for the citizen’s best interest.
As it is, with the plunge in the real estate values my house is worth less then what I paid for it, now I see it spiraling downward with no way out.
Please do not insult me by telling me that I am getting ‘hysterical’!
I worry about my children and their health, that IS NOT hysterical, it is common sense.

[Unregistered]

Wow, you can cook a whole lot of spaghetti with all the water that the plant will need.

[Unregistered]

#46: then move!!!!

#41: if you are following the rewrite, then you would know that it would protect you more than what is in the Zoning By-Law now! A power plant is allowed at this moment in time by a special permit that would be issued by the zoning board. I believe that the rewrite would remove that allowance.

A rewrite at this time would probably be the best thing for this town as it would update what we have now. I don't believe it has been updated since the early 1970's and things have certainly changed since then!

[Unregistered]

Original proposal by Competitive Power Ventures for a power plant in Virginia. The same company wants to build a 550 megawatt gas fired plant in Walpole:

Competitive Power Ventures (CPV), a privately owned power development company, has
proposed to build a 530 megawatt (MW) electric power generation facility in Fluvanna County, Virginia. The subject property is located in the Cunningham Magisterial District and consists of approximately 388 acres (tax map parcels 17-A-52A, 17-A-26 and 17-8-B). CPV has estimated that 20 to 30 acres of the site will be required to construct the plant. The property is accessible from VA Route 636, a Virginia Secondary Route. The site is currently zoned General Agricultural (A-1) and is shown as being part of the Primary Residential Planning Area in the Fluvanna County Comprehensive Plan dated November 9, 2000. CPV has applied for a Special Use Permit, which is required to build a power production plant in a General Agricultural Zoning District as outlined in the Fluvanna County Zoning Ordinance Section 22-4-2.2(1).

The proposed facility will be a baseload, cogeneration, power production plant. A baseload
generating facility is one that constantly produces electricity. Cogeneration refers to the ability of the plant to produce electricity and steam, which will be ‘reused’ in a steam turbine to produce additional electricity. This is the same type of operation that was presented to the County by Tenaska, Inc. in November 2000. Power producing equipment for the proposed 530 Megawatt (MW) CPV Power Plant will consist of two (2) natural gas fired combustion turbines, two (2) heat recovery generators, and one (1) steam turbine. Of this equipment, all but the heat recovery generators will be enclosed inside a turbine hall. Other auxiliary equipment and structures on the site will include an electrical substation,
transmission towers, one (1) emergency diesel generator, one (1) diesel emergency fire water pump and enclosure, an air cooling system, a 2,000,000 gallon distillate storage tank, one (1) ammonia storage tank, one (1) 5,000,000 gallon water storage tank, and one (1) 300,000 gallon fire water storage tank.

1 Turbine Hall dimensions are 140ft. x 390 ft. x 85 ft. high.
2 Air cooling system will be composed fan forced heat exchangers measuring 250 ft. x 300 ft. x 110 ft. high.
3 Distillate tank dimensions are 100 ft. diameter x 40 ft. height.
4 Ammonia storage tank dimensions are 12 ft. diameter x 15 ft. height.
5 Cooling water storage tank dimensions are 150 ft. diameter x 40 ft. height.
6 Fire water storage tank dimensions are 50 ft. diameter x 20 ft. height.

[Unregistered]

If you want Clean Energy and Clean Business in Walpole, then Clean House at the next election.

Vote out those individuals who tout economic development but really mean any development, anytime, anywhere and any way. Vote out those individuals who conduct business informally instead of at a public meeting. Vote out those individuals who do not see the town as a sum of its neighborhoods.

We need a breath of fresh air.

[Brown Bear Returns]

What a wonderful arrangement we have. We sit in our castles and have water piped in silently underground. Our servant, electricity, shows up for work in overhead or underground cables. Natural gas arrives silently through an underground pipe. Our phones and internet also connect silently to our mansions. And our sewage leaves underground, never to be seen again. What a life!!! We demand all these utilities function and insist that we never see or hear the "magic" that makes them work. We're lviing in a fantasy land. Our economy has eliminated most of the manufacturing that has made Walpole the town that it is. We all want to be "green" and spend a lot of "green". All this without coming into contact with the "magic" that makes electricity for us. Well, they can't make our Edison juice in China, so we need to have power plants in our country to make our electricity. Nothing wrong with making electricity in Walpole.
I think we all grew up thinking that our electrcity came from Niagara Falls. Well, it doesn't. It comes from oil-fired and gas-fired and coal-fired and nuclear plants. Which of these is the cleanest? The natural gas plant, by far!
I know, I know. Someone is going to say that we bear the brunt of a lot of inconvenience with our captive population in Cedar Junction. I have yet to understand how the prison has a negative impact on this town. Drive by on Route 1A - - it lools like a WalMart with turrets. Don't cry about lost taxes - - it's probably built on land that would not survive today's permitting process.

[Unregistered]

I don't know who this guy is, but its entertaining.

I like the fact that Walpole is known to be where the state's maximum security prison is located....


caution: parental guidance advised...

ps: these guys are NOT from Walpole, Mass... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-Jai7i13A

[Unregistered]

Mr. Bear,
Besides being condescending there are several obvious issues with your logic.
1. We are an educated people in Walpole and we do not think we get our utilities by ‘magic’ or Niagra Falls.
2. Most of us do not live in mansions.
3. Some of us have a different vision for Walpole, a vision that would put our town in a position to be in the forefront of the energy industry. We would like to invite green into town by using all of our many brownfields as a host for solar, wind or geothermal. Maybe you so old that you can’t get head around the future. But our environment is suffering and our demand is great. Lets invite in the 21st century !

[fordtubby]

In my estimation Walpole never has, and never, will have any foresight concerning it's future and what it thinks it is. While the rest of the country is looking into renwable energy souces Walpole will take anything for tax dollars. We have many brownfields that could be easily converted to solar and wind farms. A few prime areas would be along Rte. 1A where we currently have junk and scrap yards that are located near sole source aquifires. The South St. site that includes Cosmec that will be shutting down, I believe next year. Why can't this town be a leader instead of a follower. The reasons that are quite apparent to me is that going green brings in tax revenue but hardly benefits any of this towns goombas.
I think that you know who I refer to. If it doesn't benefit a select few builders in this town then it doesn't come to town. Do you folks honestly believe that your best interests are being looked after. All that I can say is that it's the same old, same old, just a different day for this town.

[Unregistered]

Fordtubby,

What gives with the ethnic slurs? To whom are you referring when you use the term goomba? This town has a very proud heritage of Italian-Americans, including the very generous philanthropic group the Friends of Christopher Columbus. Your use of this term is disgraceful.

According to Wikipedia "Goombah (sometimes Goomba) is a slang term regional mostly to the New York area (and certain other Northeast US areas) used to describe a stereotypical Italian-American. It can be mildly derogatory, but not on the same level as {worse ethnic slurs against Italians.}"

We remember you from back in the old days of Walpole words. You had some pretty offensive posts back then too.

What are you doing to help this town.

[Unregistered]

The press reported today that a coal fired power plant in Ohio will pay $4.6 billion to reduce pollution that has eaten away at Northeast Mountain Ranges and national landmarks. The settlement requires that American Electrical Power reduce chemical emissions that cause acid rain by 69% over the next decade.

Smokey the Bear came out of hibernation to see his habitat destroyed. The wind had SILENTLY carried pollutants far,far away from Ohio to Walpole. Bear knew that emissions from fossil fuels like gas cause acid rain. That's when Bear realized, "Only he could prevent a gas fired power plant."

[Unregistered]

Its really "Compare" or KOOM-PAH-REH which evolved into Goomba. Compare means "old pal" ...sort of like "buddy".

Sounds like the WPCPD (Walpole Politically Correct Police Department) is riled up again.

[Unregistered]

Before you get your tights in a roll, here is the true meaning of Gommbah:

Derived from Italian, meaning close friend, or accomplice, mentor.

Hardly insulting...
I know I am Italian American

[Unregistered]

I know this is off topic, but:

"It should be noted that, in current slang, "goombah" often implies a level of disrepute or violent nature; the term is often used in pop-culture situations to refer to "hired muscle" in Mafia-related media. The Italian-American community continues to denounce the use of the term."

Plus, the context in which fordtubby used the term, it was clearly meant to be derogatory. He's not trying to advance the discourse; rather, he is, as is his want, just sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks (and insults) at those people who get up off their couches and do something in this town.

And to say "I can say it because I'm Italian" is like the Black person justifying his own use of the "N" word. No, it's not OK, it's still offensive.

[Louise]

:confused:Fossil Fuel Emission Levels
- Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input
Pollutant Natural Gas Oil Coal
Carbon Dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000
Carbon Monoxide 40 33 208
Nitrogen Oxides 92 448 457:confused:
Sulfur Dioxide 1 1,122 2,591
Particulates 7 84 2,744
Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016
Source: EIA - Natural Gas Issues and Trends

[Brown Bear Returns]

In response to an earlier poster, I also support wind power and solar power. I'm all for the windmills off Cape Cod and would be open to siting some right here in Walpole. (I'm surprised Bob Kraft hasn't seen fit to site one on the hill near the stadium.) Solar power doesn't do much when the sun isn't shining. There are massive costs in storing (inefficiently) electricity or potential energy. Wind power, although clean, doesn't work very well on a calm day. While both of these are pieces of the energy puzzle, they are not full solutions in themselves. Nor is gas-fired, but it is a reliable and clean source of electricity on a calm day and/or when the sun is not shining.
As to my comment about our houses, we all don't live in "McMansions", but we all live in "mansions" compared to a large part of the world. I live in a Cape, but it is total luxury compared to what billions live in.
As for education, we're all still educating ourselves, or I hope we all are. "Education is not finding out what you know, it's finding out what you don't know." - A. Einstein
Let's look at turning our liabilities into our assets. The comment about using brownfields is creative and bears looking into much further.

[Unregistered]

These words in the tiltle are reflective of what's going on in this Town. This Town is self destroying itself from WITHIN at the hands of our own businessmen and land owners. It repulses me to even think this Town would venture into such discusssion or intent. What Town official has the guts to say NO! YES, Isn't It a Pity, Isn't it a Shame!

[Louise]

Natural gas
Pro's
Low cost

Generators are compact

Produces less CO2 than coal or oil
Cons

Not sustainable

Produces carbon dioxide. (CO2), which is an important greenhouse gas.

The world's natural gas reserves are limited. At the rate we are using natural gas our children will see the price rise so much that it will no longer be economical as a fuel. In a more far sighted world natural gas would be reserved for more valuable uses than burning as fuel. We are consuming our children's heritage

[Unregistered]

Check out www.stopthepower.org. It's a great website by Brockton residents.

[Unregistered]

At the Selectman meeting this past tuesday the board at the request of Asst TA Jim Johnson took repairs for Industrial Road off the table by stating..." they ( the repairs ) can be part of our negotiating with the power plant people "..
Sure sounds like the folks at Town Hall already have a "friendly " attitude about the Green Light for a power plant...who there is looking out for us?? Let them know how you feel.
I would hope that the TA Michael Boynton will use the shortened Town Meeting on Monday to update the people on this and other "serious " threats to our town.

[Unregistered]

I say Al Gore for Walpole Selectman. He understands the threat of fossil fuels to our climate. A gas fired power plant would not be his vision for our town.

[Unregistered]

This info below pertains to the ANP Bellingham power plant decision by the Energy Facilities Siting Board. Note that SERIOUS COMMUNITY SUPPORT were persuasive reasons for the company to pursue the Bellingham site further.


The Company stated that sites which met its minimum threshold criteria were then assessed against a set of 20 site screening criteria: (1) ease of electrical interconnection; (2) ease of gas interconnection; (3) site size/buffering potential; (4) site topography and geology; (5) potential for site contamination; (6) water availability; (7) wastewater disposal availability; (8) adequacy of roadway/rail infrastructure; (9) dispersion environment; (10) proximity to airports; (11) surface water resources; (12) groundwater resources; (13) proximity to wetland/floodplain resources; (14) endangered species/significant habitat; (15) land use compatibility; (16) compatibility with zoning/community development designation; (17) proximity to sensitive receptors; (18) potential for compliance with local or state noise regulations; (19) project visibility and compatibility with existing viewshed; and (20) level of community support (id.).


The Company stated that six sites emerged in the top scoring group based on its evaluation process (id.). The Company indicated that it eliminated its top-ranked site after learning from the owner that the site was under consideration for sale for residential development and that the owner was unwilling to enter into an option agreement (id.). The Company stated that each of the five remaining sites was further evaluated based on detailed discussions with community officials and landowners (id.). The Company stated that, based on its investigations, the proposed site was confirmed as a viable site, and that strong site attributes and serious community support presented persuasive reasons to pursue the site further (id. at 5-16). The Company pointed out that others of the top scoring sites presented significant development potential, and were of interest to the Company with respect to a second contemplated generation project (id.).

[Unregistered]

Info from Energy Facilities Siting Board about ANP power plant in Bellinghamm. In this town and others, "community support" has been based on meetings with local officials:

Finally, with respect to community support, the Siting Board recognizes that a developer's evaluation of community support is in large part a practical assessment of the developer's ability to work constructively with municipal officials and residents to obtain necessary permits, negotiate mutually agreeable financial arrangements, resolve concerns regarding the impacts of the project, and bring the project to a successful conclusion. A persistent Siting Board concern, however, is that if outreach is not incorporated into early stages of project development, new, potentially serious concerns requiring additional mitigation or even selection of a different site may be raised too late in the site selection process itself to make adjustments without great difficulty or cost. Here, the Company included a measure of "community support" based primarily on contact with local officials and historical public reaction to industrial development. However, the developer in the instant proceeding has also conducted public outreach earlier than developers in other generation facility cases recently before the Siting Board.

[Unregistered]

There are power plants in Lynn, Everett, Taunton, and New Bedford. Has the long term funding provided by the power plants done anything to raise MCAS and SAT scores in those school systems? Have the school systems gotten better because there is a power plant in those towns?

[Brown Bear Returns]

I've just run my house for another day (washing clothes, drying clothes, lighting, computer, audio, TV, garage door operator, dishwasher, refrigerator, etc.) on coal-fired, oil-fired and nuclear power. I wonder when we will embrace a cleaner solution...............

[Unregistered]

Officially the BOS and TA say that they have no update on the power plant and suddenly they will meet with the atty for the plant at their meeting on Tuesday Oct 23 @8pm to consider naming a negotiating committee for figuring out the "tax" to be paid.
Talk about unmitigated gaul!!
I guess we can now answer the question of who is lookin out for US...NO ONE!!..at least not our elected officials...RECALL anyone ?

[Unregistered]

Mr. Bear,
The change starts with us.
We must demand moving ahead with better solutions.
We also MUST learn ( and teach our children) to conserve energy.
My house has adjusted to be chilly in the morning, we are going as far as we can before we turn on the heat.
We are all healthy and can stand a bit of a chill.
Every bit counts.

[Unregistered]

I can't believe the number of SUVs (extra large ones to boot) here in Walpole. How many times do I see some diminutive woman step out of one of those things, to cheerfully gas it up? People like that have there heads in the wrong places. Even if they can afford it...why the need for the giant vehicle? Insecurity?

Don't ever expect those types to think about conserving energy.

Me: I haven't turned the heat on yet. This morning, the house was actually colder than outside.

[Unregistered]

The town's power in this matter is its ability to negotiate a PILOT with the Competitive Power Ventures. The selectmen's meeting is the first step in that process. Whatever the process yields, the community should look forward to getting facts rather than the opinions (half- or no truths?) we've seen around town for the past six months.

The key questions seem to be:

1. What are the impacts on our community? (as defined by air quality, traffic, visual, and other quality of life impacts)

2. What are the taxes for the town. How much money are we talking?

3. Are their ancillary benefits for the town? (support for local education and charitable programs? high- or low paying jobs? local economic spending?)

4. Is the plant safe?

The answers to these questions will guide negotiations.

[Unregistered]

78 Good for you! While you consider yourself forward, green, and ahead of the curve, others may find you miserly! Turn the heat on! Did you consider some of those tiny moms need the SUV to cart their kids to school, to load up the back w/ canned goods for the food pantry, to bring back all the recyclables, to fit 6 kids in so neighbors don't have to drive to the same event? They don't make Ford LTD wagons anymore. My family of six doesn't fit in a Prius...maybe you and I can go down and talk to Ernie Boch, Jr. and we can find a vehicle that suits our needs that you find politically correct and acceptable? In the meantime, I will determine what is appropriate for my family to drive, but thanks for the input.

[Unregistered]

Great idea, and it should be done AFTER we rally and take care of the situation at hand.
Show up Tuesday evening at Town Hall at 8:00, and listen while Mr. (40B)rady attempts to convince us what a good idea this is for his , ooops I meant, the town's coffers.
Polution, noise, extreme water use, trucks up and down 1A, and we have the previlege to power Boston.
They are going to try and put a shine on the old sneaker!
Be there!

[Unregistered]

There is an alternative to sport utility vehicles for families: they are called mini-vans. You can carry all the kids and their groceries too.

Chrysler has the town and country (may be a bit bigger than mini), but its not a sport utility vehicle. SUV's are basically luxury trucks.

There really shouldn't be an argument here: SUV's are going the way of the dinosaur. Watch what happens this year when gas prices surge again. Its inevitable: Gas will be over $3.00 and SUV owners are going to start dumping them in droves. Maybe you will too.

I do turn the heat up when the house is occupied with family, btw. But at night, the heat is down as low as possible.

[Unregistered]

I don't need the "town" to explain to me the visual impacts of two 250 foot smokestacks, or the environmental impacts of the need for 200,000 gallons of water a day, a 2 million gallon water storage tank, and the storage of ammonia and chemicals on site in an aquifer. I don't need the "town" to explain to me the public safety impact of having 2 million gallons of diesel fuel on site that only last 3 days. I don't need the "town" to explain to me that gas fired facilities may be cleaner because I know they still emit particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxide. I can look up their health impacts myself.

