[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. Block Island, Rhode Island 02807 BLOCK ISLAND ENERGY INSTITUTIONS REPORT CAN BLOCK ISLAND SURVIVE AS A COMMUNITY? A report about energy on Block Island prepared for the Town of New Shoreham and the people of Block Island under the auspices of the Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. , and the Town Of New Shoreham Energy Committee. Funds provided through the Governor's Energy Office, State of Rhode Island, under a grant from the Coastal Energy Impact Program, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce. Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 619 Block Island, RI 02807 (401) 466-2861 July 1982 HD 9502 R43 B66 1982 F.,qure I T ENERGY USE ON B-.OCK ISLA.ND Residential Commercial Pub! Auth, TOTAL & St @,ahts ONE YEAR Electricity 1,552,000. 1,500,000 445,800 2,397,800 $.26-5.32 KWH KWH XWH *1 KWH (22%eff.) KWH 229 MBtu 5,121 MBtu 1,522 MBtu 11,943 MBtu oil 42 353,551, gal 5,706 galTown 353,551 cal $1.34/gal 49,14.3'MBtu 2,000. Qa_ISPl 49,143 MBtu ..772 KBtu Propane 7,35" tanks AW L 7,351 tanks.. 831.50/tank 15,8.06.5 MBt'u 15,806.5-MBtu Gasoline 254,610 gal 59,035 gal, *2 313,645 gal -9 MBtu $1.60/gal 0 71 MBtu 6, S 8 MBtu 34,5/ Diesel. 20,168 gal + 40,000 gal 60,314 MBtu *3 $1 /gal 36,34.6 gal Sewer Plnt in non- 56,514 gal 5,41-7. MBtu *5 transportation coal 84 tons .84 tons $-120/ton 2, 13 31. 6 MBtu 2L,133.6 MBtu wood *6 10 0 Ic ords .100 cords $82-150/c 1,400 MBtu 1,400 MBtu. averace value SQlar 10 Collectors 2 Collectors $2'000-3500 + I unit PV water svstem + boat units Wind 301,947 kwh Est.350,000kwh .1"31 000/ 01.1 MI 1, t- U in norm operat l0k syst + 2 unknown Kerosene 20,24-1 gal 20,241 gal 41 *4 2,558 MBtu 2,558 MBtu NOTES: *1 Estimated figures, does not include sewer plant's own g e nerat;on which Js 65-'f,*,W on summer peak; 332,880 kwh at 38KW demand. *2 _Picures from only one dealer, does not include marinas. 3 Ave.-ace use "of Powe.- Cempany 33,780 per month-_I-A8.0.=..6/_8l, 505,360 q a I I o n sX 1-35,425 Btu/,:-,a.! = 54,801b M3tu dieselfuel. *4 iz_ :'.s -eported that the present 41 oiIL is kerosene. -s fiscal year. This 5 Sewer plant report, 40,000 gallons for 19-81 L translates to 5,4-''-' MBtu which added to ?owe- Company makes total 0 t: 6- 0 , 3 -1 ') MB t u o fdiesel Fuel used for electriclt-y. *6 Convers.;.on fact'.Dr for wood based. on 7,000 Btu per pound; low r"cure woods varv in Bt-u content. merce us, Department Of COW NOAA Coastal Services Center LibrarY 2234 South Hobson Avenue arlestcni SC 29405-2413 Block Island Energy Report Issued: Public Meeting Planned. The Block Island Economic Development Foundation and the Town of New Shoreham Enerqy Committee have issue a report on the energy future of Block Island. The report is entitled "Block Island Intergrated Energy Instiutions Report: Can Block Island Survive as a Community?". Since energy costs are a major impact on the economy of the island the purpose of the report is to suggest, using multi-disciplinary research, how prices may be stabilized in a manner consistent with the Block Island heritage. The major conclusions of the report are as follows: Since garbage is a economic and environmental problem for the island, recovery of energy from and reduction in volume of solid waste can and should be accomplished. Available biomass such as peat and seaweed should supplement Island produced wastes. Particular solutions proposed are incineration or gasification for the production of energy. To reduce volume, waste can be separated and certain components so1d. The use of windpower on Block island is feasible if appropriate institutional arrangements are developed. Power generated at the town sewer plant can be used if the price relationship between cost of diesel fuel on the one. hand and what would be paid for electricity and waste heat from the sewer plant benefits the town. The financial structure of the Block Island Power Company presently discourages energy conservation and use of alternative energy sources. Promotion of such options might be encouraged it the Power Company were restructured or sold to its users. An electric cable to the mainland is far more expensive than any of the other a1ternatives and should not be considered at this time. Conservation, along with more efficient use of energy, should be encouraged through use of the RISE program (state energy audit) and a revolvinq loan program. The Block Island report is partially modeled on a one done for the state of Hawadi in 1980: "The Hawaii Integr-a-t-ed Energy Report".. That report was funded by $500,000 of federal money. In@ contrast, the Block Island Report was LcompLe-ted under ..a $22,800 grant and contains the substance of the Hawaii report although without some of the technical detail. The text of the Block Island Report is supported by many pages of appendices, much of which material was developed within -the course of the project. Among the appendices are complete analyses of environmental considerations in the. development of - alternative sys.tems for energy production at three sites on the Island and ,separate env-ironmental studies on peat digging. For the f irst time, a complete picture of energy use on Block Island has been provided (made possible by the generous cooperation of energy ppliers on the Island). Specific gallonage and British thermal unit usage (a measure of heat value) are provided. su many -people contributed to the report, including Town F. Norri's Pike officials, and in particular NIc-holas dePetrillo, and John F. Gray. The coordination and writing were by El'liot Esq. and William Stringfellow, Esq. Some very important biological and factual research was 4done by Kimberley @Gaffett and @Julia 'Hayes. A great deal of time was contributed by Harold Madison, P.E., . Russell' Larson, P.E., and William Ted Martin, Ph.D., all of whom rreside on the Isl.and. Off,, Island experts included Robert Ericson, M.C.P. 'of the Covernor's Energy Office,@ Victor Bell, Senior Environmental Planner, Department of Environmental M,anagement, Harry Divitian, Ph.D., of Entek Research, Inc. of East -Setauket, New York, Vinod Mubaye,' Ph.-D, of Brookhaven Na-tiona'l Laboratory," Jerome Weingart, Ph.D. , of Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory,' Albert. Leuschner, M.E. of Cambridge, Massach-u-setts, and Melvin M. Eisenstadt, Ph.D., J.D., P.E., of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The funds were provided by the Governor's Emergy Office through a grant from the Coastal Energy Impact Program of the , National Atmosperi-c and . Oceanic.. Administration, United States Department of Commerce. The Energy Impact Coordinator for Rhode Island, Walter F. Cooper, was quite belpful in- the project. -planned that the annual meeting of the @Block Island It is Economic Development Foundation, to- be be 'held at 4 p.m. Sunday, July 25., 1982, will be a general pUblic discussion of the Energy, Report and. sugg-estions for acti-on. In the interim, the Town of 'New S-horebam Energy Committee, tbrough a grant from the Farmers' Home Administration. to -the Rhode I'sland League of... -Cit-ie:s--and. ,owns, is developing specific optional plans for the Town landfill. . The inst-itutional background for the proposed -plans is s,et out Ln the Energy Insti t-ut ions Report. The Town of New -Shorebam Energy, Committ,ee and . -_ the Block -1sl.and .,Eco.nQmi.c Development Foundation have 'strongly urged all inte-nested persons to a,tte-nd the - July 25 meeting and to be beard on the @energy future-of Block I sl an d. Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. Block Island, Rhode Island 02807 BLOCK ISLAND ENERGY INSTITUTIONS REPORT: CAN BLOCK ISLAND SURVIVE AS A COMMUNITY? A report about energy on Block Island prepared for the Town of New Shoreham and the people of Block Island under the auspices of 'the. Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. , and the Town Of New Shoreham Energy Committee. Funds provided through the Governor's Energy Office, State of Rhode Island, under a grant from the Coastal Energy Impact Program, National oceanic Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce. Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 619 Block Island, RI 02807 (401) 466-2861 July 1982 Figure 1 BT ENERGY USE ON .-JOCK ISLAND .979-l?80 Residential Commrcial Pub! Auth TOTAL & S 41- Lghts ONE YEAR Electricity 1,552,000 11500,000 445,800 2,397,800 Z6-5. 32 KWH KWH I_K@qu * 1 KWH (22%eff.) KWH 229 MBtu 5,121 MBtu 1,5_22 MBtu 11,943 MBtu oil 42 353,551 oal 5,706 galTow.n 353,551 gal $1.34/gal 49,143 MBtu 2,000 aa-ISP1 49,143 MBtu 7172 KBtu 'Prooane 7,351 tanks 7,351 tanks 31. 50/tank '-15,'806.5 MBtu 1-5,806.5 MBtu Gasoline 254,610 ctal 59,035 aal *2 313,645 gal $I.r_,01ga2. 28 , 1) 7 1 M B t u6,5'V)8 MBt-u 34,579 MBtu Diesel 20,168 gal + 40,000 gal 60,314 MBtu *3 z'I /gal 35,346 qa-1 Sewer Plnt in non- 56,514 gal :),,4-17 MBtu *5 transportation Coal 84 tons 84 tons $120/ton 2,133.6 MBtu 2,133.6 MBtu Wood *6 100 cords 100 cords $82-150/c 1,400 M"Stu 1,400 MBtu average value Solar 1-0 Collectors 2 Collectors $2000-3500 + 1. unit PV water svstem -@- boat units Wind 301,947 kwh Est.350,000kwh $1431000/ 01 .3 1 ME, t U in norm operat 10k syst + 2 unknown Kerosene 20,241 gal. 20,241 gal- 41 *4 .2,558 MBtu 2,558 MBtu NOTES: *1 Estimated figures, does not Jn.clude sewer olant'-s own generation which I-s 65XW on summer peak; 332,880 kwh at @8KW demand. *2 Ficures from.only one dealer, does not include marinas. *3 Averaqe use of Powe-r Company 33,780 per month.!/80-6/81, 505,360 ,q a 11c n sX 1-35,425 Btu/,jal = 54,896 M3+--u dieselfuel. *4 i4. -eoorted thai- '-he present #1 oi'L is kerosene. *5 Sewer ;D.@_ant reports 40,000 gallons for 1981 fiscal year. This transl,!:@tes to 5,41-7 MBtu which added to Power Company makes total o 0; , 3 1 MS t u o -F diesel 'ue'- used f"or e-ectricit-y. *6 Converson factor for wood based on 7,00'0 '_"'@u per pound; low ficure woods@ varv in Btu content. -2- Even in the context of a long range national energy -emergencyt with its manifold and multiplying economic, political and social consequences evident in practically: 'every sector- @bf American society, Block island is exceptional because it suf fers such .extraordinary--and excessive--primary energy costs. The price of electrical power on -BLock Island is extraordinary by any measure. of comparison with electricity -rates for, either household or commercial consumers anywhere on the mainland. Island rates vary between three and six times higher than those on the mainland. These rates are exc,essive because they manifestly and imminently thre .aten the survival of the indigenous 'Block Island community, its year-round population, and, Inevitably, the Island's in-herited way of life, traditional culture and existing social fabric. Despite its somewhat grandiose title., this -project represents a modest effort, undertaken -by some Island residents possessed -with relevant expertise and professional. skills., as@sisted -by some co-opted off-Isl.and experts, under the aegis of t,be Block Island Economic -Development _10- appointed by the Town Council of New Sho-rebam, and the Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. The results, to date, of such efforts are not encouraging. Tentative estimates for such an installation come to at least $5, HO, 0,00, with carrying charges- of approximately $,600,M,0 per annum. The latter charge alone is nearly the current rate base of the local power company, namely $750,0.00. A cable would have a .projected 3-0-year life, and its cost could be projected over that span; -however, increased rates for electricity from the New England Electric System would also have to be assumed during that sane 30 year period. -What those costs would be is conjecture if only because of the number of variables involved; however, New England Electric System has -recently been. granted a substantial wholesale rate increase and the highest rate of return ever allowed by the Pederal Energy and Regulatory Commission. Additional costs for the maintenance of emergency ba-ckup facilities represent another factor difficult, at this point, to calculat-e. Moreover, thlere -would appear to be a general reluctance 'on the part of- the mu-nicipality, in part because of the sewer experience, to enter into any long, term financing commitments. What can be reported with more certainty is that the. cable installation estimate of $5,000,0-00 is approximately two-thirds higher than an estimate for the same project obtained less than five years ago. The conclusion of this report based upon consultation with a . number of knowledgeable consultants, is that a cable connection is not likely to be cost effective or to have a beneficial impact upon power rates. The ide'@R' might well have been feasible economically a decade ago, but now it is too late. 2. Wind oower: The dismay in the Block Island community about the NASA wind power experiment, and the manner in which that has been conceived and administered does not diminish -the -significant potential of wind power. as an energy resource on the Island. If the NASA program has failed to yield a beneficial impact on electrical. rates, it is be-cause NASA has pursued another agenda ignoring the priority of the Island's needs, and not because the wind is not abundantly available to be harnessed. This is -not a mall:ter of speculation. While NASA has been malingering, private initiative has demonstrated the feasibility of generating electrical power by windmill. Everett Littlefield, the Islander who has installed a small scale wind energy generator to supply his own household with power,, encountered, it should be noted, an un-cooperative attitude, if not, indee.d, harassment, from the local power company about -3- Foundation, Inc., and the 'Town Council appointed Energy Committee, to reconnaissance alternative -mean--s of supplying the Island with energy. Within the, limits. of t.he praj,ec:t;, especially available time 'and funding, the attempt has been to examine whether such alternatives are compatible with the Island's ecology and environment, to weigh technical and/or legal imoediments associated with each of these means, and to project whether any of them could reasonably be expected to have a stabilizing impact upon consumer costs for power promptly enough to spare the indigenous Island community from the threat of virtual extinction. In other- words,. this project has been conducted with a realization that if a reordering of energy economics is not possibLe and feasible in the immediate future, Block Island, as an historic community is doomed. That does not mean that. the Island is apt to vanish into t-he sea. It does mean that if the existing energy supply system continues in-@_U_s present mo-de, with' consumer costs in,creasing no more than at a -rate and speed similar to that which has prevailed in the past decad e, the Island will 11kely undergo change of a radical, profound and irreversible character. Block Island will lose viability. It will be rendered uninhabitable as a full time, year-round community. The instant- study has, therefore, not--on.ly explored poz s i b 1-e options for e-nergy resources from a cable connecti,on to the mainland, wind power peat, garbage, -4- sewage, seaweed, coal and wood, but it has also considered ways of financing the production and distri-bution of .,power, however fueled, and it has tried to identify major legal and other technical problems related to 'one or another of the s-everal alternatives mentioned. Certain Considerations: From the work involved in the project, which was begun in the summer of 1981, some basic considerations have emerged which can be identified and articulated straightforwardly: 1. It may be too late. If such a project as this had been undertaken a decade earl-ter, the prospects for reform of the island's energy economics and achiev4ement of affordable el.ectri-cal costs mi.cht be mu-c'h more promising. As it is, this project, modest as it is, happens late, perhaps too late to defin-e alternative policy consi-stent with the survival of the historic community of Block Island. 2. Negative answers are significant. In some instances, this report concludes that a particular option is not or is no long.er realistic. T-ho-ugh that be a negative finding, the infor-mation is still significant and the effort to reach it -wort-.hwhile, if only to spare future pursu@ -of*illus<)ry remedies. 3. A test of efficacy. The plain, simple and singular test of any proposals for alternatdve.-power sources and/or for reform of the Island's electrical power system i-s the -potential for favorable impact upon consumer energy costs.. Many year-round residents of the Island are skeptical or suspici.ous of hypothetica@ schemes or theories which may arrest the imagination of academiczs or other putative experts but which have little likelihood of yielding prompt empirical benefit. There is equal wariness about remote bureaucrats preoccupied with their in-hou-se agendas but imperious .t,oward the neqd of Islanders for relief from the staggering prevailing power rates. such apprehensions among Island folk are not dismissable as yokel prejudice. Twice in recent experience, Block Island has been victimized by just such circumstances. Some years ago, the Town constructed a sewer system, mandated by . federal authorities,, which has imposed an enormous, escalating indebtedness upon Islanders. The project, however, was designed according to mainland dev.elopment -projections grossly inappropriate to -the island's ethos and environment, and, in conseque-mce, -the system is impressively over-engineered both--in terms of the' Island's current sewage d1sposal needs and in terms of -6- predictable needs which are consistent with the Is'-and's character and ecology. A somewhat similar melancholy report must be admitted concerning the NASA wind power experiment which was located on the Island about two years ago. The windmill has been managed under such arrangement's that its impact upon power rates has been virtually nil. Some -knowledgeable residents consider that the experiment is chiefly a public relations endeavor, so far as its federal sponsors are concerned. In any case, the machinery appears to have been designed for primary application--some day--in mainland situations, where "farms" of these machines could be located. Throughout the experiment, official indifference toward the plight of human beings living year-round on Block Island and struggling to cope with fantastic electrical costs has been-consistent. in keeping with considerations such as these, this report is primarily concerned with the prospects, if there be any, of stabilizing power rates in order to enable the f-v-11 tim communAity to 3urvlva for ewhile longer. The report is, thus, addressed to the people of the Island Community--to those who bear the overwhelming disproportion of the costs of energy on the Island now and to those who stand to suffer most directly and po-ignantly if no way can be found to moderate such costs--in a hope that it is not yet too late. -7- The Block' Island Situation: Those unfamiliar with Block Island in its present circumstances may consider it hyperbole to cast the existing energy economics of the Island as the issue of the survival of the basic community of the Island. There are other, related factors whico jeopardize that year-round community. One, for an example, is the over dependence of the Island upon imports, especially of fo od and fuel, and the resulting desperate balance of payments problem. That, In turn, is magnified by the volume of cash--prof-its, income, taxes--generated summer by the seasonal commerce which is taken off the I s I and and which prospers the mainland. Only a relatively modest amount of this money remains to circulate on the Island in the wintertime, to provide goods, servi-ces and jobs so much needed when the resort trade closes down., Meanwhile, t-he most stable aspect of the off-season economy is the sale and development of land and the construction of more cottages and second h-omes for the seasonal visitors which, howeve.r, increases demand for municipal services and energy capacity. The burden of paying for th.is overhead falls disproporti.onately upon year-round residents, even though the full-time population gradually dwindles and the h4LQh costs of land and construction render homesteading prohibitive. In short, the island community is @caught in acyclical .economics which is, in principle, self-defeating. Central in this picture is the cost of power since that bids up the cost of practically everything else essential to maintaining the full tine community. It is that factor, more than, any other single reality, which seems most likely to reach a point where the Island residence ceases to an be enviable economy in the off-season, with school and churches and. a -culture, for families, for retired and elderly persons, for working_ people or business persons, other than those directly engaged in construction or similar servicing of the resort trade. If Block Island ceases to be habitable as a year-round society and becomesa merely a seasonal enterprise, that manifestation of the Island will predictably become more and more a facade or a replica or a put on for the transients, of the same genre as Williamsburg or Mystic Seaport or. Disneyland. The suggestion here is, obviously, that the seasonal commerce needs the civilizing basis of an authentic, historic, living community and of a viable year-round ec.,onomy in or.der to spare the ethos of the Island from raw exploitation. The es-calation in the costs of importing fuel to generate electricity on Block Island and the seasonal @economi@c disparity in the costs of maintaining generation capability for the summer influx are not the only explanations for the astronomical power ra-tes which -island residents. now pay. The financing arrangements practiced by -9- the private ownership of the Block Island Power Company furnish a major reason. A 1981 article in the Providence Sundav Journal (Appendix J) addresses this aspect of the situation. Let it be stated here that this project has found no reason for substantial complaint about the quality of service rendered to the community by the employees of the Block Island Power Company, though they, of course, have no influence over management policy or the morality of such policy. At the same time, comment has been noticed on the Island to the @effect tha:6 the power company underpays its employees, if comparison is made to equivalent responsibilities in mainland utilities. An evaluation of alternatives: There follow, herewith, brief resumes of findings of the project with respect to the various alternative power sources studied: 1. Electric cable 'from the mainland: The proposal of an electrical cable between 16--he Island an:d somewhere Qn the mainland has been informally discussed for some years. Fisher's Island, among other places in roughly comparable -cir@cumstances to those of BLock Island, has such a connection. Approaches to possible cable installers and inquiri:es to the New 'Engl.and Electrical, System h1ave recently been undertaken by the Block Island Residents Association, the Energy Committee -12- his project (specifically about company compliance with federally required buy-back provisions for any surplus power his windmill produces), but that was Littlefield's major problem, rather than any technical matters affecting the feasibility of his instal lat ion', Th,e matter was resolved in favor of the alternative energy by P. U. C. order. Existing Town ordinances.... provide for.