I don't need the "town" to explain the workforce to me. I can use google or call other plants and find out that they employ 20 to 30 people. I can figure out easily that they won't contribute much to the local economy.

I don't need the "town" to drive to the facility in Bellingham and explain what it looks like. I can drive there myself.

I don't need the "town or Competitive Power Ventures" to tell me that the plant is safe. What else would they say? Accidents happen at these facilities nationwide. Read the newspapers.

I can figure out that the landowner, attornies, PR companies, and contractors will benefit substantially.

I don't need the "town" to think for me.

The real question is what price is the "town" willing to pay in exchange for money.

[Unregistered]

If you look at the Google view of the site in Bellingham, it's out in the middle of nowhere. When you look at the Google site of the proposed location in Walpole, it's out in the middle of nowhere! The two views are remarkably similar (except in Bellingham, there are other business facilities in close proximity, something we would never allow in Walpole). Once it's built, no one will even know it's there. At least NIMBY won't apply here, because this facility will not be near anyone's backyard!

I say let's go to the Selectmen's meeting with an open mind.

[Unregistered]

Do you live in Walpole?

Take a ride down to Industrial Road or better yet look at a map. Shoreview Lane and Huntington, Broad are very close to this area. A chemical company and other businesses are on the same street.

The wind is not confined to Industrial Road and trucks will travel along town streets. Or better yet, will two smokestacks be invisible? Get on 495 in Franklin and the Bellingham smokestacks are visible right away and they are about two miles away. Open Mind? Maybe you need to Use Your Mind.

There most be something in the water here. Oh wait a minute, if you can't see them using 200,000 gallons of water, then it's okay.

[Unregistered]

The people who will come to oppose the power plant presentation at Tuesday's selectmen's meeting CANNOT have an open mind. It is literally impossible. After all, no proposal has been made publicly and no information given to the town. But this is no matter to the naysayers who have filled this board with bile and misinformation and fear-mongering. after all, what's the point of listening first when you can jump to a conclusion?

The sad thing is that this is just yet another example of a very, very, very small group who take their lead from Nancy Reagan and "just say no." And if somebody dares to disagree with them? They will stop at nothing to demonize those people (poor Jim Brady.)

I don't know anybody who thinks we should accept a power plant without learning everything possible, elected officials in particular. Since there will be hearings about the proposal before Planning, Zoning and Conservation, plus the state and federal government, people who want to learn will have plenty of opportunity to get the information and then make an informed decision.

[Unregistered]

I Do Not Support The Idea Of A Power Plant In Walpole At All.
I Am One Of The People That Live At One Of The Designated Areas Outlined In The Map.
I Hope That People Will Reject The Power Plant At The Town Meeting.
I Have To Listen To A Noisy Train And Dirt Bikes And Not To Mention A Company Who Is Always Dropping Stuff And The Beeping Trucks.
I Found About This Power Plant Because Of A Letter That Clifton Snuffer Sent To Our Home.
I Am Not Happy At All About This Proposed Power Plant Coming To Walpole.

[Unregistered]

Poster 86, check out www.stopthepower.org. I guess the people of Brockton are fear mongerers and so are their State reps and Senators and so are their City Councilors who object to the power plant. It sounds to me that you are more concerned about protecting whoever is representing this project than protecting yourself or the town.

[Brown Bear Returns]

I took a look at the Brockton website, stopthepower.com. This is an entirely different animal. It's an oil-fired plant that will have tanker trucks delivering fuel and will spew forth the emisions of burnt oil. What they're talking about for Walpole is a gas-fired plant. There will be no trucks delivering fuel (it comes in underground by a pipe) and the chimney puts forth carbon dioxide and water (both good for plants). This is not a fair comparison.
Let's put it another way.......in your kitchen, would you want to cook over an oil-fired stove or would you want to dry your clothes in an oil-fired dryer? Perhaps not. But we cook with clean methane gas and we use the same fuel to dry our clothes. I've not heard complaints about the pollution in our kitchens (unless I'm the cook). Nor do our clothes give off an oily odor AFTER they are washed and dried.
Stay on topic.

[Unregistered]

I could not have made the point better myself. Rather than hear the facts, you choose to attack, malign and prejudge. So be it. You are not fooling anybody.

Inre Brown Bear's post on Brockton, I reviewed the site. It is incredibly biased, incorporating the nastiest political rhetoric possible. Then again, considering that the proposer of the plant in that city changed its name to "Clean Power" (knowing full well that any plant is not entirely 'clean'), they deserve public rebuke.

What I would like to see - and what every person I know in town would like - is unbiased, clear-eyed information that does not have biased qualifiers like "incredibly," "devastating," etc. Speaking for the majority, we'd also like the politics of personal attacks to cease. Maybe that's asking too much, but the nasty rhetoric displayed by many is a huge turn off and takes away from any argument you might make.

[Unregistered]

JUST THE FACTS, BUT DON"T LET THAT GET IN THE WAY!
Clean? ,It simply is not. It may be less dirty but it is not clean.
Competetive Power proposes a fossil fuel fired (natural gas and Ultra Low Sulfur Distillate [diesel]) electrical power generating plant.
The burning of any fossil fuel produces some emissions.

The ENF (Environmental Notification Form) Certificate issued by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) states “Emissions associated with the project include: 82 tons per year (tpy)
of particulate matter; 98 tpy of Carbon Monoxide (CO); 7 tpy of Sulfur dioxide (SO2); 17 tpy Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC); 87 tpy of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx); 1,134,000 tpy of Carbon dioxide (C02 ); and less than 10 tpy of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).” This is a combined average of over 6 million pounds per day.

Admittedly, it may be the least dirty fossil fuel technology available today, but it still produces all the emissions listed above. In fact, the certificate later states, “The project requires a mandatory EIR [Environmental Impact Report] and an Air Quality Permit from MassDEP.
Therefore, it is subject to the EOEEA Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Emissions Policy, which requires GHG information to be provided during the MEPA process.”
Further, it details “The proponent has provided an estimate of C02 emissions in the ENF; the DEIR should update this figure as necessary. In accordance with the EOEEA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy, the DEIR should identify and describe all greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project and should propose measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate project-related greenhouse gas emissions.
The proponent should consider the six GHGs covered by the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (C02); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N20); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulfurhexafluoride (SF6).
The proponent should consider both direct GHG emissions (e.g. stack and fugitive emissions from the proposed power plant) and indirect emissions (e.g. emissions from vehicles driven by employees and delivery trucks).
” These are the greenhouse gasses (GHG) associated with the current debate over the spread of global warming."
Perhaps more importantly, will this plant exceed any of the set limits in its emissions in the next ten or so years and yet be allowed to continue to operate at these excessive levels as has happened at other facilities throughout the state?

[Unregistered]

"Admittedly, it may be the least dirty fossil fuel technology available today."

In fact, according to DOE and EPA, it is.

"This is a combined average of over 6 million pounds [of emissions] per day."

What does that number mean? 6 million out of how many millions or pounds of matter in the atmosphere? How many parts per million? And how does that compare to the dirtier fossil fuel technology?

“The project requires a mandatory EIR [Environmental Impact Report] and an Air Quality Permit from MassDEP."

Thank goodness. By virtue of these permits, we can be assured that emissions are not at harmful levels (like emissions from coal fired plants, SUVs, and other cars. Vehicles account for an incredibly disproportionate level nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.) Massachusetts air permit standards are the most vigorous in the world. If CPV cannot prove to DEP that it will meet or exceed those standards, it will not be allowed to pursue its plans.

"Perhaps more importantly, will this plant exceed any of the set limits in its emissions in the next ten or so years and yet be allowed to continue to operate at these excessive levels as has happened at other facilities throughout the state?"

If it does, it will be fined into oblivion, be unable to operate on a regular basis and ultimately, bring financial disaster to its owners and operators.

Unlike dangerous coal burning plants which emit the lion's share of pollutants, CPV will be required by the EPA and Mass. DEP to use best available technologies to reduce greenhouse emissions to levels that are considered "insignificant."

[Unregistered]

The EPA is a paper tiger!
even if they were to fine them what good would that be to the poluted town?

[Unregistered]

If this mega-structure is going to power Boston, then put it in Boston!
Do not sell out our town for $$$, it is NEVER worth it.

[Unregistered]

put a state-of-the-art maximum security prison on that land. No pollution, and we are surely guaranteed of a "full house". Let the town own it: Call it: Walpole Prison. Capitalize on the notoriety...$$$$

[Unregistered]

"I Found About This Power Plant Because Of A Letter That Clifton Snuffer Sent To Our Home."

How does Clifton Snuffer know about this proposal? Does he work the CPV company? Seems odd that he would have information that the Town Administrator does not have.

"I Have To Listen To A Noisy Train And Dirt Bikes And Not To Mention A Company Who Is Always Dropping Stuff And The Beeping Trucks."

Where is your house? Next to a dirt bike track? A business? Both? What does that have to do with Mr. Snuffer's letter?

[Unregistered]

clean –adjective
1. free from dirt; unsoiled; unstained:
2. free from foreign or extraneous matter:
3. free from pollution; unadulterated; pure:
4. habitually free of dirt:
5. characterized by a fresh, wholesome quality:

A power is not clean...

[Unregistered]

From Naturalgas.org:

"Natural gas, because of its clean burning nature, has become a very popular fuel for the generation of electricity. In the 1970's and 80's, the choices for most electric utility generators were large coal or nuclear powered plants; but, due to economic, environmental, and technological changes, natural gas has become the fuel of choice for new power plants.

In fact, in 2000, 23,453 MW (megawatts) of new electric capacity was added in the U.S. Of this, almost 95 percent, or 22,238 MW were natural gas fired additions.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas fired electricity generation is expected to increase dramatically over the next 20 years, as all of the new capacity that is currently being constructed comes online.

There are many reasons for this increased reliance on natural gas to generate our electricity. While coal is the cheapest fossil fuel for generating electricity, it is also the dirtiest, releasing the highest levels of pollutants into the air. The electric generation industry, in fact, has traditionally been one of the most polluting industries in the United States. Regulations surrounding the emissions of power plants have forced these electric generators to come up with new methods of generating power, while lessening environmental damage.

New technology has allowed natural gas to play an increasingly important role in the clean generation of electricity."

From the Energy Information Administration:

"In the power sector, natural gas is an attractive choice for new generating plants because of its relative fuel efficiency. Natural gas also burns more cleanly than coal or petroleum products, and as more governments begin implementing national or regional plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, they may encourage the use of natural gas to displace liquids and coal. "

From the EPA:

"Air Emissions

At the power plant, the burning of natural gas produces nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, but in lower quantities than burning coal or oil. Methane, a primary component of natural gas and a greenhouse gas, can also be emitted into the air when natural gas is not burned completely. Similarly, methane can be emitted as the result of leaks and losses during transportation. Emissions of sulfur dioxide and mercury compounds from burning natural gas are negligible.

Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant."

From Platts Insight (leading energy market research organization, sub-division of McGraw Hill)

"Because of issues related to clean air, cost efficiency and energy security, we as a nation must:

*Encourage the construction and use of gas-fired power generation plants,

...

Indisputably, natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, and natural gas-fired power generation plants offer the greatest flexibility in providing reliable electricity.

....
With its clean-burning benefit, Congress favored natural gas in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

...

The case for natural gas is strong: It is clean, it is cost-competitive and it is abundant.

....

Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel: According to several studies cited by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, natural gas-fired power plants per GWh emit 95% and 83% fewer metric tons of SOx and NOx, respectively, than the average coal plant. These plants also emit less than one-half the CO2 per GWh than the average coal plant.

...

Natural gas is abundant: During the 10 years following the Energy Policy Act in 1992, more than 80% of new power generation was gas-fired, and today natural gas generation accounts for 40% of the nation's total generation capacity.

...

Using natural gas as a primary source for electric generation would help to contain emissions levels.

...

Gas-fired generation does not increase or prolong our dependence on foreign energy sources and, quite importantly, it can provide the bridge between today's clean burning natural gas and tomorrow's clean burning synthetic natural gas made from our nation's abundant coal resources.

[Unregistered]

Until the world figures out a way to generate power without burning fossil fuels, the best available options are "cleaner" technologies that reduce emissions to levels considered "insignificant" by the federal and state government.

Certainly, nothing in this world is clean. Certainly not the SUVs, oil-burning home heating units and coal-fired power plants that we rely on to transport us, heat our houses and keep the lights on (or the computer!)

Despite the many attempts to scare people, the power plant issue will not be decided on emotion. It will be decided on credible information and fact.

[Unregistered]

Gas Oil Coal
Carbon Dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000
Carbon Monoxide 40 33 208
Nitrogen Oxides 92 448 457
Sulfur Dioxide 1 1,122 2,591
Particulates 7 84 2,744
Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016
Source: EIA - Natural Gas Issues and Trends 1998

[Unregistered]

This article appeared in the Globe two years ago. -- tg

More use of oil eyed for power plants
State weighs relaxing curbs on dirtier fuel
By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff

Massachusetts environmental officials, hoping to stave off natural gas shortages and blackouts, are weighing whether to let four gas-powered plants switch to dirtier oil up to 50 percent more often this winter in a move that could sharply increase pollution.

State regulations restrict the number of days the four gas-powered plants are allowed to burn oil. The plan under consideration would allow air-pollution emissions to rise to higher federal limits. That means the four plants could burn oil anywhere from 6 to 32 more days -- or 20 to 50 percent more -- this winter if their owners choose.

Statewide, according to data provided by the Department of Environmental Protection, the move would lead to 50 more tons of particulate matter, or soot, being emitted annually, and also a 1 percent statewide increase in smelly, smog-forming sulfur dioxide from electric generation.

While the impact is negligible on annual statewide pollution totals, the effects of additional emissions are likely to be felt near the plants' home communities, in Bellingham, Dartmouth, Pittsfield, and Springfield. Residents, particularly those with asthma and lung disease, might be bothered by changes in air quality.

''It definitely could lead to additional smog-forming pollution that has regional and localized effects," said Cindy Luppi, a spokeswoman for Clean Water Action, a Boston environmental group that has battled power-plant pollution. ''When a power plant that usually burns gas switches to oil, people nearby will likely experience increased soot fallout and they might see additional plumes of pollution, but much of this pollution is invisible."

But Governor Mitt Romney's top environmental regulator said the state is trying to plan ahead to avoid an even worse crisis -- blackouts on the most bitterly cold days of winter.

''I would hope that people would be heartened by the fact that we are looking at this in advance," said Robert W. Golledge, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection, in an interview. ''This is an effort by the DEP, working with the environmental community and industry, to prevent a problem, and being proactive and transparent is the right way to do it."

State energy officials are bracing for the worst this winter: brutal cold that taxes hurricane-restricted natural gas supplies for heating, driving prices up to the point that gas-fired power plant owners can make more money by selling gas to the spot market than by using it to produce electricity. That scenario could result in life-threatening blackouts.

Promoting more electric generation from oil would address both problems, bolstering electric supply while reducing gas demand. But it would come at the cost of adding tons more smog-causing pollution and soot to Bay State skies.

The four plants under state review are the MassPower plant in Springfield, Altresco in Pittsfield, and two plants owned by FPL Energy Inc. in Dartmouth and Bellingham. The state is focusing on these plants because they can switch between gas and oil.

Collectively, the four plants generate enough power for 630,000 homes on an average day. Three of the plants are among the 20 biggest of all types in the state, which can each produce power for anywhere from 100,000 to 1 million homes. The state also has several dozen smaller power plants.

Golledge said he does not expect to make recommendations to Romney for four more weeks.

Environmental groups, including Clean Water Action and Boston's Conservation Law Foundation, say they want to see what specific changes are being recommended. ''From a pollution standpoint, I don't know that we know enough detail to assess whether this is merely bad news or really bad news," said Lori A. Ehrlich, a founding member of HealthLink, a Swampscott environmental advocacy group that has battled for tougher air-pollution controls at the Salem Harbor power plant.

FPL and Sempra Energy Trading Co., which own or market power from the four plants in question, did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.

State environmental officials have also asked energy companies whether plants in Everett, Salem, Sandwich, Somerset, and South Boston that run exclusively on oil could make more electricity if the state eased their pollution permits.

But Golledge said it's not clear if any of them could significantly increase output, and in the near term, state officials are looking chiefly at raising the oil-burning limits at gas-powered plants.

Jim Norvelle, a spokesman for Dominion Energy, a Virginia energy conglomerate that owns the Salem and Somerset power plants, agreed that ''there's a whole lot we don't know yet." Both plants make most of their electricity from coal, but also have oil-powered generators on site.

Asked whether he thinks Dominion believes it could increase the oil units' electrical output if the DEP let them pollute more, Norvelle said, ''It's a little early to say what Dominion would or could do, but Dominion believes New England needs to continue to diversify its fuel mix" and promote alternatives to natural gas for electric generation. After a wave of gas-plant construction in the late 1990s, New England now relies on gas for nearly half its electricity.

Sarah M. Stashak, a spokeswoman for Mirant Corp. of Atlanta, which owns the Canal plant in Sandwich, said Canal physically cannot make more electricity than the 1,109 megawatts it does now, an output that could power about 830,000 homes on an average day.

''Canal is already burning oil at its capacity," Stashak said. ''The plant continues to comply with its existing emissions limits and will not be seeking modifications to either its operations or permits with regard to this winter's potential natural gas shortage."

[Unregistered]

Anybody? Or is that article nothing but more fear-mongering?

[Unregistered]

From that outdated article:

"Governor Mitt Romney's top environmental regulator said the state is trying to plan ahead to avoid an even worse crisis -- blackouts on the most bitterly cold days of winter."

The real issue is increased demand for power. The only answer is new generation. Which is why Walpole is under consideration for a facility. Massachusetts - Walpole included - needs more power. It's the lifeblood of our economy, our way of life.

[Unregistered]

Why do you think there will be 2 million gallons of diesel fuel on site? That's a fact. Whoever keeps throwing out the fear mongering comment is uninformed or better yet afraid of the truth and makes themselves irrelevant. Or maybe they think it's cooking oil for Brown Bear's stove.

[Unregistered]

We do not have the water.
We do not want the noise.
We don't care how 'clean it is'
We are tired of all the dirty, noisy, ugly businesses.
If you all want this so much, put somewhere else in Walpole.
We already carry our weight.

[Unregistered]

"We do not want the noise."

What noise? To obtain a special permit for construction, they will have to prove their noise level provides minimal impact on their abutters -- which is a trucking business.

"We are tired of all the dirty, noisy, ugly businesses."

What dirty, noisy ugly businesses are you talking about? And why do you think this plant will fit that description. I've seen the plant in Bellingham behind Ma Glockner's. Save for the stacks, it looks like a modern industrial facility - clean yard, well kept grounds. Certainly not dirty, noisy or in my opinion, ugly.

"If you all want this so much, put somewhere else in Walpole. We already carry our weight."

Why would you want to put it anywhere else besides the end of Industrial Road? That site is a 1/2 mile from Main Street, 1/2 mile from any neighborhoods, and zoned for industry. The site is a no brainer for this proposal.

Don't forget what other communities get from power plants - millions of dollars in guaranteed tax payments. After all the override battles s in this town, we need to do something differently.

Considering the amount of money at stake, it's worth noting that unlike what we get from Foxboro on game days (and now Kraft's man mall), we won't have the disruptions that come with typical big development -- but we will get as much, if not more, money.

Pay attention people. Don't let the "no-no-no" crowd distract from the issue here. This proposal makes a lot of sense.

[Unregistered]

The Cult of the Class Size will wants business to get money for schools. They don't care how bad the business is. They just want smaller class sizes. They will throw rose petals in the path of the power plant, sing the praises of those who made it possible, and ridicule any who isn't a believer.

[Unregistered]

I think there will be 2 million gallons of diesel fuel on site because the government requires a back up fuel supply at new gas-fired plants. I also think there's nothing wrong with storing oil on the site. Unlike the dozens of gas stations in our town, not to mention the thousands of oil tanks in the homes of basements around town, the storage of diesel will be contained with up-to-date technology (such as double-skinned tanks, containment berms, etc.) And unlike the other tanks that are hidden in our environment, these tanks will be above ground and monitored.

To say otherwise? That's fear mongering.

[Unregistered]

God forbid somebody should disagree with you.

Your denigration of people who do not share your view is positively autocratic.

After all, if we don't agree with you, we must be ignoramus personified, yes? Simpleton rubes. Sell outs or worse.

Rather than attack people and assassinate character, why don't you just present your case?

Or is that too much to ask?

[Unregistered]

I think these posters are afraid that they won't get the plant and the money that comes with it for their favorite projects.

[Unregistered]

Here's a question for you. How many of you would support a power plant if a company wasn't going to be handing out goodies or providing tax revenue?

[Unregistered]

After reading the many comments and reviewing the facts, it seems that there are very good reasons to oppose the power plant. First and foremost the health of the community. While this type of power plant is "cleaner" than other types, it still puts out considerable amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. The representative and PR man for CPV even said that the smoke stacks are as high as they are (250 ft) so that the polluted air released from the stacks is distibuted a further distance rather than being concentrated in the immediate area. Any one who knows a person who suffers from breathing problems understands the significance of breathing toxic pollutants. It will be very bad for the children and elderly as well as the rest of us!
Second, it will be a wonderful terrorism target. Again, the CPV rep and PR guy said that they have to file the plan with Homeland Security before they proceed . Why do you think that Homeland Security gets involved? I'm sure it's not because they like to keep busy looking at trivial matters. It's because they know that power plants are vulnerable to terrorists attacks and are easy targets, particularly ones that are located so close to a populated area.
Third. Our property values will go down. Having the association with a prison and a power plant will not help when you go to sell your home. I certainly would not want to buy a home in a community that has a power plant! I've got to believe that Symphony Park residents will really be effected given their close viewing proximity to the proposed site.
Finally, it seems that the folks who are for this power plant are the same ones who tried to make the override happen last spring. Did they give an accurate picture of the Town's finances, were their numbers correct , did the 3 selectman who wanted you to vote for the override last spring tell the truth about the numbers????? We all know that they mislead us then and are doing the same thing now.
To all of the folks who strongly believe that the power plant is a bad idea please let the Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen know tomorrow night that we say NO to the power plant.

[Unregistered]

Brown Bear said:
“I took a look at the Brockton website, stopthepower.com. This is an entirely different animal”

Please do your research before you comment. It is an gas powered plant with diesel backup!

I think Bear sees what he wants too.

Here is it right on their web site:

Brockton Power Company, LLC proposes a fossil fuel fired (natural gas and Ultra Low Sulfur Distillate [diesel]) electrical power generating plant.

[Highway 81]

It seems to me that a major condition of this proposed site is forgotten again, it is near a sole source aquifer. The amount of diesel fuel that will be stored here far exceeds any gas station in town. Let's try to compare apples to apples. In case some of you can't visualize a 250 foot stack, it is as high as the JFK Building at Government Center in Boston. This is a 20 acre site with a 14 acre building on it and smokestacks that will spew pollution for miles. The steam will be seen for miles and will it block out the sunlight in the abutting neighborhoods, I don't know. Maybe Sunnyrock Farm would be a better location for this. Although I contend that no location in our town is suitable. If Boston needs a powerplant, then let it be sited in Boston. The old incerator site at the Mass. Ave. exit off the x-way could be reused for this. You can't put much else there anyway. Please attend tomorrow night's Board of Selectmen's meeting and participate in cleaning up this town.

[Unregistered]

In reply to "Consider This" and "Crossroads", keep up the fear mongering. If you can't scare people, you will lose because the truth does not lie.


"After reading the many comments and reviewing the facts, it seems that there are very good reasons to oppose the power plant. First and foremost the health of the community. While this type of power plant is "cleaner" than other types, it still puts out considerable amounts of carbon dioxide into the air."

Will that be at levels considered significant by the EPA and Mass DEP, the latter which has the world's most stringest clean air requirements? Will they be at levels as high as the so-called Dirty Five power plants? Or at levels from the millions of autos on our roads?

"It will be very bad for the children and elderly as well as the rest of us!"

Based upon what study?

"Second, it will be a wonderful terrorism target."

Yes, a facility in Walpole is much more attractive to bad guys than a nuclear facility in Plymouth or Seabrook!


"Third. Our property values will go down."

Says who? Do you have one shred of information to back your claim? And whose property value are you referring to? The homes located a 1/2 mile from the site?

"I certainly would not want to buy a home in a community that has a power plant!"

So you would choose not to live in Cambridge? Boston? New York City? Philadelphia? Washington D.C.?

"It seems to me that a major condition of this proposed site is forgotten again, it is near a sole source aquifer. The amount of diesel fuel that will be stored here far exceeds any gas station in town."

But unlike gas stations, this fuel will be stored above ground, in containment that has multiple safety redundnancies, and will be subject to ongoing monitoring. Seriously, gas stations are a much a bigger threat to our water than this proposal.

"In case some of you can't visualize a 250 foot stack, it is as high as the JFK Building at Government Center in Boston."

It's also as high as the 250 foot stack at Hollingsworth & Vose.

"The steam will be seen for miles and will it block out the sunlight in the abutting neighborhoods."

What a crock. Name one example. Just one.

"I don't know. Maybe Sunnyrock Farm would be a better location for this. Although I contend that no location in our town is suitable."

Nonsense. The end of Industrial Road is a superior site from a community perspective. It will have minimal impacts on the town while providing maximum revenue.

"If Boston needs a powerplant, then let it be sited in Boston."

We all need power. Here's the latest estimate of our growing power supply problem:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2007-10-03-clean-energy_N.htm

"October 3, 2007

Clean energy can't meet growing demand

By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY

Demand for renewable energy is outstripping supply, pushing up prices and raising the specter that some states may not meet clean-energy mandates.

Behind the shortage are the growing number of states requiring utilities to include clean energy in their power mix, as well as surging demand from big businesses.

By 2010, clean-energy demand will outpace generation by at least 37% unless a rush of projects is built, says a report due out next week from the National Renewable Energy Lab.

Under laws in 25 states, clean energy — such as wind, solar and biomass — must constitute up to 30% of a utility's energy portfolio in five to 15 years. In 2003, just 10 states had such requirements. Also, growing concerns about power plants' global-warming emissions have led consumers and businesses to boost clean-energy purchases by 46% a year since 2003. Much of that is fueled by corporations, which have increased their green power purchases twenty-fivefold since 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency says. "Demand is growing faster than people expected," says NREL senior analyst Lori Bird.

Utilities and customers typically don't buy renewable energy itself. Rather, they buy renewable-energy credits — premiums above standard electric prices that subsidize a generator for each kilowatt hour of power it produces. Consumers, for instance, can pay up to $10 extra on their monthly utility bill or buy credits online.

Meanwhile, green energy, mostly from wind farms, has expanded 30% a year, NREL says. But new wind capacity has been slowed by a worldwide turbine shortage and local opposition to wind projects.

Partly as a result, renewable-energy prices have doubled the past couple of years in Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Plains states and have risen up to 50% in the West, say green-energy marketers Green Mountain Energy and 3Degrees and broker Evolution Markets. In the Mid-Atlantic, wind-price increases bumped the average monthly premium on utility bills for green-energy consumers to $10.50 from $6.30, says Green Mountain's John Holtz.

By 2015, New England will face a gap of 1,500 megawatts — enough to power 1.1 million homes — between green-energy resources and what's needed to meet standards, Northeast Utilities says. It will have to import clean energy from Canada, though there are now inadequate transmission lines to do so.

Shortages could keep utilities from meeting state mandates, leading to hefty penalties, Bird says. Renewable certificates for customers in some areas may be unavailable or too costly. Bird says high prices should spark more clean-energy projects, though construction could lag behind demand by up to two years."

[Unregistered]

I didn't think the Plant was a good idea until a few people suggested using Sunny Rock Farm. Using Sunny Rock is a great idea for so many reasons. Admittedly, the town would probably have to use some of the new tax revenue to extend transmission lines and the gas supply pipeline to meet basic requirements - probably not a big deal. However, CPV would get a beautiful location with easy access to millions of gallons of needed water by running a short pipe to Willet Pond. This site would spur dramatic improvements of Old North Street and if the plant workers chose to live nearby their kids would be just down the way at Fisher School. Surely this benefit would bring in the best workers. Further, the pollution will generally blow easterly, further north, and avoid going over downtown Walpole. And best of all, the plant workers would have a nice picnic site at Adams Farm.

The Town Development office should get to work on this right away before Medfield and Dover start competing for this brilliant economic opportunity.

[Unregistered]

I have been reading this site and could not help but notice when you post, your writing style stays the same and so do your arguments. Therefore I believe you are the lone poster who is so rabid for this power plant, which also makes me think you have something very valuable to gain?

Why is this power plant so important to you?

I guess I will reconize who you are when, or if you speak at any of the upcoming forums, or if you should be quoted in the paper.

Facinating ..

[Unregistered]

"I certainly would not want to buy a home in a community that has a power plant!"

So you would choose not to live in Cambridge? Boston? New York City? Philadelphia? Washington D.C.?


Answer: Yes, that's why we live in Walpole. A town with many trees, ponds, open space and limited commercial development. A town proud of its industrial heritage and also generally committed to cleaning up the remains of past industrial problems.

It also just happens to be next door to communities that manage their finances and superior school systems without depending on the most unwelcome forms of tax revenue. Health problems or not, terror escalation or not, nobody can argue a POWER PLANT is the best way to pay the town's bills. A power generation facility is an invasive, hazardous, 7x24-hour facility that is heavily regulated by federal and state agencies for a very good reason - it is dangerous if not precisely designed, managed and contained and this fact means it brings new risk to any community that receives it. And if it was undeniably neutral to property values - why doesn't every town want one?

Ask yourself, would you be proud to call your town the home of a power plant? Is anybody proud to call Walpole the home of the prison? Proud of sport teams?, I get that. Proud of student academic achievement? Proud of our Main Street? Ask yourselves what you would be proud to say about Walpole. That might lead you to the right decision.

If our Town is so broke to need the easy money of the power industry (which traditionally targets low-income, low-barrier areas), can somebody share the math? - how much additional tax per household do we need to keep our standard of life and raise the quality of our schools? What's the math? $100/household/yr, $500? Sounds like small money relative selling our land, water, and air quality to a risky new neighbor.

[Unregistered]

Do we really need the revenue so badly? Is that what this is all about? Revenue? Revenue for what? The town has over $3 million in free cash. Why are we jumping at a power plant?
Is this the best that we can do?

[Unregistered]

I agree with poster #117.
you can put lipstick and a fancy dress on a pig - but all you get is a made up, dressed up pig.

[Highway #81]

Don't forget to be at the Board of Selectmen's meeting tonight at 8pm and voice your opinion concerning the proposed powerplant. Remember that just your presence at this meeting will make a difference. Whether you are pro/con Powerplant you should attend, the future of Walpole is in your hands.

[Louise]

If anyone has been following the water problems thoughout the country you will agree that we can not afford to let the power palnt use 200,000 + gallons a day!
This is the premier resource for the town of Walpole.
It deserves protection.
Here is an article in the New York Times, it is worth the time to read it.
Do not give away our future for money!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html?em&ex=1193284800&en=adc25155e153a757&ei=5087%0A

[Unregistered]

For anyone interested in WIND POWER...go to tonight's Board of Selectmans meeting @ 8PM

[Stephen B]

What's really funny is that in pages and pages of comments about the CPV power plant, nobody has commented on the supply outlook of diesel and natural gas fuel for this thing, so I guess it's up to me.

In short, don't worry folks, even if they build it, taking 5 years to do so, they won't be able to run it for more than 5 years tops.

By more and more credible sources, world oil production peaked either in 2005 or 2006. Matt Simmons, the increasingly well-known Houston energy investment banker, who wrote the much talked about book on Saudia Arabia's declining oil production and T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire oil baron, both agree we peaked last year at about 85 Mbbl/day of production. We are now looking for annual deceases of 5 to 9% per annum in world oil production. That means world oil production will be HALVED in about 10 to 11 years. We WON'T be running this thing on the diesel side.

Well, what about natural gas? Well, North American discoveries of ng peaked back in the 1960s while world discoveries peaked in the early 1970s. Jean Leherrere and Colin Campbell of ASPO have shown that production tends to follow discovery curves, when the latter are shifted about 20 years, that is production declines follow discovery declines in about 20 years. Simmons also agrees that we are facing major shortages of ng in North America. The US is in decline, even Canada is in decline. Our major new supply of ng is liquified nat. gas, or LNG. Right now the US depends on LNG for about 3% of supply, but that is forecast to grow to about 15% within 20 years. Nobody wants LNG offloading terminals and the few terminals that we have are already booked solid and one 500 megawatt power plant such as is proposed could practically empty an LNG tanker single-handedly in a week (via the regional pipeline network.)

The only thing that has kept ng prices from going to the moon is that major industrial users of ng have seen the writing on the wall and moved overseas to where the ng is, companies like Methanex that make methanol from ng or nitrogen fertilizer companies. Virtually every major nitrogen fertilizer company has already followed the ng overseas, freeing up declining ng supplies to heat our homes with. Then too we've had a series of warm winters (gee, wonder why?) that have helped keep gas prices under $10 per million BTU in the past 18 months. How long that will stay the case, well, informed voices say not much longer.

I agree that we use lots of electicity and this isn't such bad deal for the town, but the real truth is no matter whether it is built or not, there won't be reliable, affordable ways to fuel it for very long into the future.

The hard truth is that we'll be doing without the gobs and gobs of easy electric power that we've become accustomed to, whether we like it or not, regardless of whether these types of plants continue to be built or not.

The real question is do we roll the dice and built it and get stuck with a closed plant that only ran 5 or so years? I say don't bother.

Matt Simmons' presentations: http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches

Do EIA natural gas forecasts contain systematic errors? http://www.energybulletin.net/33661.html

Future of Natural Gas Supply
Jean Laherrere
http://www.peakoil.net/JL/JeanL.html

Lots of oil depletion related energy supply updates: http://www.energybulletin.net/


The (Robert L.) Hirsch Report, initially done for the US Dept. of Energy on the subject of Peak Oil, released in 2005 and basically confirming the whole sad thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO): http://www.peakoil.net/

If you want to read more, just type "Peak Oil" or "oil depletion" into any Internet search engine. You'll be busy reading for a month.

[Unregistered]

Again, as I stated in a previous message, the problem with Walpole is from within. We have businessmen and land owners who just don't care what this Town looks like. Walpole is on the verge of destroying itself as we now entertain all the 40b's (Carriage Lane area, Walpole/Sharon line, Oak Street, Gatehouse, Kendall Buildings in downtown as possible 40r's, Power plants, industrial pollution (Bird Machine, South Street and who knows where else). It's time this Town woke up and started telling our Town officials and Town Administrator "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." If these Officials can't see these proposals as problems, then it's time to vote them out and terminate the rest. As far as the business/land owners and businessmen, shame on you for doing this to your Town.

[Brown Bear Returns]

Tonight I turned on my computer, and it worked again. The refrigerator was cold and the clothes dryer was doing what it should. I didn't have to burn kerosene to cook dinner or illuminate my house. What sort of magic makes this all happen? Electricity! Where does it come from? Who cares! We just want it to work!
Think back a few years and you would have seen more smokestacks with the industry in this town. Today, someone proposes some relatively clean industry and many people panic. We want the milk, but we don't want the cow.
Why don't we all go back to burning wood to heat our houses and cook our food. Or, throw in a few lumps of coal so that we don't have to split as much wood. The insides of our houses would have dark walls and ceilings, but the houses wouldn't be bright enough to see the soot stains. Take an annual shower or bath? Good idea.
Let's get real. I'd rather have a gas-fired plant in my town than a coal-fired plant six towns away.