- such- household generators as a special exception in various zones. Whether the Town should adopt a policy encouraging a so--called wind farm, financed privately, raises aesthetic and environmental issues which still r,equire consideration, and what the impact of any such wind farm on the operations of the existing power company might be has yet to be examined either locally or by the State of Rhode Island Public Ut.,lities Commission. This report urges these items to be promptly -debated with a bias -toward - developing favorable policies in the Town Planning Board, the Zoning Board and the Town Council. The issue will be decided in part by the P*ublic Utilities Commission. That is because adoption by the Town,of a regulation favoring alternative -energy requires that specific PUC approval be given for any proj,ect which--will produce more than 5% of the present power production by Block Island Power Company. -13- The potential of wind power could be significantly enhanced if various storage mechanisms ,are utilized to extend utilization of the wind. A thorough examination is needed as to environmental and safety aspects of any storage facilities proposed. Wind power facilities supplying some household's and some businesses, with surplus power being sold to the local utility, subject to reasonable state and federal regulation, is one of the more promising alternatives for -private investment. 3. Peat: Peat is the historic household fuel of Block Island and in the eighteenth century its abundance and its utilization literally saved the Island's population because it rendered the Island habitable when there was. no other source of heating fuel, the trees having all been used. A University of Rhode Island geological study r-ecent:ly. concl-uded that the Island has sufficient peat deposits to supply its existIng power needs for more than a quarter of a century. There ar4e, h-owever, environmental impediments and legal problems associated with its utilization. Harvesting peat essentially i-nvolves digging and cleaning existkn@g-,wetlands, 4thu.s producing ponds. An Appendix I contains an analysis of wildlife habitat in four specific Island wetlands which -14- concludes that conscientious development of peat Potential- may offer net environmental benefits. The use of peat directly as a fuel raises the question,of possible air pollution. The University of Rhode Island, Department of Geology is in the process of preparing a study on the environmental impact of burning peat'. Meanwhile, this report concludes that a more efficient utili !zation- -would result from compaction of peat be fore burning and/or from its gasification. The former would pr.ovide suitable and safe household fuel, the latter, with possible waste fpaper) additives from the Town Landfill, could supply an alternative fuel to imported diesel oil for the generation of electricity. A major part of the work on this report was the work f-or oermits at the Department of Environment Management and -other agencies. The initial permit applications were turned down and after much addit,ional work, a new permit application has been filed with DEM. All appropriate state and local government approvals have already been granted. From the ancient use of island -peat, ther e survive a plethora -of de-eds conferrin.g 11peat rights" histori-cally called 'Itug rights". This project has enable.d. some prelimina-ry researches on the matter, but mor.e remai:ns to be accomplished. An interim suggestion to those who would dig peat is to give public notice to others who may have peat rights that peat is being dug. The unresolved legal issues and the serious environmental issues raised, would influence what kind of public or private entity could appropriately cope with the peat potentiallon Block Island. 4. Resource Recover A major cost and environmental probl,em. for Block Island is that of its garbage and sewacre disposal. A substantial amount of project time was spent reviewing with state officials and other experts how could be reduced and/or energy produced at the Town landfill and sewer plant. In the event that a parti-cular proposal is adopted, it-As likely that the Rhode Isla-nd Solid Waste Management Authority -could guarantee any bonds for a project. The. operating agency could be BIED, the Sewer Commission, or a new Town agency. The most feasible option appears to be an incinerator or gasifier at the town landfill --ricity to sell back -to the with production of el.ect power company. The -primary permissions needed would be from the State Public Utiliti-es .,Commission and the ,Department of --Environmental Management. kSee appended.- legal/envir,onmental analysis, Appendix C. The other option in@cludes use of the existing,-sewer plant. if the land f ill is to be used f-or energy production, an engineering /planning study such as the one excerpted -16- from Martha's Vineyard (Appendix D), will have to be conducted. Resources from a grant to the Rhode Island League of Cities' and Towns have recently become available to aid in at least part of the planning. Methane gas is the basic energy fuel availabl ,kl:-, from garbage and sewage. It can be produced from a number of natural biomass resources, including such renewable.resources from t-he sea a Is - se.aweed and f rom the land as crop residue or human and animal wastes.' On Block Island, potential sources for menthane, oroduction include sewage sludge, seaweed, peat and animal excrement. @Some utilities are now utilizing methane produced from waste to generate electricity. A similar potential exists on the Island. Appendix E is a letter from Albert Leushner, an engineer with expertise on methane production, which makes a preliminary suggestion that methane could be produced from sewer sludge and utilized to fuel the sewer plant diesels. Methane could also be used to fuel vehicles, and a related project could be the utilization of waste heat from the sewer plant in a-__ greenhouse located adjacent to the site of the sewer plant. The sewer plant "has been producing a significant @excess of -electricity. its generators are capable of -17- producing 300 KW of output. The present demand for the sewer operation varies from a high of 65 KW in the summer to less than 20 KW in the winter. it would seem a benefit to the whole community to find a way lawfully to s-ell this excess power to the locality, especially if a substitute for diesel can- be produced that would be more economical than ' the imported fuel. A preliminary analysis by Robert Ericson, Senior Planner at the Governor's Energy