[Highway #81]

I attended last night's BoS meeting and much to my surprise there appears to be less support for the Powerplant that I originaly thought. Mr. Boynton commented that the best way to protect the aquifer is not to have oil at that location, and this got him a round of applause. Mr. DiNapoli asked some pertinent questions as did the rest of the BoS.
Mr. DiNapoli has suggested an opem forum for residents to have a Q&A period with CPV, Walpole LLC. Orlando Martinez represented CPV, with a Powerpoint presentation, but I find it interesting that what is purported to be new technology in fact is old technology.
I'm looking forward to an open forum discussion concerning this major issue. Just an observation; this morning during my commute, I was able to see the water vapor in the sky 5 miles before getting to the powerplant that I pass each day.

[Stephen B.]

Why don't you respond to my post above? Sit down and read some of my links, especially some of the presentations at Simmons & Company International. Read some of what the very learned Matt Simmons, a well known Houston energy investment banker has to say on the subject of oil and gas availability in the near future.

Like it or not, regardless of whether Walpole builds this plant or not, electricity, nat. gas, and gasoline are about to become very pricey and very dear.

By the way I DO heat my house with wood mainly. My walls are not black nor are my windows sooty. The wood is burned in something called a masonry heater and it burns very cleanly.

It was built by a local mason, Marty Pearson. His web site is www.stonecomfort.com

If nat. gas were INDEED plentiful, I'd be all for this plant, but it's not. Nat gas is a wonderful fuel that we should be conserving for burning directly in stoves and furnaces, a use that Simmons calls "burner tip heat". By this he means that nat gas is best burned right at the place that heat is required rather than be burned miles away, get converted to kilowatts, then get turned back at the house. As a former electrical engineer I can tell you that when the latter is done, over 60 percent of the heat energy in the gas is lost compared to when one burns the gas in the house directly.

One can also use a clothesline or drying rack rather than burn precious nat gas to dry clothes that dry just fine thank you on their own. Despite a neighborhood ban on installed clotheslines, I manage a temporary rack in my backyard at Swan Pond no less, from time to time.

A few simple efficiency steps won't kill anybody. In any case, I'd suggest that you make peace with using less electricity, oil, and nat. gas, because one way or the other, inside of 15 years, you'll be doing just that.

Steve B.

[Unregistered]

Stephen B. Did it occur to you that Mr. Simmons is doing what is called on Wall St., "talking his own book." As long as oil prices are high and demand is strong, Simmons and Co. print money. Let's take his insights with a grain of salt. There are any number of reasons to oppose this initiative, but I don't think Simmons thoughts are particularly relevant, and if you took a long look at his track record on predicting the price of crude oil, you wouldn't be offering up his opinions!

[Stephen B.]

Unregistered,

What about all the other folks? ASPO, Colin Campbell, Julian Darley, Jean Leherrere, T. Boone Pickens? Ken Defreyes of Princeton too. Most of those guys are retired, especially Pickens at 79. What do they have to gain by lying about Oil and nat. gas Depletion?

Four years ago I started talking up this Oil Depletion thing with family and they thought I was nuts. Now we've seen oil go from 30 to over 90 a bbl, with gasoline tripling in price. Those folks above predicted all of that (though they were a bit early) and they predict that it'll all go still higher. How high? Well, demand MUST fall in line with supply and we're barely cutting use in this society yet. The last time we cut use, oil and gas had to get to something like 6% of GDP and income before we started serious efficiency moves. Right now energy costs about 3% of GDP so I figure energy prices could yet double again.

Do what you want, but I say oil and gas are in very short supply and this plant will become an idle white elephant inside a dozen years tops. Is it not relevant to oppose a plant that is quickly going to become another idle, rusting industrial site not unlike what we already have on South St. already? I think it's very on-topic.

[Unregistered]

It was disappointing that the citizens of Walplole who attended the Selectmen's meeting last night did not have any opportunity to speak. A meeting was discussed for the townspeople to attend on November 14th at Walpole High School with cable tv in attendance. The lawyer for the power plant stated that the power plant representative could not make the evening of November 14th. In the end it was left up in the air when and where such a meeting would take place. All anyone knew is that it would take place on an "off day". We don't know if cable tv will be able to attend the meeting when and if it is scheduled.
Pay attention people! Do encourage your friends and neighbors to read walpolenews.com
It is an excellent online newspaper.

[Unregistered]

Sure, world oil is a finite resource. But I would offer the huge industrilization boom of China coupled with the ongoing tensions of the Middle East have spurred demand and restricted supply. Add the speculative nature of all the new leveraged money racing in to the commodities markets, and you see the explosive gains in crude futures. However, I don't think the spigot is in jeopardy of drying out anytime in the next 100 years, let alone 5! Domestic production alone can satisfy our needs, and if we ever tap into Alaskan oil, OPEC can no longer dictate price. I'm not in favor of the plant, but I'm willing to assume the business people involved have evaluated your claims and still wish to proceed.

[Unregistered]

Tax revenue that can be used for roads, library, schools, police, fire, etc., etc....and bring some relief to the rest of us taxpayers. Please let's have a serious discussion on this power plant. We can't just say no to it because we don't like the sound of it. It's closest neighbor would be the prison. It will be located on INDUSTRIAL ROAD (not Bucolic Lane).

I have not decided whether I am for it or against it -- but I need to hear real negatives, not just rumors, before I turn down that kind of tax revenue (money) for the town.

[Stephen B]

Unregistered,

You raise a very good point. One *WOULD* think that professionals that are making a living building these plants would have a very good handle on the availability of oil and natural gas and that outsiders such as myself would have very little to offer. Indeed, as I've looked at this question over the past few years, I keep asking myself the exact same question. Still, I have to tell you that there is a great deal of misinformation out there on the supply both daily, and in-the-ground, of oil and natural gas. Look at oil and gas futures contracts back about 4 years ago. They didn't *BEGIN* to predict $90 oil this year and $15 (MBTU) gas two years ago. So much for expert opinion and knowledge.

As for supply taking care of our needs for the next 100 years, I just have to beg to differ. The US production of oil peaked in 1970/71 at around 10 Mbbl/day. We're down to something like 6 Mbbl/day and this latter figure includes the ~850K bbl/day from Alaska, not present in the 1970 numbers. Despite the best oil recovery tech. in the world, the world's once number one producer of oil (US) now depends on imports for about 65% of its oil.

On natural gas, conventional nat. gas production in the US peaked around 1973. Since then so-called "unconventional" gas, mainly coal bed methane, 'tight sands', and Barnett shale (TX) have kept the decline from being a disaster, but despite record drilling activity in the 30-odd years since, total North American gas production has declined. Canada is now supplying about 15% of our needs, but their own internal consumption is increasing and their exports to the US are decreasing. LNG now accounts for about 3% of US gas supply and looks to increase radically *IF* we can site the off-loading terminals which, as you may know, has been very difficult to say the least. There is only a handful of LNG terminals in the US right now and they all are pretty much running at capacity.

World discoveries of natural gas, according to others, but especially Leherrere (see previous posts), peaked in the early 1970s. Typically, as in the US case, production tends to drop off about 25 years after the discovery peak, which means any day now for world gas production. Actually, most of the experts I read give gas another 10 years or so to peak world wide, but that means little for us in the US as gas is very hard to ship, unlike oil. These fancy ships and off loading terminals just aren't being built in the numbers that they need to be built in and even if they were, we'd just end up as being dependent on imported nat. gas as we are now for oil.

One of the problems with nat. gas is that it is uneconomical to transport. Once an oil field becomes too unprofitable to continue with, any remaining nat. gas is usually abandoned, hence the industry term "stranded gas." Even when the oil field is in production, it is usually more economically sensible to "flare" the gas off as most have undoubtedly seen pictures of drilling platforms doing, with the large gas flames smoking away.

Really, all this peak oil/gas thing was a shock to me when I first heard it too. All I can say is look up the multitude of sources on this subject. See major magazine articles in National Geographic (JUN 2004 I think it was) Scientific American (1998) , major books by Simmons: Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, any of the several books by Richard Heinburg such as The Party's Over: Oil, War and The Fate of Industrial Societies or Powerdown. Google Ken Defreyes of Princeton University formerly with Shell Oil I think. Google M. King Hubbert, the granddaddy of Peak Oil thinking, check out the many articles in newspapers, including this very recent one in the Guardian in the UK that declares world production of light crude already past peak, with declines of several percent per year to follow.http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2196436,00.html The Wall St. Journal, Forbes, The Economist, all have touched on this subject. Then too see the Robert L. Hirsch Report, done for the US Department of Energy in the spring of 2005, that basically confirmed imminent peak world oil production for the DOE.

No, cheap oil isn't going to last 100 years. Sure there will be oil in the ground in 100 years and people may be taking small amounts of it then for chemical uses, but the days of cheap oil and nat. gas powering this economy are coming to a close a lot quicker than one might think. A 6% annual decline in world oil production means an expanding world (think China and India) has to make do with HALF the present daily production in only 11 years. Many individual fields world wide have suffered such declines if not larger (UK's North Sea and Mexico's Cantarell to name only 2. See: http://www.energybulletin.net/2499.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3777413.stm and http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/01/cantarell_in_de.html as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantarell_Field)

Returning to this plant. I could live with it. The oil storage over the aquifer bothers me a bit. For that I'm wondering if they could use biodiesel. I have some experience with this stuff. It is *far* less toxic than petroleum diesel and substantially degrades in the environment in about 30 days. Right now it costs about the same as p. diesel too and if they are only going to use it only for back up, it might make sense to use the bio product. (Biodiesel won't solve the world's energy problems though because there simply isn't enough crop land to make enough for daily use, unless this brackish algae thing comes through -another story entirely.) Biodiesel has more or less the same BTU content per gallon too and is a direct replacement for p. diesel in engines. My guess is that any gas turbine that can burn low sulphur p. diesel could burn biodiesel without modification. It would lessen, if not eliminate the aquifer concerns.

Gas emissions aren't a nightmare either. I could live with that too.

What I would say to my townspeople is watch very carefully how you use all energy. Think about it and use less. Do without where and when you can, because finally, after 30 years of hearing about it, the real energy crunch time is coming and renewables, though I use some myself, just aren't going to take up the slack that is soon to come to our economy. Don't set yourself up with a long commute. Don't commit to a large, low mpg vehicle. Insulate your house, heavily. Expand those south facing windows. Look to get serious shade on the house in summer. Try using a clothesrack instead of the dryer. Plant some edible fruit in the yard somewhere. Cut some of the lights off earlier at night. Believe what you will, but we really will have to make do with a lot less energy and soon and you won't like the price on the remaining energy that *IS* available. Better we get used to some of this now, than have it forced on us later.

If this plant runs for even half its design life, I'd be surprised.

[Unregistered]

Again, as I stated in a previous message, the problem with Walpole is from within. We have businessmen and land owners who just don't care what this Town looks like. Walpole is on the verge of destroying itself as we now entertain all the 40b's (Carriage Lane area, Walpole/Sharon line, Oak Street, Gatehouse, Kendall Buildings in downtown as possible 40r's, Power plants, industrial pollution (Bird Machine, South Street and who knows where else). It's time this Town woke up and started telling our Town officials and Town Administrator "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." If these Officials can't see these proposals as problems, then it's time to vote them out and terminate the rest. As far as the business/land owners and businessmen, shame on you for doing this to your Town.

VERY true!!!!

[Former Resident]

Between the 40b proposals and now this I am SO GLAD I don't live in Walpole anymore. I feel so bad for all my old neighbors. The leadership in Walpole is so tainted by the land owners and developers. Walpole could be so great but sadly the financial mismanagement and special interests continue to prevent that from happening.

[Unregistered]

Poster 134, the closest neighborhood is Shore View Lane about 1600 feet away. Not the prison.

[The Raven]

The power plant people mentioned in the Daily Transcript (http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/homepage/x1673641523)of today that the plant will be air cooled. Same mentioned at Walpole News front page.

If that is so, why the 200,000 gallons of town water per day?

They say they will be here for up to 20 years. That comes out to 1,460,000,000 gallons of Walpole water that will not be recharging the aquifer, but going down the drain and into Boston Harbor. Round it up: 1.5 billion gallons of water.

Any comments on the reason for the water?

Can't the water be diverted back to the aquifer, or is it actually polluted?

I don't know, but I am getting a stinky feeling about this power plant all of a sudden.

[Unregistered]

Raven, 200,000 gallons a day AND a 2 million gallon water storage back up tank. Other plants have water tanks for fire suppression. This plant will need a water tank for fire suppression too - about 500,000 gallons.

[Stephen B]

Orlando Martinez, the lead engineer who did the presentation at the selectmen's meeting, said that the 200K gal. of water was for makeup and replacement water in the steam cycle, that is the circulation loop that carries the waste heat from the gas turbine, to the steam turbine (for the second generator stage) into the air-cooled condenser, then back to the gas turbine heat exchanger.

The question raised by the panel also remains: Why does a similar capacity plant in Bellingham only need approximately one tenth (20K gal.) the water that the plant proposed for us require?

As a one time electrical engineer myself (though I did computers, not power plants), I am at a bit of a loss to understand why there is so much turnover in this supposedly closed loop part of the plant system. That's a lot of water to evaporate away, leaving a lot of mineral build up and scale. The only thing I can think of is that it *ISN'T* evaporated away, but instead is exchanged with some of the water, creating some kind of concentrated, brackish water that would have to be disposed of in the sewage system that they also mentioned that they would be expanding to the Industrial road site.



On a different note, I notice that nobody has commented on all the fuel supply issues I raised earlier. Now I see this morning in the Boston Globe that the Coast Guard has denied the proponents of the Fall River LNG terminal the right to use the Taunton River, further curtailing our ability to import natural gas as US and North American nat. gas supplies continue to decline.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/10/25/coast_guard_blocks_fall_river_lng_terminal/ or http://tinyurl.com/33uqcv

Lastly, I too wish the personal attacks directed towards the town boards would stop. While I agree that some different thinking is in order on their part, I'm not so sure that they are to blame for the industrial proposals that have come before them. It's one thing for them to sit down and listen to the builders of these facilities, and something else entirely to advocate for them. I didn't see a town panel enthusiastic to build this plant at the meeting Tuesday at all and I used to live in Westwood, so I have a basis of comparison to the types of clean growth and town boards that desire them that some in Walpole aspire to.

No, I'm afraid that most of the negativity seems to be coming from townspeople rather than the town employees and board members.

Focus on the water, the health aspects, the stack, and the inavailability of cheap, stable supplies of nat gas and fuel oil in my opinion, and stop attacking everybody, please.

[The Raven]

I would assume a gas turbine powered electrical plant would generate gas-turbine noises...rumbling, whooshing, etc. I think we would want to know about noise-profiles of such plants. (Should be easy to figure out: check out bellinghams plant...on the to-do list).

How much water is used by the town of Walpole per day? What percentage of that figure is the 200,000 gallons per day mentioned by this power plant group?

[Unregistered]

Good story today in Boston Globe South about Brockton's fight against gas fired power plant.

[Unregistered]

If I read the article correctly, the power plant being proposed in Brockton, 350 mega, will use 2 million gallons of water per day, that is insane. The one in our area is requesting 200k gallons of water per day which is also insane. Do these Power Plants all have the same technology? How can one use 20k gallons per day versus the other extreme 2 millions gallons per day? How enviromentally friendly are these plants when they are using quite a bit of water? If anything we will have heat in the future but no water. I would like to know how many gallons per day were used in Walpole this summer, average is fine, out of how many gallons were available?

[Unregistered]

Mike Boynton indicated @ the recent Town Meeting $733,000 would not have significant impact per household.

I do not remember the number. Anybody ............?

This plant is talking over a million...What is the impact?

Also, Atty Brady is talking about PILOT (Payment in lieu of Taxes) which indicates to me the taxes would be more......

Finally, who is Atty Brady's client landowner or power company?

[Unregistered]

Plenty information is left to learn, but the selectmen's meeting told me a few things.

1. There's a lot we have to learn about power plants
2. The board is not in the pocket of the developer
3. If a deal's in the offing, Mike Boynton will strike a hard bargain
4. The public forum can't come soon enough. I'd like to know why Bellingham's plant uses so much less water than the proposed plant
5. This could be good for Walpole IF the water issue is addressed, the money is right and the company lives up to its word for an open process with public input

[Unregistered]

If you know that Attorney Brady is talking about a PILOT, then you know who he represents and who the landowner is.

[Stephen B.]

I think some of differences in water use between these plants is due to the fact that some of the plants use water cooling and some air cooling. That said, I have no idea what the Brockton plant is planning to use nor does it explain the differences between the Walpole and Bellingham plants, both of which are air cooled.

By the way, power generation is the *largest* user of water in the US according to Matt Simmons:

48% power generation
34% irrigation
11% commercial/residential supply

(See page 22 of this pdf/Powerpoint presentation of his: http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Peabody%20Energy.pdf )

I guess we shouldn't be surprised then at the water use of these proposed plants. It's also all the more reason to curtail our own personal energy use.

With regards to Atty. Brady: He made it clear at the selectmen's meeting that his client is CPV (the power company.)

[Unregistered]

The amount stated by Boynton was about $50.00.He called it insignificant.
Brady's client is CPV the power plant people.

[Unregistered]

Praying It's Leaving Our Town.

[Unregistered]

poster 146 said they saw a board not in the pocket of the developer. It is funny how people can see things differently.
I saw a board trying hard to appear undecided.
I saw a board that has known about this proposal for the better part of the year and by their silence have told CPV come on in.
I saw a board that knew the economic development director for the town has been working with CPV to redraft the town zoning regulations to make siting the plant a slam dunk and did nothing. Sending a STRONG signal to CPV to come on in.
I also saw a town administrator ignoring all these signs and ignoring them, either because he wants the plant or someone is telling him to keep quiet. Either way it doesn't look good.
Perhaps they are undecided but i don't think so. I have watched town government enough to read between the lines.

For all those of us who have been told for years we don't have enough water for you to water your plants or wash your car it is funny to find out we have 200,000 gallons a day to send to a power plant. Washing my car doesn't take that much but i can't wash my car?

[The Raven]

Power Plant Water and Usage Study (http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/WaterReport_Revised%20May2007.pdf)....a comparison of different existing power plants that are gas-fired.