of f ice (In Appendix G) f inds that the Sewer Commission could make. a profit selling power back to B. I. Power Co. A Such sales could help to even o ut the. wintertime uneveness of power from a wind-farm.. A further benefit could be the use of the, waste heat from the sewer plant to heat the church barn which BIED intends to use for year-round cottage. industry and also, possibly, for a greenhouse to grow food for the Island in the winter. Economic Reform of the. Power CoM2any: It has already. been noticed in this report that the financial operation of the Block Island Power Company is a significant impediment to alternative -power generation options and to any serious effort to stabilize elear'ical costs for.,consumers. it is, in fact, dif-ficult to imagine an economic organization of .the power company whi-ch would result in higher costs to. the rate payers than that represented by the existing financial Mr. Ericson,completed a,"back-of-the envelope"calculation which included the assumption that the waste heat from the sewer plant diesels was actually used and that power was sold -back to BIPCo. Norman Dahl, Ph.D., on behalf of'the Block island Residents Association,is doing a more detailed analysis. structure of the power company. Thus, increasingly, suggestions are heard in the community about possible reform of the situation. Some residents wonder about a municipally owned and operated utility- Some potential investors explore the idea of acquiring the power company as a private venture but with more conscientious efforts to stabilize rates. Others think that a non-profit agency should own and operate the power companyt perhaps organized as a c,ooperative such as are common in rural America. At the present time the least-cost solution, financing as a rural electric cooperative with 2% money as in Vinalhaven, Maine, is infeasible be-cause' of current policies in Washington. The financing of fuel Imports appears to be a key el.ement in the costs of the existing operation, with .its reliance upon Ia non-competitive, middleman corporation charging maximum or near maximum interest rates. If those costs could be moderated--or eliminated--it could work a rate adjustment favorable to Islanders. Some c-ommunities (e.g. Springfield, Massachusetts) ar-e n-ow -organizing "fuel cooperatives" to finance bulk fuel purchases at discounted prices. Their experien @ce may be relevant to the Island's situation. Other 'possibilities -or variations commend themselves to study and evaluation. If acquisition of the power plant is indicat-ed, it sh-ould. be -mentioned that the incumbent ownership bought the power company in 1977 for $320,000. _19- This report finds that the financial organization of the power company is so relevant to consumer costs for electricity that it recommends that Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. and Town Energy Committee invite other community organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce and the B.I. Residents Association, to join -it in constitutincr a task force to develop a definite proposal on these issues. At least after alternative generatio n' sour,ces such as at the landfill, the sewer plant, and a windf arm are developed, a more concrete proposal can -be made to the Power Company. Legal and' Regulatory Matters: An analysis of legal. and regulatory matters--local., state and f ederal, as attached he-reto (Appendix B)-- finds that the laws would generally. favor the alternative energy strategies discussed in this report. A general overview of relevant law follows, -with ,further appendices attatched discussing particular matters. A major emp-hasis is on environmental la-ws because both positive . and negative aspects of alternative energy production -can have a major impact on the island's e-c-ology and character. PPPENDIX P I Electrici- Heating Propane Wood* Coal Gasoline* Diesel* Wind Peat', ty Oil Amount 3,619,656 #2 7351 Tank 100 cords 84 tons .343,887gal 539,463gal 160,945kwt ze-ro used kwh 302,542gal on BI #1 23,306gal 10/80- 1980 1980 1930 12/80- 1-9/1981 16/81 11/81 Btu 1 kwh #2 1 gal 1,900- Antkici'te/ 1 gal 1 gal 1 k-wh 5, 4 t) per 1 gal Btu/Ib. 12,70OBtu/ =. 9, so unit 3414.43Btu 13q,40OBtu 91,50OBtu lb. 110,25OBtu 140,00OBtu 3414.43Btu Btu/ Ash Town Facilities FY 1980 Doctor's Library Old Harbor Town Hall Sewer Vac* Equivalents* -Btus office Dock Heating 3546 gals 1,020 gal 1,170 gal I Ton Coal=182 gals #2 oi i! =7430 kwh Electri-7588kwh 11,133kwh 24,400kwh 5,252kwh Pu,mp Stat 1 cord wood=l ton Peat city 15,555 kwh Sewer Plnt 47,640 kwh Diesel 40,000 gal 1 gal propane=.1.20 gal ga: =1.529al#2 *See writteh.explanations. APPENDIX B 0 P.NPLYS'-r,S OF LPWS PND REGULATIONIS ON EiIERGY DE'VELOPME11T This appendix analyzes the laws and regulations which apply to energy development on Block Island and suggests their applic a- bility to options in the overall report. LOCPL LAW The local law in Block Island -con@sists of the ordinances and regt4stions of the Town of New Shoreham through its Town Council, Planning Board, Zoning Board and other entities. There is a long- term sensitivity to environmental issues in the existing laws of the I-sland. Block Island has an unusual history in that the First Warden .had executive, legislative and judisi-cal powers; this has been somewhat ameliorated since the -First Wariden and Second Warden now serve primarily to preside the Town Council and administer the laws adopted. The Town still has the Town Council acting as a probate court, but only in non-contested cases. The most iMDortent laws for energy development on Block Island are the Zoning a--nd Planning laws. These are administered by the Zoning Board and Planning Board respectively. The Planning Board adopts a comprehensive general plan and al-so approves specific subdivis-lo-ns. The Zoning Board approves particular uses of property and grants special exceptions and determines particular hardships from the applications of the Zoning laws. Presently the Zoning laws on the Island recognize three basic areas. The commercial zone is the 'East section of the Island at Old 14arbor (known as the Town) and the New Harbor area near the three large marinas: Payne's Dock, Block island Boat Basin-a@n-d,-Gh@a-mplinls Marina. The second zoning area is an intermediate residential mixed commercial area which allows one-acre zoning and surrounds the commercial zone on the East side of the is'-and. The final area is of a basically r-esidential open space character where there is two-acre zoning. Plterations on existing zoning laws would relate to, the imposition of cluster zoni-ng, although only one cluster zone development, Trim's Ridge, has been approved on the island at this time. Whatever zoning laws would apply to energy development may determine its chara,cteristics. For instance, present zoning laws allow a special exception, i.e. approval within known guidelines of towers for wind turbines. Thus, zones in which such towers were to be allowed were changed than the viability of individual wind turbines versus those owned by the power company or by a wind farm would change. Similarly. if peat digging, which is presently an agricultural pursuit in all zones were to be disallowed in certain zones, this would preclude the development of the peat resource. It should be noted that the Town has specifically authorized a testing of peat by Block Island Economic Development Foundation. @(Resolution in fippendix I) The Planning Board is considering various changes in the existing zoning laws and subdivision regulations-whi.,c1h