Its a bit comprehensive. Stephen B (or anyone): Can you make any sense out of this?

[Unregistered]

we should never turn down prayer , however I would prefer active participation.
If you want to , pray for the Townies to have a change of heart and pull the property off the market and stop representing the power plant .

[Unregistered]

I am dead set against a powerplant being sited in this area. The pollution, the noise, the smokestacks, and the long term health risks all outweigh the benefits of the tax money brought in. The two most important and potentially devastating risks this project brings to us is its effect on our water supply system and the sole source aquifer that supplies it.

Think about it! The proposed powerplant will demand approx 200,000 gallons of water a day from walpole's water supply, currently each year Walpole places a temporary water use ban and or restriction due to low water supply, so where will this extra 200,000 gallons a day come from and a what price? (By the way, 200,000 gallons a day equals 73,000,000 gallons a year)!!!! How will this effect an already stressed water system? Are you comfortable with this risk?

Most importantly, is the risk to Walpole's sole source aquifer, the plant will store about 1,000,000 gallons of deisel fuel on site. The power company states they will install triple protection to protect our water. But you and I know that things can and do fail. If any type of accident does occur this would put our primary source of water at risk and possibly take this aquifer off line for multiple years. A good example of this on a smaller scale was the closure of some of Dedhams water prducing wells back in the 80's due to a relatively small chemical seepage. The well in question was closed for a very lenghty period, is this a risk you want to assume. I know I don't.

We do need a healthy bussiness tax base in Walpole! Anyone who disputes that is a fool! There are many other alternatives that walpole can explore with the owner of this site that generate revenue but without the risk to our water and to the overall safety and quality of our town.

[Unregistered]

There will be much debate about the powerplant over the upcoming weeks. I am completely against the powerplant proposal for many of the reasons stated in the previous posts i.e. safety concerns, risk to ur water supply, enviormental and health risks, noise pollution, etc..

I like many residents know that in order to keep a fine town like ours operating that it costs a lot of money. We also know that our business tax base is not as big as it needs to be. We need more tax revenue to meet increasing demands that come in each year.

But step back a bit! Why did you chose to live in walpole? Th reasons are personal and numerous but they all lead back to a small core of basic premises about walpole. We enjoy a great school system, we have an excellent public safety system, the town is a beautiful, with many forests and open spaces, the people who live here are great, and we are close to highways, cities, stores etc..

In short most of us chose to live here because it is a good and decent small town to grow old in. with this in mind why would we want to give this up? why would we want to turn this town into a city or an urban industrial center. The projects on line like the Powerplant will bring changes into the town that pose high risk and threat for little gain to the town that you pay near and dear to live in.

There are other alternative to raise the business tax rate, there are other business endeavors looking to come into twon that pose far less risk to all of us for a greater overall gain.

I urge each and everyone of you to think this through clearly. Then Join in and demand more of your town goverment and its economic development team, raise your expectations, we can and should do better than this....

[Unregistered]

Walpole folks at town hall are always at the ready to say enough is not enough.
Here are some facts:
the taxpayers support the town to the tune of 1,200,000 per week minimum
we had a surplus in the school budget ( remember the request for the override )sufficient to hire 12 new teachers.
we have a stabilization fund with 2+ million in it.
we have 3+Million in free cash.
we found 750,000 and the town meeting would not return it to the people and the town administrator callied it insignificant
Walpole does not need the blood money from a power plant

[Unregistered]

Has anyone heard when the public forum is going to be held ?
Is it true that the power plant folks have agreed to no have any town board meetings until such time? I noticed they are at the conservation committee for wetlands deliniation ( ?)
Anyone?

[Unregistered]

The Conservation Commission Hearing was continued intil November 14.

[Unregistered]

If you think the Con Com can enforce wetland delineations go look at the 40B project by Viano and try to find the wetlands.
All you will find is stuff burried , destroyed,rocks , boulders and blasting a very dangerous hill .
Who is looking out for us? NOT THE CON COM!!Why should we trust them on Industrial road

[Unregistered]

Poster #159 - Get a Grip. You obviously have a serious axe to grind with the ConCom and the 40B project on Oak Street. You must be a direct abutter NIMBY who tried to fight this project and lost.

But is seems you now blame everything on this project: Global warming? - Viano’s 40B project; the genocide in Darfur? - the 40B project; Oil at $100 per barrel? - What else, the 40B project!!!.
Good thing the Red Sox didn’t lose the world series.

Seriously, you post to every thread on Walpole.org, and for every complaint you have against every Board and Committee in town (and I think you complain about all of them), you use this housing project of an example of what an inept or crooked government we have. ConCom (I have heard this committee is overly strict in its reading of wetlands law, if anything), Zoning Board, Selectmen, Housing Authority - they are all somehow out to get you by letting this project go through. Now you are tying it to the power plant issue?!

Now I don’t know from 40B’s, and maybe you have a legitimate beef. It just seems like you take a shot at the project and every board in town, every chance you get.

[Unregistered]

Why don’t Americans, the biggest polluters on the planet, wake up to climate change?
How can we as concerned individuals help raise public awareness?
I imagine there are a host of factors that contribute towards apathy, including geographic location and variation in climate, however we may be missing the forest for the trees. Education seems to be the key.
Until our schools teach about climate change, share the fears of leading scientists, and start to create an understanding of how we can each be part of the greater solution, I am afraid we have no hope of changing our rather bleak future.
I am optimistic, if only because the alternative is so disempowering.
Yet as someone who has spent his career in far-flung regions, and watched them disappear under the might of “development” I grieve for the young people who inherit the planet from us. We are squandering our most important resource…our future. What will it take to awaken our sleeping people?

[Unregistered]

Reading "no love for con com" reminds me of something I have been guilty of in the past, and something that all of us are guilty of from time to time. Its sitting back thinking that someone else will fight our battles, or take care of our concerns. As time goes on you learn that no one really will. You need to get out, get up and take action! Write a letter, talk to your neighbors, call town officials and state reps, go to meetings and speak out. I was happy to sit back and complain, but soon realized that it went no where.

I like to believe that local government is not corrupt or in the pocket of any one. They are a group of paid and unpaid citizens who have chosen to get involved with their town. Sometimes they bring their own views and values into decision making, sometimes they are just doing what they think we want. But, if we don't tell them explicitly what we want they may not know exactly what we want.

In the case of the powerplant issue, we have to get the word out loud and clear and quickly! Be part of the group that gets up and takes action speak out! Let your officials know how you feel> Tell them that you do not want a business coming in that will ruin the character of the town. Tell them that you are holding each one of them responsible to fight this issue, to protect the town, its people, and its safety. Demand that they stand up and demonstrate that they are working on this issue, that they will represent you and your concerns.

If we don't we will have to live with this mess for a very very long time.

[Unregistered]

I am wondering is it me am I off base? We have a major problem racing towards us, yes racing towards us! The proposed powerplant is coming at us fast! Yet we seem almost silent and complacent. Yes, there is the usual small band of dedicated citizens who are working at bringing this issue to the forefront. But this issue, the powerplant and all the hazards it poses to us requires a huge force to even have a chance to defeat it. The powerplant will pose risks to our health ,safety, home value, town value, and could threaten our towns water wells rendering them contaminated! Is this ok? I think not.

But still silence surround us. Where are the voices, concern, anger, action! Get involved put up a lawn sign, start up a petition, call your selectmen, write a letter to the editor of your favorite station, get stirred up. But do now before our time to act has past.

[Unregistered]

About 5,600 folks have viewed the power plant subject as presented on this thread.
Let's say that 3,000 views are from those who post something and want to keep up with the discussion.
Let's also say that that 1,000 views are from the people who propose the power plant and want to get a sense of the "people's " thinking.
This leaves 1,600 of you who need to exhibit much more of an activist position and do all that the previous user recomends:
Send emails
Send letters
Make phone calls
Talk to your neighbors
Remind the folks at Town Hall they work for you
Attend meetings
Gather information
After you do all this be ready to do it again and again if it goes to the state .
If you do not do this , the OUTRAGEOUS will occur and you will live with a power plant.

[Unregistered]

Steam seriously injured three workers at the Salem power plant:

http://www.salemnews.com/breakingnews/local_story_310123713.html

[Unregistered]

Seriously injured....3 died! Whats next for this town.

[Unregistered]

What's next? Selectmen who want to schedule an Open Forum to discuss the power plant the Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday after Thanksgiving.

[Unregistered]

Maybe we should have it on Thanksgiving! Wait how about Christmas.
Oh vey

[Unregistered]

To schedule a "public forum" for the nights right after thanksgiving shows one thing for sure. The selectman don't want to deal the those pesky citizens of this town.
There is a reason they haven't done anything to stop this plant and have infact invited the powerplant in by having town officials work with them to site the plant in town. They simply want money. The citizens said no to the over ride last winter and the selectmen are still angry about it. They want money and will sell this town out for the cash.
I am a little surprised they didn't pick wed November 21 for the meeting.

The people of this town need to wake up for if the selectmen have their way you certainly will be waking up to the smell of fumes from the powerplant in the future.

[Unregistered]

Can anyone , anyone, tell us why we have not heard a NO POWER PLANT from the selectman?At least we know two ,possibly three want it one can't vote and one against.
Come on people put their feet to the fire and save your town from these development at any cost selectmen . If they can't do it elect someone who can!!

[Unregistered]

How appropriate that the selectman want to hold the forum around Thanksgiving. A turkey proposal being served up to the public a day or two before turkey day. Let's remember who's for this horrible power plant when the next election takes place.

[Unregistered]

Hold on to your undershorts, folks. Guys die at steam plants sometimes. Especially old steam plants. "That's how it goes". Guys have died here in town at some of the now-gone factories (crushed by huge rolls of paper for example--I seem to recall a story of a guy losing his head.. ). Part of life. Like coal mining. The big issue with this power plant is the amount of 'our water' they are going to use to make 'our electricity'. That's right. All electricity gets used by everyone... We need new power plants as is obvious because the old ones are bursting apart at the seams and killing workers (Salem). These guys (CPV) are driven to make money, not lose money by having a plant down. The pollution this plant will generate is minimal. The noise---not sure. The stacks---so what...we've had stacks here (I wish the old plants were back) and still do. (H&V). I'm concerned only about the water usage issue. Hard to wrap that one around my head because the details are sketchy. I don't like guys making moola off of our wa-wa.. Noise? That 'trundling' noise early AM often is not in your head...those are freight trains making up 'sets' at the tracks at Walpole Center. We have noise---!

[Unregistered]

In response to post 172, so we should continue to live with deaths at these types of businesses? "That's how it goes", "Part of Life??" You have probably lived under the smokestacks far too long and perhaps the industrial pollution of days gone by, has polluted your thinking. If you so miss the smokestack industry here in Town, then I offer you the following suggestion; go live in Chelsea or Everett. You'll love it there!

[Unregistered]

We don't own the land that his power plant is on...and the owners have the right to sell it.

The power plant can override the town, and get state approval for siting.

Who owns the water they want to use, I ask? I say it is the people of Walpole.

Suggestion: Look into either denying them the water (after all, its not a residence), or:

Charging them a ton of money per gallon.

Its our water, right??

[Unregistered]

I want the Pony Express to deliver my mail again. I want to hitch up my horse on Main Street. I want coal and ice delivered to my house again.

[Unregistered]

To get an idea of what 200,000 gallons of water a day mean, take your last 4 water bills (so it covers approximately a full year to cover summer and winter usage), total the amount in the Usage column. This amount is in cubic feet, there are approximately 7.5 gallons per cubic foot, so multiply the number of cubic feet you used by 7.5 and you'll have the number of gallons of water your house used in roughly a year. Divide this number by the number of days represented by those 4 water bills (may be a bit under or over 365 days since the meters are read exactly on the same day each year). This will give you the number of gallons your house uses in a day. Now compare this to the projected 200,000 gallons per day that the power plant will use and you will be able to get an idea of the impact on our water system. (for my house, the impact of the power plant's water usage is 1,900 new 2 person homes - both of us work so, our water usage is probably quite a bit less than the average home).

[Unregistered]

Let's ride the wave instead of a smokestack:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1043925

[Unregistered]

175 Wake up! this is not a nimby issue or just people whining! All of us understand we need a strong business base in walpole. but we done have the right to chose the things that have the least negative impact on the town. An office building, storeage unit, business headquarter, etc..would all generate the smae tax base with out putting our water, and air at such a great risk. think it through, then join the rest of the towns resident and demand a better choice, you have the ability.

[Unregistered]

I am glad your taking a stand against the plant. Unfortunately we don't technically own the water. We can be ordered to supply them with water if they get into the town. But we do have the legal right to protect our water. There are legal precedents already tested to show that we can challenge an entity such as the plant and maybe even defeat them, it does take tremendous work and resources that none of us possess alone. So we all need to stay together and focused! I urge all of you to do the following as good first steps (these steps should be done professionally and not in a personal or demeaning way):

1. call your selectmen, waterand sewer commissioners, water dept., town administrator, health commission, conservation dept (all at town hall) demand to know their position on the powerplant. Then let them know yours and what you expect from them.

2. call your local state rep and senator, do the same let them know you want their support in not allowing the powerplant in walpole, tell them your concern about the risk to our water supply, our air, and our overall safety.

3. call attorney james brady, he represents the powerplant company, tell him your concerns and worries about the powerplant ask him to withdraw his service from this company.

4. call the lorusso company, ask them to reconsider selling their property tp the powerplant company, there are other less risky companies out there.

5. attend the upcoming consercation committee and selectmans meetings coming up, there is true strength in numbers.

6. there will be an information meeting with the town and the powerplant company at the end of november coming up. You will be allowed to ask questions and speak. Please come! it will make a difference if we stand up in great numbers here we will make a solid impact!


I know this is a lot of work but its the only way we stand a chance, we all deserve better than what this powerplant will bring. the property the plant would go on is not ours but the town is! stand up and fight for what you pay dearly for in taxes each year....See you at the meeting.....

[Unregistered]

At a recent selectmans meeting where there was a presentation on a proposed powerplant, towards the end of the meeting one of the selectman lectured a group of residents opposing the powerplant not to take the powerplant proposal as a personal attack on the town. He went on to say that he had gotten several calls from angry residents complaining about the powerplant. He went on to say again don't take this personnally, don't engage in negative activity, etc..

I beg to differ with him. I agree we should not lie or slander anyone but, this is a personal issue! the Competetive Ventures Company-the powerplants parent company made a PERSONAL choice to propose a plant in walpole. The Lorusso company made a PERSONAL choice to offer their land for sale to this company! James Brady the attorney for the powerplant made a PERSONAL choice to represent this company and try to sell it to all of you.

I am making a PERSONAL choice to fight this proposed powerplant, and I do take it PERSONALLY! This plant, if it comes will present a great risk to our drinking water, it will shower our breathing air with chemicals and exhaust each day, it will bring millions, yes millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals into our town, as well as consume about 200,000 gallons of our water each and every day.

I urge each and every one of you to make a PERSONAL choice and fight this powerplant proposal............

[Unregistered]

I for one am getting tired of being reprimanded by the selectman at these meetings.
They are suppose to represent us, not the other way around,
It is like the dog wagging the tail.
I need them to come out and tell us their stand on this disaster.
Their silence speaks volumes!

[Unregistered]

OK - there are obvious "shills" on this site such as "why not, lower taxes comes with it".

We can waste our time and be disorganized or we can simply all get the word out - write our selectmen (each and everyone of them) and write the town manager. All this info is on our town website.

Write them a letter and tell them that you want the town to vote on it. Registered voters can then speak out with a "yes we want this type of thing" or "no we don't".

I will be honest, a long time ago before my family moved here the prison got "sold" (really forced) on the town. Now it is a provider of funds when it seems to have them. The town has become dependent upon them, but it does come with a price. I'm sure everyone has heard it "Oh, Walpole, isn't there a prison there?".

Would this help our quality of life here? That is the most important question. The chemical dabate should clearly say - if there is a debate, then there is a risk.

Tax debate - ok perhaps we can be bought off. BUT as most residents want to know, how does this translate into a better education for our kids?

Town administration debate - it sure would be a lot easier to make ends meet with a few million extra each year. Wouldn't that be fun.

Lastly - the wishes of the townspeople. If the selectmen and the town adminstration does not want to listen to the people, then the people should make it clear. We will find administration that will listen to what the townspeople want.

Now - actions that can be taken. Aforementioned, write a letter, don't be lazy. Do it today. Second, contact the conservation law foundation. There is a sole source aquifer (i.e. drinking water) for our town and many around us. It is a unique resource that can not be fixed if ruined. Also, if tainted, we will have another Woburn or the salem power plant (rent erin brokovich if you wan to know more).

Anything else? Goto the town meetings and bring big signs with your feelings on them.

Oh - and don't forget to write the congressman - Lynch is real responsive to the people's needs here and an excellent politician.

As this shapes up to be a townspeople versus its government - then we should take off the gloves, fight what the people want and then remove the people in the governement who obviously do not want to listen to what people want here.

[Unregistered]

For the life of me, I can never understand why people think having the maximum security prison for the state of Mass. here in Walpole. What the heck is the big deal? its a huge wall, up in the woods at the nether-nether-land end of town. It has never inconvenienced me. What do you want...Windsor Castle for cripes sake?

Put a prison up on LoRusso's land....we probably would get more bang-for-our-buck out of a prison, and it would be state of the art.

[Unregistered]

There will be no tax $$$ from the plant.
It will be a pilot program aka 'payment in leu of taxes'

This also means that if the plant comes up with some concocted story that it didn't make it $$$ goal ... we get nothing!
It has happen at other sites.

[Unregistered]

How strong is the case to prevent storage of 2 million gallons of fuel oil at the proposed site because it is in an aquifer area?