will further impinge upon various kinds of development on the Island. Pmong the things which the Board has considered are impact on hydrology (water use) and undergrounding of -utility lines. There is a clear relationship between energy use and water use on Block Island, not only because electricity is used substantially for water pumping, but also because a major energy use is water heating. Thus any action by the Planning Board in regard to water Will aTfect energy use. There is a controversy regarding the Planning Board's requirement of undergrounding of utility lines, because of the obje,ction by the utility company of interference with its preroga- tives and because i-15 does cost more initially. There is a differ_@ ence of opinion 'as to whether in the long run it would be cheaper to pla-ce -cables underground thus avoiding. maintenance-problems with the existing overhead cables because of the high winds in winter. There is a related problem as to the telephone and cable television lines which presently exist on the Island, and whether if they are undergrounded their maintenan,ce cost will be less or more then it presently is. There is a -specific Town ordinance, separate from the zoning laws, which gives authority to the Conservation Commission of the Town to look at oDen spaces and wetlands. In the instance of peat use, the Conservation Commission has made a specific finding to favor the testing of pest on Block Island. This resolution is attached. One interesting difference between theConservation Commission's viewpoint and that of the Department of Environmental Management is that the town agency claims jurisdicti-on over all wetlands -no -matter how -small. No view is expressed as to any possible State preemption of local law. The major force of the Conservation @Commission is a moral one in any case i-which causes the Town Council to consider the problems of conservation in adopting its poli-cies. P final area oil local law relates to future ordinances by the Town.' One result of the research in this project is the consideration of a source separation for garbage, wh1ch would reduce garbage processing costs as well as conserve energy. Whether or note the State adopts a "'bottle bill" as seems likely, the Island may went to have its own form of required source separs- tion. Among t-he suggestions which have been made is to not allow any private dumping at the Town Landfill, but to have Town refuse collection with,source separation, to.have a--reward for,bottles, and cans (which could,include young children on the Island gather- ing bottles and cans and providing some money, particularly in the off-season) and the 'more specific imposition of either voluntary or mandatory standards on-glass, aluminum, metal, animal and vegetable wastes, newspapers and other pap-ergoo.ds. A few sample regulations and ordinances of other municipalities are attached to this report and it is recommended that such regulations be adopted. There has been very little consideration on--t4.e-.1sland of recreational opportunities for the year-round residents. One form of resource re-covery, which the. University of Rhode Island has pioneered in is the use of tires to improve the resilience of sand dunes and beaches. -Combining the use of tires with sand dune and beach protection would improve the recreational oppor- tunities on the Island. Specific examples of this could be at Dorry's Cove and the beach west -of -'%,-he Town Land-f,111- -..,It -may.-be -possible to improve the quality -of both beaches through putting a tire interlacing out into the water which would cause sand to collecton the actual beach. This would interrelate at the-Landfill with the possible creation of a Dark behind the existing sand dunes. To the North of the park could be a new refuse processing fa,cility which would include units for Incinerator power produc- tion and source separation. There would have to be some invest-@' ment of Town funds, on a long-term capitalized basis. But most of the cost could be borne through an independent bonding mechanism such as that provided by the Rhode island-Solid Waste Management Corporation or the Rhode Island Port Authority and Economic Develop- %0 ment Pdministration. Town or-dinances,would have to be adopted to specifically provide for such SnODtion. STATE LAW --One major conclusion of the study done for this report is that State law may very well be the most important determinant in the particular projects which are able to go forward in Rhode Island. This comes about because of two converging trends. One is the federal reduction in general funding and loan authority. The other is fede'"al der-egulation and emphasis on state implementa- tion of any existing federal programs. Thus state law becomes extremely important in determining what becomes viable on Bl-ock Island. fimong thhe state laws which do apply are those which deal with thecoastal management, -financing, taxation and zoning. For energy development on Block Island probably the most important set of laws may be environmental. fis part of the project here involved, an an alysis of the environmental impact of digging peat on Block Island was done and preliminary applications were prepared to make a test dig of peat on Block Island. Four particular sites were se-Lected out of over thirty which could have been considered. These sites were chosen because of accessibility, ownership and least environmental impact. The Department of Environmental Management is not a unitary animal and has been very helpful in creating the report while at the same time being very stubborn in'@, requiring every jot and tittle of its regulations to be complied .with. it is the position of this report's authors that DEM's -interprets tion --of -the Wetlands Law is-Incorrect in that-it tree-ts what is an environmental test and a planned benign digging of a wetland, like-it would a filling in of a wet-land. This is very disappointing in that it was hoped that there would be some sensitivity to the distinction in-choices. In direct contrazt, DEM has allowed a preliminary determination to fill in New Meadow Hill Swamp, a known peat resource behind Block Island Power Company, in order to allow erection of the Power Company's new headquarters/residence. Pt this time, after much additional work, a f ormal permit to dig in Red Gate Marsh has been The environmental laws which do apply -relate to air quality, water quality, noise and wetlands. Air quality would likely be improved under any,of the options suggested in this report, although there would have to be a careful analysis of the benefits from the incinerator proposal for use of garbage and peat-compared to the existing -emissions from the diesel generators at the Block Island Power Company. While Block Island presently has a great ,deal of a "bubble" under existing State and Federal r-egulations, people on the island may be want to have more strigent requirements than the state would have. It would therefore be helpful to have more accurate monitoring of the existing emissions. Water quality is not a problem on Block Is'-and, except at the Marinas. It seems unlikely that there would be any impact whatso- ever on water quality, except for short-term turbidity ca used by digging peat in particular peat bogs. fin important issue, however, is of a long-term vi ab ilityof the Block Isla nd water table. T his should be studied. -Noise pollution is a problem on Block island, and in part has an .energy base. The existing power plant does cause noise and wind turbines Mp2 have a swishihg