The Section 10 of the Walpole Zoning bylaws (Water Resource Protection Overlay District) prohibit the "Storage of liquid hazardous materials, as defined in M.G.L. c. 21E, and/or liquid petroleum products unless such storage is: a) above ground level, and; b) on an impervious surface, and c) either d) in container(s) or above ground tank(s) within a building or; (i) outdoors in covered container(s) or above ground tank(s) in an area that has a containment system designed and operated to hold either 10% of the total possible storage capacity of all containers, or 110% of the largest container's storage capacity, whichever is greater;

The Mass. DEP's Model Groundwater Protection District Bylaw or Ordinance has almost the exact same wording.

Our bylaw and the state's model bylaw seem to indicate that the method the developer of the power plant is proposing to store it's back fuel supply is acceptable in a aquifer area.

[Unregistered]

Here's a way to think about this. The town gets tax revenue from businesses but the tax revenue doesn't lower our tax bill. My tax bill has gotten higher steadily over the past 15 years even though businesses have come to town. The power plant is NOT going to lower your tax bill.

[Unregistered]

If you really want to make this power plant go away, then go to an "Open Forum" of the selectmen's meeting in December. They schedule 15 minutes when citizens can actually speak on the topic of their choice. Ask each selectman where they stand on the power plant. A simple, Yes I support the power plant or No, I do not support the power plant. This question is long overdue since officials met with the power plant company last January.

You might want to ask each one if they would support the plant if there were no tax revenue involved.

Don't put up with having a public forum one or two days after Thanksgiving weekend or during December when people are busy. The date should accomodate the people who live in the town not the power plant company.

[Unregistered]

On and on the blather goes. "We get nothing." A plant will "ruin" our quality of life. It's a "conspiracy" by our town fathers to screw us. The sky is falling!!!!

The drivel posted on this thread would be humorous, if the issue at hand were not so serious.

For the first time in a long time, Walpole has a chance to realize the kind of revenue stream that prevents override battles and provides ongoing funds for police, fire and schools. This number will easily be in excess of $2 million per year - more than twice the amount we get from any other taxpayer. The offset is placing a plant in an industrial area a half mile away from the nearest neighborhood. Residents will not hear the plant, smell the plant and may well not see the plant.

The issues we must truly address are protection of air quality, water use and sewage impacts. I am convinced that the aquifer can be protected (much more protection than we will ever have with any kind of development which uses hazardous material in its daily operation.) I am also convinced that the proposed use is appropriate for the site, including the erection of stacks. I hope the Town and Mr. Boynton hone in on the three real impacts and ignore the hot air surrounding the rest.

One issue continues to concern me. Nobody I know of in town has the expertise to address the air quality impacts. I am also unclear about the "up to 200,000" gallons of water per day issue. Will it be more or less?

I hope the town considers hiring qualified engineers to provide us with unbiased information before we are asked to make a decision. I certainly hope they don't rely on the rabble rousers on this bulletin board for expertise.

[Unregistered]

I am convinced that the aquifer can be protected (much more protection than we will ever have with any kind of development which uses hazardous material in its daily operation.)

This proposed power plant will most likely use (in their daily operation) and store large quantities of an acid (Sulfuric Acid) and a caustic solution (Sodium Hydroxide) to correct the pH of the water it intends to discharge to within acceptable limits set forth in a wastewater discharge permit. There will also most likely be boiler chemicals stored on site to combat boiler feedwater impurities. Are you convinced that the aquifer can be protected more by a power plant because you asked CPV and they told you that neither these nor similar chemicals would be used? Please share with us why you are convinced.

[Unregistered]

The Code of Federal Regulations
Title 40: Protection of Environment
PART 112—OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION
Subpart A—Applicability, Definitions, and General Requirements for All Facilities and All Types of Oils

Browse Previous
§ 112.7 General requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans.

If you are the owner or operator of a facility subject to this part you must prepare a Plan in accordance with good engineering practices. The Plan must have the full approval of management at a level of authority to commit the necessary resources to fully implement the Plan. You must prepare the Plan in writing. If you do not follow the sequence specified in this section for the Plan, you must prepare an equivalent Plan acceptable to the Regional Administrator that meets all of the applicable requirements listed in this part, and you must supplement it with a section cross-referencing the location of requirements listed in this part and the equivalent requirements in the other prevention plan. If the Plan calls for additional facilities or procedures, methods, or equipment not yet fully operational, you must discuss these items in separate paragraphs, and must explain separately the details of installation and operational start-up. As detailed elsewhere in this section, you must also:

(a)(1) Include a discussion of your facility's conformance with the requirements listed in this part.

(2) Comply with all applicable requirements listed in this part. Except as provided in §112.6, your Plan may deviate from the requirements in paragraphs (g), (h)(2) and (3), and (i) of this section and the requirements in subparts B and C of this part, except the secondary containment requirements in paragraphs (c) and (h)(1) of this section, and §§112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2), and 112.12(c)(11), where applicable to a specific facility, if you provide equivalent environmental protection by some other means of spill prevention, control, or countermeasure. Where your Plan does not conform to the applicable requirements in paragraphs (g), (h)(2) and (3), and (i) of this section, or the requirements of subparts B and C of this part, except the secondary containment requirements in paragraph (c) and (h)(1) of this section, and §§112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2), and 112.12(c)(11), you must state the reasons for nonconformance in your Plan and describe in detail alternate methods and how you will achieve equivalent environmental protection. If the Regional Administrator determines that the measures described in your Plan do not provide equivalent environmental protection, he may require that you amend your Plan, following the procedures in §112.4(d) and (e).

(3) Describe in your Plan the physical layout of the facility and include a facility diagram, which must mark the location and contents of each container. The facility diagram must include completely buried tanks that are otherwise exempted from the requirements of this part under §112.1(d)(4). The facility diagram must also include all transfer stations and connecting pipes. You must also address in your Plan:

(i) The type of oil in each container and its storage capacity;

(ii) Discharge prevention measures including procedures for routine handling of products (loading, unloading, and facility transfers, etc.);

(iii) Discharge or drainage controls such as secondary containment around containers and other structures, equipment, and procedures for the control of a discharge;

(iv) Countermeasures for discharge discovery, response, and cleanup (both the facility's capability and those that might be required of a contractor);

(v) Methods of disposal of recovered materials in accordance with applicable legal requirements; and

(vi) Contact list and phone numbers for the facility response coordinator, National Response Center, cleanup contractors with whom you have an agreement for response, and all appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies who must be contacted in case of a discharge as described in §112.1(b).

(4) Unless you have submitted a response plan under §112.20, provide information and procedures in your Plan to enable a person reporting a discharge as described in §112.1(b) to relate information on the exact address or location and phone number of the facility; the date and time of the discharge, the type of material discharged; estimates of the total quantity discharged; estimates of the quantity discharged as described in §112.1(b); the source of the discharge; a description of all affected media; the cause of the discharge; any damages or injuries caused by the discharge; actions being used to stop, remove, and mitigate the effects of the discharge; whether an evacuation may be needed; and, the names of individuals and/or organizations who have also been contacted.

(5) Unless you have submitted a response plan under §112.20, organize portions of the Plan describing procedures you will use when a discharge occurs in a way that will make them readily usable in an emergency, and include appropriate supporting material as appendices.

(b) Where experience indicates a reasonable potential for equipment failure (such as loading or unloading equipment, tank overflow, rupture, or leakage, or any other equipment known to be a source of a discharge), include in your Plan a prediction of the direction, rate of flow, and total quantity of oil which could be discharged from the facility as a result of each type of major equipment failure.

(c) Provide appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures or equipment to prevent a discharge as described in §112.1(b), except as provided in paragraph (k) of this section for qualified oil-filled operational equipment. The entire containment system, including walls and floor, must be capable of containing oil and must be constructed so that any discharge from a primary containment system, such as a tank or pipe, will not escape the containment system before cleanup occurs. At a minimum, you must use one of the following prevention systems or its equivalent:

(1) For onshore facilities:

(i) Dikes, berms, or retaining walls sufficiently impervious to contain oil;

(ii) Curbing;

(iii) Culverting, gutters, or other drainage systems;

(iv) Weirs, booms, or other barriers;

(v) Spill diversion ponds;

(vi) Retention ponds; or

(vii) Sorbent materials.

(2) For offshore facilities:

(i) Curbing or drip pans; or

[Unregistered]

(ii) Sumps and collection systems.

(d) Provided your Plan is certified by a licensed Professional Engineer under §112.3(d), or, in the case of a qualified facility that meets the criteria in §112.3(g), the relevant sections of your Plan are certified by a licensed Professional Engineer under §112.6(d), if you determine that the installation of any of the structures or pieces of equipment listed in paragraphs (c) and (h)(1) of this section, and §§112.8(c)(2), 112.8(c)(11), 112.9(c)(2), 112.10(c), 112.12(c)(2), and 112.12(c)(11) to prevent a discharge as described in §112.1(b) from any onshore or offshore facility is not practicable, you must clearly explain in your Plan why such measures are not practicable; for bulk storage containers, conduct both periodic integrity testing of the containers and periodic integrity and leak testing of the valves and piping; and, unless you have submitted a response plan under §112.20, provide in your Plan the following:

(1) An oil spill contingency plan following the provisions of part 109 of this chapter.

(2) A written commitment of manpower, equipment, and materials required to expeditiously control and remove any quantity of oil discharged that may be harmful.

(e) Inspections, tests, and records. Conduct inspections and tests required by this part in accordance with written procedures that you or the certifying engineer develop for the facility. You must keep these written procedures and a record of the inspections and tests, signed by the appropriate supervisor or inspector, with the SPCC Plan for a period of three years. Records of inspections and tests kept under usual and customary business practices will suffice for purposes of this paragraph.

(f) Personnel, training, and discharge prevention procedures. (1) At a minimum, train your oil-handling personnel in the operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent discharges; discharge procedure protocols; applicable pollution control laws, rules, and regulations; general facility operations; and, the contents of the facility SPCC Plan.

(2) Designate a person at each applicable facility who is accountable for discharge prevention and who reports to facility management.

(3) Schedule and conduct discharge prevention briefings for your oil-handling personnel at least once a year to assure adequate understanding of the SPCC Plan for that facility. Such briefings must highlight and describe known discharges as described in §112.1(b) or failures, malfunctioning components, and any recently developed precautionary measures.

(g) Security (excluding oil production facilities). (1) Fully fence each facility handling, processing, or storing oil, and lock and/or guard entrance gates when the facility is not in production or is unattended.

(2) Ensure that the master flow and drain valves and any other valves permitting direct outward flow of the container's contents to the surface have adequate security measures so that they remain in the closed position when in non-operating or non-standby status.

(3) Lock the starter control on each oil pump in the “off” position and locate it at a site accessible only to authorized personnel when the pump is in a non-operating or non-standby status.

(4) Securely cap or blank-flange the loading/unloading connections of oil pipelines or facility piping when not in service or when in standby service for an extended time. This security practice also applies to piping that is emptied of liquid content either by draining or by inert gas pressure.

(5) Provide facility lighting commensurate with the type and location of the facility that will assist in the:

(i) Discovery of discharges occurring during hours of darkness, both by operating personnel, if present, and by non-operating personnel (the general public, local police, etc.); and

(ii) Prevention of discharges occurring through acts of vandalism.

(h) Facility tank car and tank truck loading/unloading rack (excluding offshore facilities). (1) Where loading/unloading area drainage does not flow into a catchment basin or treatment facility designed to handle discharges, use a quick drainage system for tank car or tank truck loading and unloading areas. You must design any containment system to hold at least the maximum capacity of any single compartment of a tank car or tank truck loaded or unloaded at the facility.

(2) Provide an interlocked warning light or physical barrier system, warning signs, wheel chocks, or vehicle break interlock system in loading/unloading areas to prevent vehicles from departing before complete disconnection of flexible or fixed oil transfer lines.

(3) Prior to filling and departure of any tank car or tank truck, closely inspect for discharges the lowermost drain and all outlets of such vehicles, and if necessary, ensure that they are tightened, adjusted, or replaced to prevent liquid discharge while in transit.

(i) If a field-constructed aboveground container undergoes a repair, alteration, reconstruction, or a change in service that might affect the risk of a discharge or failure due to brittle fracture or other catastrophe, or has discharged oil or failed due to brittle fracture failure or other catastrophe, evaluate the container for risk of discharge or failure due to brittle fracture or other catastrophe, and as necessary, take appropriate action.

(j) In addition to the minimal prevention standards listed under this section, include in your Plan a complete discussion of conformance with the applicable requirements and other effective discharge prevention and containment procedures listed in this part or any applicable more stringent State rules, regulations, and guidelines.

(k) Qualified Oil-filled Operational Equipment. The owner or operator of a facility with oil-filled operational equipment that meets the qualification criteria in paragraph (k)(1) of this sub-section may choose to implement for this qualified oil-filled operational equipment the alternate requirements as described in paragraph (k)(2) of this sub-section in lieu of general secondary containment required in paragraph (c) of this section.

(1) Qualification Criteria—Reportable Discharge History: The owner or operator of a facility that has had no single discharge as described in §112.1(b) from any oil-filled operational equipment exceeding 1,000 U.S. gallons or no two discharges as described in §112.1(b) from any oil-filled operational equipment each exceeding 42 U.S. gallons within any twelve month period in the three years prior to the SPCC Plan certification date, or since becoming subject to this part if the facility has been in operation for less than three years (other than oil discharges as described in §112.1(b) that are the result of natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism); and

(2) Alternative Requirements to General Secondary Containment. If secondary containment is not provided for qualified oil-filled operational equipment pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, the owner or operator of a facility with qualified oil-filled operational equipment must:

(i) Establish and document the facility procedures for inspections or a monitoring program to detect equipment failure and/or a discharge; and

(ii) Unless you have submitted a response plan under §112.20, provide in your Plan the following:

(A) An oil spill contingency plan following the provisions of part 109 of this chapter.

(B) A written commitment of manpower, equipment, and materials required to expeditiously control and remove any quantity of oil discharged that may be harmful.

[67 FR 47140, July 17, 2002, as amended at 71 FR 77292, Dec. 26, 2006]

[Unregistered]

From US EPA Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program website:

"Whenever feasible, EPA coordinates the review of proposed projects with other EPA offices and with other federal, state or local agencies that have a responsibility for ground water quality protection. This coordination helps EPA to understand local hydrogeologic conditions and specific project design concerns, and it ensures that the SSA protection measures enhance and support existing ground water protection efforts."

[Unregistered]

we see a lot of supposed facts, but the anonymous nature of the presentation makes me wonder: who is this person? I hope this person has the guts to stand up in a crowd and say the same things (because I actually think some of us agree with him).

[Unregistered]

I bet you could also cut and paste several reasons why the Titanic was considered unsinkable, and how the Exxon Valdez employed state of the art spill protection.

[Unregistered]

Storing so much oil on our aquifer is just plain stupid. A power plant there is a bad idea even before you consider the constant pollution from the stacks! We shouldn't be wasting town money to turn on the lights at the high school to continue to discuss this.

[Unregistered]

Hey poster 188. the schools, police, and fire are adequately funded. it is the same rabble rousers who get everybody whipped up in to a frenzy year in and year out about overrides only to find out that funds for schools are avilable after the fact.

[Unregistered]

Average tax bill for single family home in town:

FY 2007 $4,903
FY 2006 $4,727
FY 2005 $4,499
FY 2004 $4,275
FY 2003 $3,981
FY 2002 $3,309

People who say "we have the money" have more than me. Maybe they can afford the never-ending tax increases. I'd rather a business pay them.

[Unregistered]

Maybe we can end the $155 per sport fee. That would be nice.

[Unregistered]

I suggest to any of you who support living by this horror show to please come and buy my house where you can enjoy two 250 ft. smokestacks going 24 hours a day, the noise of the plant hum and the potential that the whole thing will blow up. Lovely.

You will be paying my tax abatement when my property value plummets, you all will pay for these lovely residential neighbors of mine as well. This is a 16 acre plant sandwiched into a 20 acre site with 16,000 gallons of ammonia along with the diesel and various other chemicals. It only employs 25 people, per Orlando the Engineer for the plant and so there won't be much business for the Downtown eateries or anyone else. It won't even bring any real employment to the town.

The sites others have suggested you view are on, at the very least 65 acres of land. I think Bellingham is on 120 acres, so when Mr. Boynton says he lives near the plant there, remember he is well away from the plant, whereas my neighbors & I will be within a 1/2 mile.

Another fun fact is that the plant only really has a shelf life of 20 to possibly 30 years and then it will have to be over hauled or just shut down and deserted in all it's glory, just like Bird machine. Another toxic waste eyesore, just why we all moved to Walpole in the first place.

And let's talk about all the lovely tax money. Well they have the PILOT program which has been covered in previous posts, but putting this in context, how much money do you think the town of Salem is going to get from their power plant for this last quarter and next year now that their plant is shut down and the law suits from the families to come. Isn't Woonsocket still suing their power plant with the PILOT program for their tax money. Well we can just keep the town lawyers busy and we'll have an over ride to pay them. Lovely.

We moved into this town because it was lovely and had good schools, which it does and it has a lot of people who love it, why we want to turn it into Chelsea or Brockton is beyond me. What am I saying, Chelsea and Brockton are fighting to keep the power companies out now guess we can become an industrial backwater and pollute our ground water even further no problem. The water doesn't taste that good anyway and who really cares about wildlife and asthma and cancer from pollution.

Like I said you can always move around here if you want the power plant, there will be plenty of us who will be ready to sell, just think you'll get an abatement on your taxes and everything.

[Louise]

Beautiful! You have put a ‘face’ on the ramifications of having a power plant in town.
Your posting should also go to the Walpole times where others can realize what these means to those who are in proximity.
Walpole ahs been called the ‘friendly’ town. I ask how friendly is it to subject your neighbors to such a dire situation?

:)
I do not live near the proposed site and I believe that it will effect the lives of our neighbors in that area, therefore it will affect the heart of Walpole.

Let our selectmen know that a power plant is bad business for Walpole

[INFORMED]

Why wouldn't we want it

The reasons are pretty simple...environmental and safety are the prime reasons.

Remember this plant is proposed < 1/2 mile Northwest of Boyden School. Also, it's also located adjacent to soon to 36" wide gas lines. Not to mentioned the high-tension power lines < 1/4 mile away.

Take a look at the Salem explosion that killed 3 people and people I spoke to about boilers etc that shouldn't happen. Guess what accidents happens and this is not your Grandfather's Toy.

Please get informed before you think that Revenue is the only reason for this endeavor.

[Unregistered]

town officials in Brockton oppose a power plant....town officials in Chelsea oppose a power plant and the power plant company withdraws....town officials in walpole ???????????????

[Unregistered]

from Walpole News, a quote from an EDC meeting of 6/12/07:

Selectman Caron said that while a power plant would have high revenue
impact, the idea is “not popular” and would have negative environmental
consequences. (One estimate is that a plant like the one CPV envisions would
bring a town $2 million a year.)

[Brown Bear Returns]

Let's stay focused in this discussion and avoid emotional reactions. I would like to respond to the person who suggested that the proposed power plant would become a toxic waste site. (This is not Love Canal.) If for some reason the plant were to be shut down in 20 years, what sort of "toxic" site would we have? A natural gas plant burns natural gas. C(H)4 (carbon with 4 hydrogen atoms) converts to C02 plus H20. What toxins would be released into the ground? What sort of "pollution" would the stacks "spew"? I am not a biologist, but I did learn that trees and other plants depend on CO2 and H20.
If you want to have a cogent discussion, focus on zoning issues, visuals and property values. These are real factors about which to be concerned. Credibility in reasonable discussion suffers when hysteria is presented as factual science.

[Unregistered]

Government never takes a hit , the taxpayer always does.
Government will always let expenses rise above income ( read your tax $$ ),like pigs at an always full trough. Look at our new GUV , he gives everything away , spends like crazy and is shocked to hear that we will be 1.3 BILLION short. Any guess who will make up the shortfall?
Walpole would eat through any $$$$ from the power plant in months and still ask for more ( read overrides )because enough is never enough .Wittness the extra $$ that the Siemens expansion brought to Walpole, GONE IN A BLINK!!!
Instead of waking up and smelling the roses , you will wake up and smell the power plant ,all assuming you can breath in the first place.
I know the extra $$$ can go towards GAS MASKS!!
WAKE UP WALPOLE

[Unregistered]

I am emphatically against this power plant. To those who advocate it, represent CPV and to the land owner, you're a disgrace for putting this Town, once again, in a position of defense against another deplorable business venture. Accountability lies directly with some members of the Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator who support this endeavor by allowing this process to continue. No guts no glory to say NO?

Now, the Board of Selectmen has decided to hold the Public Forum on November 27th. Keep in mind this meeting was never officially voted on. It was orchestrated by some members of the BOS. How convenient for the BOS, the CPV and their representatives in Town to hold a meeting at such an inconvenient time. What does that tell you? Then to have the notice of the meeting to be "omitted" from the the Times yesterday. Gee, "I'm sorry" and next week is Thanksgiving and of course we're all going to sit down and read the TIMES. This is a travesty and people at this Town Forum meeting should let them know and not be intimidated by any member of the BOS if they attempt to talk us down like bad children. This is our meeting and our tax dollars are paying for it. It's time to tell CPV, the Selectmen and their representatives in Town to deep six this proposal because the battle has only begun.

It's time to clean house of these power plan supporters, employees and volunteers.

[Louise]

I also am upset about the day our illustrious leaders have chosen for this forum.
I don’t believe for one moment that it isn’t intentional.
If you say this to them, they will say they are completely innocent!?
And I am:
a. paranoid
b. crazy
c. a slanderer

Well, I am none of the above.
This is my home and I will fight to protect it.
:cool:I don’t give a horse’s ‘you know what’ concerning walking on eggs with the powers to be.
A concerned friend mentioned to me that when they asked ‘why they selectmen and administrator were not taking a public stand?’, they were told that their hands are ‘tied for legal reasons’.
This is ludicrous! What law? Did we abandon the constitution?

I now proudly and officially declare myself a “NIMBY’, ‘Vocal Minority”, ‘Naysayer’ or any other stones they can throw my way.

The gloves are off.

[Unregistered]

All the selectmen have to do is reschedule the public forum to another time that doesn't coincide with a holiday. That's all. They can say that there hasn't been enough notice because there was no mention in yesterday's Times and they will look like they actually care about the people who live here. How hard is that? Instead they dig their heels in. What is the rush?

[Unregistered]

To Louise,

Consider yourseld proud to have the courage and decency to stand up for your town and to preserve its charm and character. All I can think of is the movie, A Wonderful Life, and George Bailey looking at Walpole and thinking what it could have been like if concerned residents hadn't put their blood, sweat, and tears into fighting a sludge landfill, a cogenerator in East Walpole, a million gallon propane farm, a regional trash transfer station, the excavation and grinding of waste at the old Bird landfill off Norfolk Street, the plan to cap Goldies with hundreds of thousand of towns of construction and demolition debris by a company with a controversial history, the pollution at Bird Machine, and now the power plant. If so many residents didn't have the foresight to prevent these types of proposals, Walpole wouldn't have the million dollar homes, a great school system, and outstanding athletics. I am proud to live in Walpole and am grateful that so many people devote their time to preserving the town.

[Unregistered]

Walpole had outstanding athletics when it was a smoky mill town.. That comment is PREPOSTEROUS, and many of us know it is.


As far as million dollar homes: the people that live in them usually send their kids to private school, and have very little to do with the town....PERIOD.

A town with over-priced million dollar homes means a town that your kids will probably never be able to afford to live in. Your thinking is highly flawed.

Bring in the Smoke Stacks...maybe we can Smoke-'em Out!!

[Unregistered]

The home page of Walpole News is stating that the open forum is Monday the 27.
Monday is the 26th, Tuesday is the 27th. When is the forum?

Is the power plant really 1/2 mile from Boyden School? Has the Boyden Parental Advisory Council discussed the need for an updated evacuation plan?


Thanks for the rescue -- tg

[Unregistered]

proof positive that inhaling too much smoke is not good for you

[Unregistered]

"........if concerned residents hadn't put their blood, sweat, and tears into fighting a sludge landfill, a cogenerator in East Walpole, a million gallon propane farm, a regional trash transfer station, the excavation and grinding of waste at the old Bird landfill off Norfolk Street, the plan to cap Goldies with hundreds of thousand of towns of construction and demolition debris by a company with a controversial history, the pollution at Bird Machine, and now the power plant.

If so many residents didn't have the foresight to prevent these types of proposals, Walpole wouldn't have the million dollar homes, a great school system, and outstanding athletics. I am proud to live in Walpole and am grateful that so many people devote their time to preserving the town...."

Walpole WAS a shot out of Its a Wonderful Life...in the 1950's. The poster neglects to mention that the fictional Bedford Falls (was that it?) was based on the story of a working class community. Walpole is heading away from that completely.

Those of us who grew up with the mills, the town dump, the stink of certain businesses, and the prosperous humming of Bird & Sons, Bird Machine, Kendall Mills, et. al will attest to that.

Unfortunately, the real fans of "Its a Wonderful Life" have turned Walpole into a version of "The Stepford Wives" (or rather, The Stepford Soccer Moms in SUV's with ADHD kids".)

They are also the generation responsible for cell-phone nation, over-use and adulation of the drugs peddled by the drug industry...(to wit: the drugs for ADHD kids, Viagra, etc.), special-needs education abuse, driving around in over-sized vehicles just to keep up appearances with the neighbors, a negative-savings rate, and abuse of mortgage practices (mortage "products" were created by this generation). In the face of good evidence about global warming, they want bigger homes, bigger vehicles, and consume more electrical power than some tiny countries. They willfully participated in an unprecedented run-up in local housing prices fed by unscrupulous lending practices, out-bidding each other and driving up home prices to unsustainable levels. They then took equity loans out on those same properties, confident in their belief that what goes up will continue to go up. (who needs savings? My house is going up in price...forever!)

Even with the pending housing crash (its happening), home prices will still be sky high. Where do your kids plan to live when they grow up? Walpole? If so, you better start dividing that oversized house you live in into apartments, because they won't have a snowballs chance in hell of being able to afford to buy a place here!

Some of us desperately need tax breaks. Especially those on fixed incomes. Remember them? The original cast of the Walpole version of "Its a Wonderful Life"? They are still here. What will be your legacy? That you turned your backs on the needy older crowd to satisy your needs for a pristine fantasy of a New England town? What will your kids do when you are older...based upon your example? I shudder to think what the future brings for you.

I am ready to weigh all the pros and cons about a possible power plant. I will not veto a power plant based upon the need to maintain "million dollar homes"...I second the comment about the sports: How did keeping sludge landfills, propane farms, etc. out of town make Walpole sports outstanding may I ask? ??? I think I smell a member of the "Are You In?" crowd.

[Unregistered]

Too bad we can't do what the original English settlers here did. Utilizing 'low head hydro-power' to power small turbines.. The Neponset makes quite a descent from South Walpole to East Walpole. That water is running through our town. It would be great if we could tap into the hydro power that caused this town to be successful in the first place.. Rain falls, flows to the ocean through our little burg... .we make is spin things that make electricity. No diesel back-up, no use of our drinking water... We just hitch a ride as it goes by.. I guess this is too simple though.

[Unregistered]

The Town Forum Meeting Again Is November 27, 7:30 At The Walpole High School.

Be Prepared To Speak Out Against This Porposal And Tell Our Selectmen, Cpv And Their Town Representatives And Land Owner, And We All Know Who They Are, No Deal!

[Unregistered]

Much of what you say and the sentiment behind it is true. Walpole like any good and decent town has become a very expensive place to live. Unfortunately, all towns like ours have become very expensive to live in and its an unchangeable reality. I agree with you that this poses a hardship on many residents. We DO NEED A STRONG BUSINESS TAX BASE! there is no question. But wht were you drawn to walpole and towns like it in the first place? There are numerous answers. IT could be the land, the people, the schools, the location, or any combination of these assets. The bottom dollar is people choose to live in towns like walpole because they are good and decent places to live.

I like you worry about how hard it will be for my children to afford to live in towns like walpole in the future. I worry about the many old time residents who are being squeezed out of towns like walpole because of the high cost of living. But I also worry about the future of the town. Do we prostitute the town for a few dollars by bringing in a powerplant or do we hold the town to higher standards and search for businesses that come with less risk and present less danger to the town we all chose as our town.

I urge you to think this through, talk to your friends speak up to the politicians tell them we deserve better. Walpole deserves better treatment. We can find and attract a better type of business.

[Stephen B.]

Here is a very timely story detailing the HUGE water use by electric power generation in the Southeast. It goes into some detail about how water is used by power plants and how the water is lost.

Over HALF of the water use in the Southeast is used to generate electric power. Let's not make the same mistake in Walpole.

Fight this plant, and watch your own electric consumption. Your drinking water may soon depend on it.

GEORGIA'S WATER CRISIS: THE POWER OF WATER
Drought could put us in dark: Electric utilities are the biggest users of Georgia's freshwater, but their role has been largely ignored.

http://www.ajc.com/printedition/content/printedition/2007/11/18/power1118.html?cxntlid=inform

http://tinyurl.com/3dd7mb

Stephen B.

[Unregistered]

#213 Let's look at your rantings: "the generation responsible for cell-phone nation" So, the ability to have portable access to the rest of society, instead of scrounging up change for a payphone is a negative? "driving around in over-sized vehicles" This generation actually has less kids per family, and the SUVs they drive are more fuel efficient and safer than the Ford LTD Wagons I sat in the way back in, with or without a seatbelt. "Over-use and adulation of the drugs peddled by the drug industry" Excuse me, but most of the ED remedies are targeted at your generation, not mine! Not to mention the weight loss pills, the pain pills, the laser surgeries, the knee replacements, the hip replacements, even the hair replacement. "they willfully participated in an unprecedented run-up in local housing prices" Guilty as charged, as did all in your generation. You know I stomped my feet and held my breath, but the homeowner that owned my home for thirty years refused to sell it to me at 1987 prices, but also wanted to "participate" in the price appreciation. It is your generation that has embraced the SnowBird mentality, taking out home-equity loans in MA to finance your condo purchase in FL. "Some of us desperately need tax breaks. Especially those on fixed incomes" Yours is the generation that polluted the town, the watershed, and the region. You enjoyed a town not forced to comply with the nanny-state liberalism built up over decades of one-party corruption in the state house. It seems as though you are awful resentful of the noveau riche homebuyers that have invaded your town, saw how little preventive maintenance had been done over the years, saw how prior town government officials had little or no foresight or budgetary expertise, and now are trying to rectify problems that are not of their creation. Don't rail against the home prices as you rattle around your 3 bedroom home, complaining against fuel prices and property taxes! Downsize to a condo or a townhouse or a cottage. The "needy older crowd" wants all the amenities without the costs! Make some choices!

[Unregistered]

I am one of the older crowd and frankly I haven't a clue as to what #213 is talking about. I am surprised that anyone garced his/her rant with a responce!

[Unregistered]

Let's try to stay on topic. Based on the below excerpt form the Atlanta article, the post seems to have no bearing on the Walpole proposal.

"Water goes up in smoke

Georgia Power's oldest plants use once-through, or open loop, cooling systems to condense the steam used to generate electricity. The water flows in one end of the plant, condenses steam into water, and then returns to the river out the other end.

The quantities of water required are enormous —- up to 500 million gallons a day for a medium-sized coal plant. In Georgia, the thirstiest plant uses more than double that.

Coal-fired plants employing once-through cooling use up to 27 gallons of water to generate one kilowatt hour of electricity, according to the federal Department of Energy. Nuclear power plants use more than 31 gallons for the same output."

[Stephen B]

Yes, most of the power plants in the Georgia article use more water per KWh than the CPV plant will use, but 200K gallons a day is still ALOT of water in a town that has water use restrictions every summer. It is hardly off-topic just because you don't think it's significant.

The bottom line is, power plants use precious water and if one wants to save water, one looks to personal power consumption as well as the siting of power plants.

Maybe instead rather than post links to timely developments in the power plant industry regarding water use, I should get involved in the silly rants about youngsters and old timers in this discussion thread? I don't think so.

Stephen B

[Louise]

To those who are arguing for the power plant I believe you have a vested interest.
I can only speculate who you are: the lawyer, the landowner, CPV’s public relation group, the EDC who invited into town (Yeah, yeah, whatever, you can not convince me otherwise)? Maybe all of you., you will not prevail. I don’t care what kind of sound bites you try to feed us.
The premise you on how you do business is that the people in this town are either dumb or uninformed.
Welcome to the age of the internet, I say it much be getting much harder to bamboozle people!?
You haven’t offered the town one darn thing, and there isn’t anything you could offer us that will make us sell our water and our way of life.
If I recall the CPV representative said we were one of thirty sites they were considering, I say to you ‘One down, twenty-nine to go’See you the 27th

[Brown Bear Returns]

I am open to the idea of a power plant. I have expressed before that this is not a coal-fired plant, but rather a plant that runs on clean, natural gas. For the most part, I'm OK with that. Of course there are other factors to consider, such as impact on water supply, noise and emissions. A well-scheduled forum would best serve the needs of all. What I am hearing and reading is that a meeting has been poorly scheduled. I call upon the meeting planners to consider the courtesies owed to the townspeople and to schedule the meeting a convenient time for all with ample notice.
Let's focus our energy and discussion on the power plant. Let us not be distracted by a discussion about when the meeting will take place.

[The Raven]

I am one of those that actually drinks Walpole water. No filtering, either. Try it sometime: though it may have a different taste from different parts of town, my water is rather tasty, I should say.;)

I am very concerned about using our water for a power plant. :mad:

All of us would do well to consider conservation of energy, something that actually has become old-fashioned. Then we may not even need a new powerplant. (I know: that is like talking to ones self).

The warning bells are ringing neighbors: global warming is real, and is caused by all of us. Water resources are very strained in certain parts of the country. Do we want to put an additional strain on ours if we have the choice not to?


With all of that, I wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving!:D

[Unregistered]

There are those that will not be happy until the Public Forum is rescheduled for after the power plant is built!

If we are to fight this we need to have the forum next week! If you can not make it, tape it and watch it at a convenient time for you. Ask the cable company to replay it. The BOS has stated that if there is interest they will have a second Open Forum.

What I noticed when Mr. Orlando Martinez of CPV went in front of the BOS that a few selectmen called him by his first name (ie, "Orlando, I have a question..."). Calling someone by their first name can imply a friendship. Heck, I do not even call my boss by their first name.

I checked the Walpole web site and the only selectman up for reelection next June is Michael Caron. If he comes out in favor of this plant South Walpole needs to have a candidate ready!

[Unregistered]

Hello Walpole voters. It is time for a change in the operation of the town and the BOS. I will be running against the open candidate next year and would ask for your support. Nobody in my family works for the town and I will represent the people of Walpole, both young and old. Wake up everybody. This town needs some straight talking. Time of for a change.
Duke

[Unregistered]

Hello Walpole voters. It is time for a change in the operation of the town and the BOS. I will be running against the open candidate next year and would ask for your support. Nobody in my family works for the town and I will represent the people of Walpole, both young and old. Wake up everybody. This town needs some straight talking. Time of for a change.
Duke

I'm gonna run too: Under the name "John Doe". Come on, how about a name??

[Unregistered]

Here's a question! The answer may seem obvious, but maybe its not! In any case I for one am very curious to know what our officials think!

Here Goes! I challenge each Town official to disclose how they feel about a power plant coming to Walpole! We want a clear cut answer, not a "I am studying the issue", or "I don't know enough yet" kind of answer. Rather a plain old fashion "I am against it" or "for it answer"! I have checked with numerous sources and there does not seem to be any standing law on the books preventing our public officials from actually taking a stand on an issue that would effect the safety and health of the entire town. Further there does not appear to any law preventing these same officials from publically disclosing their stance on issues like this.

So they either don't want to, don't feel we have the right to know, don't think we the residents are intelligent enough to think for our selves, or have some other hidden agenda.

I like many others might not agree with their stances but would very much repect any one of these officials who would step up and take a stand publicly instead of carrying in in the usual backdoor manner! Up to now their silence is deafening!!!