sound. However, there has been no objection to the three operating wind turbines on the Island. The objections which exist go to the rate impact of these turbines, not their noise. Similarly the existing sewer plant was evaluated for noise when it was designed, and it has sufficient noise suppression which would not be interfered with by proposed en,@rgy projects. FEDERAL LAWS Pn environmental assessment is attached (fippendix C) which discusses in detall the federal environmental considerations for proJects which could be based at the sewer plant, town landfill or .existing power company site using, sewage, garbage, seaweed and/or peat. The net analysis is that such projects would provide an environmental gain for the island. Also attached are briefs filed by the Town of New Shoreham and the Division of Public Utilities before the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (Pppendix F). These briefs discuss the favorable climate created for alterno-tive energy on Block Island caused by federal regulatory law. APPENDIX C .10 0 AN ENVIRONMENTAL/LEGAL ANALYSIS BPSED UPON ENERGY DEVELOPVXNT OF GARBAGE, PEAT AND OTHER BIOMASS A. Rank Listing of Beneficial Environmental, Health, Safety, and -Socio-Economic ImDacts from this Proposal 1. Creation of a substantial number of jobs for year-round Block Island residents. 2. Reduction in energy costs for both year-round and summer residents of Block Island. t. - 3. Reduction in adverse environmental impacts from prese nt diesel generation of electritity on Block Island. 4. Increase in the amount of open water available for migratory water fowl on Block Island. 5. Reduction in energy use and environmental impact on transportation of imported.- petroleum to.Block Island. 6. Reduction _of iron and manganese in Block Island ground water. 7. Reduction in unnecessary use of the limited supply-of land for solid waste disposal on Block Island. 8. Production of valuable equatic,plants and shell fish- using waste hot water from energy processes. B. Rank Listing of Major Environmental, Health, Safety, and Economic Risks 1. Possible loss of habitat for certain marsh-dwelling water fowl. 2. Loss of habitat for certain marsh plants. C. Conclusion of Significance of Particular EHSS Impacts Since the expected EHSS impacts are positive, except for a nominal impact on certain -wild fowl and plant life which will have a substantial amount of other habitat, it is predicted that the prODOSS1 would have thepositive - impacts of increased employment, improved lifestyle, improved aesthetic enjoyment and more open-water migratory'birds on Block Island. To the extent that there would be loss of certain marsh,dwelling wild fowl and p1ants, there would be on effort to encourage additional propagation of these species. Block Island has two quite large wild-life refuges which would not. be disturbed in the development aof the Island's peat resources. The peat resources which we intend to-develop -ore located in areas which are already disturbed and/or have .-been historically used for the harvesting of peat. The use of garbage and sewage sludge as proposed would, under all circumstances, have a positive impact. D. Anticipated Impact of Changes or Additions to Applicable Environmental and0ccupational Regulations No changes or additions to applicable envi-ronmental.and o,ccupational r-egulations are expected regarding this proposal. The only possible problem anticipated with the positive environmental impacts of this proposal is that it may not be feasible to encourage all forms of wild life which have previously resided in marshy type environments when they are reclaimed as open water. Thus, it became a judgment that the open water life forms and the other positive environ- mental impacts clearly outweigh the possible loss of some other life forms in the area of peat harvesting. E. Unresolved EHSS Is-sues There are no unresolved EHSS issues in unquantified ,effluents or emissions which would affect the validity of the EHSS impact analysis at this time, except for a possible analysis of endangered species. The Block Island Economic Development foundation has -consulted with a responsible official within the Audubon Society, who considered this proposal. On balance no known adverse impact, except for- possible endangered species should be done in the event that this proposal is-approved by the Department of Energy. Such an analysis is provided for in the Bureau of Mines Study. In addition it is intended that a full-time biologist with knowledge of the lsloond'-s ecology will be hired for the project and will seek habitants for valuable plani and animal species. II. EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS A. bescriRtion of Sites 1. The primary site proposed is the existing site of the B1ock Island Power Company, which in addition to having' a number of industrial-type buildings has a large wind- mill 200 (kw) which has been placed at the site by.the Department of Energy. A Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this windmill has previously b4en .t prepared. In addition, th; site has substantial pea bogs which would be used for the production of energy on -Other po_sgj1Qle pitea fg:r part of t1le Project includo -the present landfill operations and cower pils--nt operations. B. Description of Existing Drainage and Runoff Patterns For Plant Site and Fuel Storage Areas - - 1. No change is expected in existing drainage and runoff patterns for plant site and fuel ztorage areas. All peat removed will be dried on site and therefore any runoff will flow back into the.lowland-s of the peat bogs. C. Description of Existing Off Site Facilities 1. The transmission lines which exist on Block Island are on typical rural wood posts with single lines. These lines carry moderate voltage electrical current, and telephone and a cable television signal. 2. Transportation Pecess - The present access to Block Island is by air in single engine or two-engine planes or by ferry provided by Interstate Navigation Company. Heavy equipment may be brought in by barge although this is probably unnecessary for the type of equipment which is expected to be used. No increased transports--.. or: tion activity is expected, but an improved load fsct@l on existing facilities should oc-cur. Water Source - Since Block Island is an island, there is no shortage of -salt water. In addition there 1 substantial amount of fresh water available for any project -heed-s... To- the extent that additional water is needed for gasification cooling 'this -can be provided---- from the larger open ponds created by digging for peat on site. D. Description of Environmental Settings Attached To This Proposal A copy of a study done for the Governor's Energy Office of Rhode Island, regarding the peat potential on Block Island. Further -study will be done for aBureau of Mines study of environmental and economi@c impact. Fra@cticsl f easibility has been, demonstrated by.a @smsll grant for renewable resource Study which was funded by -DOE.' The topography of Block Island has been extensively studied by various Federal agencies and thare are extent topographic maps which show all relevant features. Relevant maDs are attached to this proposal. Further impacts are discussed below. 