So, the challenge is on! all officials listed below, step up do what you were elected or paid for tell us what you think, clearly and honestly. please respond right here on walpole words by this Monday morning. Show your fortitude and leadership, you might be surprized by the support you get!

We would like a response from the following town officials:

The Selectmen
The Town Administrator
The Economic Development Officer
The Water and Sewer Commissioners
The Water Works Director
The Health Dept Director
The Conservation Commission


and any other official with the fortitude to speak up and take a stand

Will the silence continue to be Deafening!!! we will see! tune in Monday morning

[Unregistered]

Duke I agree we are ready its time for a change!!!!!!!

[Unregistered]

It doesn't matter who runs for selectman or where the person lives. What matters is that the person has some standards about the type of development suitable for the town and not support the types of disgusting uses that have found their way to Walpole over and over again.

[Unregistered]

My hat goes off the the town officials and legislators of Brockton who are fighting the power plant. We expect that ours will do the same.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/22/brockton_fights_for_leverage_to_block_power_plant/

[Unregistered]

Brown Bear, there's lots to think about in terms of noise, emissions, traffic, water use, aquifer contamination, visual impacts, stigma, property values, air pollution, health etc. Please don't tell me it's like your gas stove.That seems to be the party line. No one is going buy that. That would be like comparing a coal fired plant to a charcoal grill.

Natural gas is cleaner but it is not clean. There's many internet sites where you can see what gas fired power plants emit - they emit the same things that coal fired plants do with the exception of mercury but just less of them. The air in Walpole won't be cleaner if the plant is built. Why would you throw caution to the wind?

[This Shouldn't Happen]

I'm wondering who to write to and what to write in regards to this power plant nonsense. This is by far the worst route to take. It's scary to think that this could happen here. I would support windmills...maybe we can get the selectmen (if they are that desperate for money, which is always the case) to take that option instead. I fear in the end that we will not win. My parents are already thinking about moving.

[Unregistered]

"they emit the same things that coal fired plants do with the exception of mercury but just less of them."

From US EPA website:

"At the power plant, the burning of natural gas produces nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, but in lower quantities than burning coal or oil. Emissions of sulfur dioxide and mercury compounds from burning natural gas are negligible."

"The average emissions rates in the United States from natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides."

"Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant.2 In addition, the process of extraction, treatment, and transport of the natural gas to the power plant generates additional emissions."

Also, the Walpole design would be combined cycle, which EPA lists thusly:

"Another technology that is growing in popularity is to burn the natural gas in a combustion turbine and use the hot combustion turbine exhaust to make steam to drive a steam turbine. This technology is called "combined cycle" and achieves a higher efficiency by using the same fuel source twice. "

[Enviro-Mental]

Apparently the folks of Walpole are ultra-concerned about the environment. I would therefore expect there to be general shedding of large vehicles, a sell-off of McMansions, a moratorium on phosphate-based fertilizer, a smelting of riding lawn-mowers and total decommissioning of central air conditioning systems, all of which are characteristic of this town. Let's also petition to have the 36" underground gas line rerouted for fear that terrorists might blow it up (I can burn sticks to cook.)

If we are so concerned about emissions from a NATURAL-gas burning plant (water and carbon dioxide are the main output), we should rally the region and make sure that such a plant never gets built anywhere!! Remember, it's all the same atmosphere, so no town or city should be allowed to have a plant.

On another note, please be sure to keep the eletricity coming for my freezers, central air, six-burner cooktop, wine cooler, gutter and driveway de-icing cables, chic electric car, clothes dryer, etc., etc.

[Unregistered]

Amen to that. Let's say NO to electricity, NO to more revenue for the town, NO to clean burning natural gas, and YES to not-in-my-backyard. This is the Walpole way!

[Unregistered]

When locating a facility such as a power plant companies will normally go for a poor city or town with uninformed residents. Thus Brockton and Chelsea have been fighting off power plants.

What could explain a power plant company targeting Walpole.

Could Walpole be stupid enough to fall for a power plant? It would seem that the selectmen who have been working to have the plant come to town are stupid enough.
When you see people posting to this site using the line "clean burning Natural Gas" line perhaps they are. It may be cleaner than coal but it is NOT clean burning. If you are not sure about it ask why you would need 250-300 foot SMOKE stacks for this nice clean plant?
Or how about the amazingly idiotic line "it's the same as you kitchen stove", I have yet to see a single house with a 250 foot smoke stack from the kitchen.
What is it about Walpole that makes companies think we are stupid? Why are we always fighting off landfills, gas tank farms, power plants (second time fighting one), trash facilities?
Perhaps it is our selectman never say not to the bad projects, including this one. They use the explanation that they are "pro" business. But they are always pro bad business, never a good CLEAN project always the junk no other town will take including Chelsea and Brocton.

A developer with a decent proposal will look at Walpole and say not worth the investment.

[Unregistered]

Talk about a ridiculous point of view. The world does run on energy and Walpole like many towns has large and small houses and families with SUVs but based on your logic that would mean that we should install power plants that emit pollution, will drive down property values, increase health related problems and many other negative side effects in all towns. I don't see any proposals in Westwood, Sharon, Wellesley, Dover etc... I also don't see any benefits in Everett or New Bedford or other towns that currently house power plants. Besides does Walpole want to equate itself with Everett and New Bedford, both dying cities/towns? When I look around our region Walpole is surrounded by towns that are moving in a different direction.

There are many ways for Walpole to generate revenues through more forward looking ideas. Taking a few dollars today for a power plant will only have long term negative effects on this town and its residents. Dedham, Westwood and Sharon get upscale mixed use retail, business and upscale housing projects (Walpole seems to have already missed this boat) and the best that Walpole can do is to generate revenue through a power plant. What about looking to attract growth industries to Walpole like biotech or trying to attract sources of green energy?

The thought of even entertaining this project for Walpole just shows how out of touch the people running this town are.

[Unregistered]

Don't forget to show up on Tuesday.
The powers that be only understand when great numbers show up, otherwise they think it is the NIMBY's only.
be there!

[Unregistered]

While I do not doubt that this country needs more power generation, it does not take a genius to see through the lies that are being told to the public in reference to this power plant.

A comment quite a few pages back indicated that although it may be unsightly and produce noise, it will be tucked out of the way near the Walpole prison. True, but you fail to realize that although by road it is out of the way, a significant population will be within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the plant and well within hearing range.

These power plants are NOT quiet, regardless of what the company wants you to believe. Find out for yourself and visit similarly sized plants in other parts of the country. They are EXTREMELY loud and can be heard for quite a way. I would think it would prove quite an annoyance to anyone living near.

I love how this countries solution to foreign oil crises seems to rest on another limited natural resource that also produces huge amounts of carbon dioxide.

And the best argument anyone can come up FOR this plant is that it will somehow magically produce money for the town (which I doubt anyone will ever see).

Oh, and don't forget that they want 200,000 gallons of water from our already overtaxed aquifers. And what will they do with all that water after it is used?

I'm glad that I will be out of this town by the time this plant is up and running.

[Honest Man]

After reviewing most of the points of view I thought an honest non-PC view should be added to the posts.

* I just moved to Walpole earlier this year. I looked at many towns and I selected Walpole for many reasons, all of which we all know and love.

* I don't want a power plant in lovely Walpole. However, I do know that we need energy and with energy comes some waste and some pollution. With that said, I'd prefer the plant to be in a town/city other than my town - there I said it... selfish yes, but honest. If we are in need of energy I think there are other cities and towns that can use the tax money and the stacks would match its decor.

* I am conservative (thought is was relevant), and feel that our government should put more resources into alternative sources of energy. There are budding technologies that could come to fruition if we put more tax dollars into research. But, until then the fact is these types of plants are necessary - hopefully not for long.

* SUV's - If you want one buy one. I shouldn't be able to tell you off or dictate your purchases. Some folks need them. Six kids and the lack of such alternatives is a good reason. Of course there are those out there with no kids, nothing to tow and no need for large vehicles that purchase them, but they are being punished by themselves in many ways - that happens to the not so bright.

* I was raised in the projects being the product of Irish Imigrants with nowhere to live (became citizens the legal way - btw). However, I selected Walpole because I don't want to look at subsidized housing anymore. I worked hard to get away from it. Some assited housing is OK, but I don't want to turn Walpole into Dorchester. Many left there for good reasons. God bless the needy and I hope they work and study hard to better their situation and earn the right to move to Walpole and like communities.

* Taxes - Ohhhh what a lovely topic. If we need more money then we should look at where we are spending it. I am sure if you turn the rocks you'll find some snakes. Like all towns I am sure we can cut back. And we should always be looking to attract attractive companies, not unattractive companies. Mass is a haven for great technology firms. Why not look at attracting software companies, bio-med, and other high cash businesses with no waste? Westwood found MEDITECH, which owns two large properties in town. Why not Walpole?

Sorry for being honest...

[Unregistered]

can anyone tell me if this will be televised?
I have to work this evening and I would like to understand what is going on...

[Unregistered]

Honest Man, you need to run for office. The winds of change need to blow through Walpole.

[Unregistered]

I read in these posts that EPA says that natural gas fired power plants do emit similar substances to coal fired plants but in lower quantities - so I guess that's okay to proponents of the plant? It's okay to inhale just a little pollution. Remember when everyone thought smoking cigarettes was okay - now there's a warning. Alcohol - same thing. Let's just wait till the EPA puts a warning on the smokestack. Oh I forgot, it's the surgeon general who will have to do that.

The medical community understands the effects of air pollution. But what do they know? Or maybe they are misinformed too? Don't have the facts? Of course, it is only the company and those who are hired to represent them who have the facts. Guess what? We can all use the internet and make our decisions.

[Unregistered]

Evidently one must attend the hearings to show in person your disdain for the BOS and their stance on the power plant. Any mention suggesting that the BOS is anything but a benevolent dictatorship seems to be banned from this site by the overzealous moderator!

[GetItTogetherWalpole]

Walpole - it's time to get it together! Get in game here kids and yes, I'm talking to all the adults out there. What are you thinking? In this day and age I can't even begin to understand why anyone would want a power plant in such a highly residential area. Jobs? Tax Breaks? Get a grip! None of this is enough to make any successful impact on our town. Taxes will continue to rise. What part of history have you missed to understand this simple fact. Who is going to guarantee that the employment needed to run this facility is always granted to a Walpole resident? Guess what, they can't and won't because you need folks who specialize in the jobs needed to run this plant. Does anyone in Walpole qualify?

I'm a new resident to South Walpole having recently moved there two years ago. I live is small neighborhood currently being impacted by a development in Sharon. The housing development was built without any forethought as to how the sewage process would impact surrounding areas. Now, my neighborhood pays the price every day between 7-8pm. But realistically, I'm sure it was considered and dismissed. Afterall, it is only Walpole. See where this is going?

Walpole has the fast potential to become the next Brockton. No one seems to care about this and I think this is sad. In today's world where we need to think more about the future Walpole seems to be in the dark ages. Who invited CPV to Walpole in the first place? What dark ages are our representatives coming from? Did someone really write smoke stacks? Come on! Surely you jest! You must be the same neighbor who was quoted in the Walpole Times as saying they didn't want the daycare built because of the noise the kids make! Who says that? Thinks that? You would rather have the huming of a power plant than kids playing? It's time to take a stand Walpole. Have some pride. Let's step it up to the next level by saying NO to this proposal. We already have the prison, we already have the stadium in our backyard and it looks like we have the 40B housing. The power plant is not the answer. The amount of jobs and the possible tax breaks...(yes possible - that isn't written in stone by the way) isn't enough to add any value to the town.

Let's bring Walpole to the next century. Let's go green, let's be more educated and more proactive! Let's keep Walpole a town your kids can grow up in safely. No one has even thought to revamp zoning laws to disallow for situations like this. That is possible you know. We can vote on rezoning laws. Let's stop building on each other! Why would any town of substance, want a power plant? Let's be honest here folks, Walpole is not a Marblehead, Winchester, Scituate or Cohasset type of town. But we could be! Don't you want it to be? With the outlets and new stores at the stadium, Walpole could foster a great downtown to draw in more visitors and potential revenue that way. Letting this power plant in, endangers your health, endangers the environment, lessens the value of your home, lessens the value of your wallet and lessens the value of your town. GET IT TOGETHER WALPOLE!

[Unregistered]

Where is your sense of history? We miss Bird & Son, smokestacks and all, and the prosperity it brought to East Walpole.

I hope this donkey is not voting on anything. Hopefully, he and his horse buggy will get lost on the way to the school.

[Unregistered]

For the life of me, what I can't understand is why the all the surrounding towns get retail megaplexes and large chain retailers to line their coffers. Is Walpole standing in the wrong line when it comes to economic development ideas? I keep waiting for the "did you hear what's coming to Walpole" said with a hint of joy and anticipation, but instead what I always hear is "hey, now look what they're trying to stick in Walpole".

What's next in the litany of universally stupid ideas: Medical Waste Disposal Facility, Toxic Waste Storage Depot, Nuclear Bomb Contruction and Storage Park? I better shut up now, someone on the Economic Development Committee might see this and start drawing up the proposals.

[Unregistered]

I read in last weeks Times a comment regarding how the vocal minority/majority(can't remember) are "Anti Business", "Anti Development." Hummm! If that implies I don't support, sludge landfills, co-generation power plants as proposed once by the MWRA, million gallon propane farms, a regional trash transfer station, the excavation and grinding of waste at the old Bird landfill off Norfolk Street, the plan to cap Goldies with hundreds of thousand of towns of construction and demolition debris by a company with a controversial history, pollution at Bird Machine, and now the power plant, then I am proud to say, I am ANTI BUSINESS. These types of businesses should have no future in Walpole.

Let's make sure they here us tonight!

[Unregistered]

I'll be the guy with the pitchfork and the torch.... :)

[Unregistered]

I am so happy to see so many people are questioning concerning what gones on behind closed doors here in our town.
First, lets get rid of the problem on hand.
Then, we can remenber at election time who was for this disaster.
I also suggest getting a new economic development officer, as the one we have thinks we are in Boston.
I know that if I had 2 years to do my job, and made the same choices, I would be looking for work.
We need someone who understands a small mill town coming into the 21st century.
People you must pay attention to what is going on, this has been on the books for one year!
I know we all wish we had the kind of leadership that was forsighted, but we don't.
Read the papers, check the web site, talk with your town administrator and share with your neighbors, take control.
We will get through this together and who knows maybe we will be a stronger town?
Thanks to all who love this town.

[Unregistered]

Will someone please run for selectman!!!!

[Unregistered]

Of the Walpole folks that attended the meeting last night ... what does everyone think after hearing some more of the plant details?

In short, it would always be better to have a power generation facility in another town rather than ours.

Do folks see the pros outweighing the cons? The jury is still out from my perspective. I need to hear more.

[Unregistered]

While the passion and enthusiasm mustered to speak out against CPV was impressive to watch, perhaps the anger was misdirected. CPV exists to manage power plants, plants that provide the energy we all need and use. The two slick spokesmen attempted to fill the evening with presentation after presentation as a filibuster from facing the angry masses. Some points were laughable, like the sound technician that stated it was CPV's desire to make sure the noise impact to the local neighborhoods be "less than the noise that is already there." How he said that with a straight face is beyond me..if a tree falls near a power plant, no one can hear it? How do you lessen noise? In any event, the selectmen were faced with a tough task to control the crowd. It is part of their due diligence to hold these hearings, i'm not convinced they are buying into the idea. Perhaps the town's anger should be directed at the owner of the property, who contracted to bring CPV to town. Or the selectman that recused themself, because of prior knowledge and a working relationship with that property owner. Or the local attorney, who once again, is willing to facilitate "growth" in the town that bypasses local zoning ordinances.

[Unregistered]

There were some great points last night. One was from the man who mentioned he was sick of going to these meeting for such undesirable proposals (propane farm, sludge, trash facility, etc,) and how it’s OK to say no from the beginning for such things. (He mentioned a future fictional future pig farm on the site.) Another was from the woman who noted that the additional 1 million in revenue may not be worth it if the town loses tax revenue from the homes in the area if tax assessments (and tax revenue from these homes) goes down.

Also, I'm all for keeping order in a public forum, however Al Dinapoli was rude to many people and he seemed to act as counsel for CPV at times. One resident asked if the land had been purchased, Dinapoli interjected and said that CPV would probably prefer not to say. He should let CPV and the LAWYERS THEY PAY FOR decide whether or not they want to share that information.

As we saw last night, CPV and their consultants will talk circles around most people when talking of the strict regulations they will meet and discussing units such as micrograms per cubic meter (of pollutants). That is their full time job. Generally, direct "yes or no" questions from the audience are the most effective when debating them. When they don't answer with a yes or no, ask the question again. Perhaps hearing the answers to these "yes of no" questions will help the members of the Board of Selectmen understand that we do indeed have enough information to realize that this proposal is bad for Walpole.

[Unregistered]

I love the crack about lessening noise. Not only will it be silent, it will remove other noise.

Don't forget the "Certified Engineer".

I must have missed something somewhere along the lines of my education. What is a certified engineer? Last time I checked, there's no such thing.

I can't wait to get away from Walpole. You know, before it becomes the next Brockton.

[Brown Bear Returns]

One person commented on the report that a gas-fired power plant will give off some pollutants similar to an oil-fired or coal-fired plant, but in lesser quantity. I accept that some of the output will be the same, but is it all "pollution"? Is carbon dioxide pollution? (Humans give it off until they take their last breath. Animals, too.) How about water vapor (also given off by humans and animals)? If we are concerned about any more pollution in Walpole, let's cap the number of vehicles that are registered in the town. Let's regulate indoor temperatures to minimize the output of these and similar "pollutants". Remember, every house that uses natural gas (cooking, heating, clothes drying) and every house that uses #2 oil (heating) is putting off pollutants.
I have a better idea: Let's mandate that every house in Walpole switch over to electricity for heating, cooking and clothes drying. That way we won't be putting out these horrible pollutants. Of course, we'll need another power plant just to run our non-polluting houses.