1. Atmospheric Block Island is in thF northeastern United States, specif ically New En and. However, since it. is a coastal-region, it fs not subje-at to the some type' of ambient air quality problems that the malnlond'@- has. It is a non-degradation-ares, and it is expected that the use of gasified.peat and waste should reduce the.amount of discharge into the air. The-present diesel generation supplies substantial amounts of sulphur, carbon monoxi4e snd nitrous oxide. Burning'of peat,in stoves and furnaces -should provide improved air quality since it would substitute for the use of number two heating oil which has far greater amounts of sulphur and other pollutants. Downwind from Block Island is the Atlantic Ocean. There would be no impact on the mainland. 2. Hydrologic conditions Block Island does not have flowing streams. It has many ponds and wetlands. These are fully identified in the attached study done for the Governor's Energy Office. There should be no impact on surfacr and ground water since the only water flow will be from the drying of peat which will be done on its original site. The impact on aquatic habitats is both positive, and negative in that some water fowl landings should be encouraged by increased open water caused by the removal of subsurface peat and vegetation while other water fowl will be discouraged by such a change. There should be no hydreologic hazard from flood or storm runoff since the ponds or bogs will have greater depth. 3. Geologic Conditions Block Island is a glacial island which has been fully described in virious studies including some attached to this proposal. There should be no difficulty regarding soil productivity from this proposal. There. is very little present agriculture on the Island except for individual gardens. These will not be impacted. 4. Ecological Conditions Regarding Endangered Species Block Island is a unique ecological system. The present use of imported petroleum has had a negative impact on this system. The use of peat, garbage and sewage sludge The only unknown factors are regarding endangered species. There is a great profusion of wildlife and vegetation on Block Island, some of which are little found on the mainland. However, this proposal does not intend to greatly impact more than four of the hundreds of wetlands on the Island. As indicated proviously, a full-time biologist will be employed to monitor species populations. Block Island has an estimated population of 500 persons 5. Socio-Economic Conditions tion of 3,000. It has been losing year-round popula- tions, particularly among young people, because there is no employment. It is expected that this proposal employment by improving the economic conditions on the Island. Because the year-round islanders have the lowest per capita income in Rhode Island, available public services have been limited. To the extent that the economic conditions improve because of this proposal, public services should also improve. 6. Aesthetic Conditions Block Island is a very beautiful natural island which attracts many visitors. The proposal should improve its aesthetic conditions by reducing the odor and particulant coming from the present power plant. There would be no impact on historical or ecological sites from the proposal and cultural values should be enhanced from the use of indigenous resources. It is intended to improve the power plant site by including landscaping in this proposal. 7. Tribalor OtherReligious Practices are Not Impacted Near the Proposed or Alternative Sites The sewer plant happens to be near the Harbor Baptist Church where meeting regarding the past project have been held. Rev. Anthony Pappas, Pastor of the Harbor Church is a member of BIED Board of Directors and supports this proposal. There is no know objection of any religious group to the proposal and the other proposed locations are not near religious sites. 8. Identification of Any Other Major Energy or Chemical Complexes There are no major energy or chemical complexes on Block Island. The closest to an energy complex that exists is the existing power plant site which the primary project is expected to use in improved form. III. PLANT/PROCESS DESCRIPTION A. Plant Resource Requirements The energy form to be used in the project is peat dug from bogs on Block Island, garbage from people living on the Island and sewage sludge from the existing sewer plant on the Island. Employment is expected to be solely of persons living on the Island for operational necessities. B. Plant Site Plan and Topographic Maps 1. The site involved is the current power plant site which is approximately 19 acres with steel buildings, power plant office/residence and the DOE windmill. Most of the New Meadow Swamp, which is detailed in the Governor's Energy Dept. survey as a major peat resource is on this site. A second site is the town landfill (which is open land next to sand dunes and Block Island Sound) which has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as a landfill. Third is the town swer plant site which has been both approved and substantially paid for the the EPA. (Land either presently owned by the Town of New Shoreham or adjacent private land is proposed to be used.) 2. Fuel Storage Area. There will be storage of peat until it dries next to existing bogs. Further storage may be in a new building either at the town landfill or at the power plant site next to other similar buildings. C. Off-Site Facility Requirements 1. Electric transmission lines. No additional electric transmission lines will be required under this proposal except for an extension of additional service to the town landfill. 2. Transportation access. Existing air and ferry trans- portation will be used for material. Dump trucks will be used for transportation with the expectation of use of indigenous fuel for such dump trucks at a future point. 3. Water Intake and Discharge. It is expected that some additional amounts of water will be needed for cooling of the gasifier. The discharge from this water may be used for heating a greenhouse for the growth of vegetables in the winter, peat drying, the hydroponic growth of vegetables, and the promotion of shellfish farming. 4. Product Storage will be in piles of drying peat compacted peat, and garbage or sludge in the form of extruded briquettes (in bags) in buildings. D. In-Plant and Over-The-Fence Discharges During Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Plant 1. Quantity physical and chemical restrictions a. Air emissions Fewer emissions than presently occur from diesel generation are expected from the use of peat, garbage or sewage sludge. However, there may be additional particulate emissions from individual residences which will use peat in place of other energy forms. Overall emissions should be reduced in the substitution of peat for number two heating oil. b. Liquid Effluence The only liquid effluents anticipated are thermal discharges from the plant which are to be used for agriculture and shellfish production. c. Solid Waste The only anticipated solid waste is a minor amount of inert ash which will be added to a much diminished town landfill. d. Other discharges There shoudl be less heat, noise and odor than presently exist from the power plant. 2. Identification of Standards for Discharges Block Island is a present non-degradation area with existing discharges from the power plant in its diesel generation. There are also discharges from the existing sewer plant when it operates using diesel fuel. Further, there is burning at the present town landfill. All of these effects should be limited or eliminated through the proposal. The low BTU gas being produced will leave little or no emission when combusted. 3. Description of Mitigating Measures Employed in The System Since the plant itself will have a positive environ- mental impact, there is no need for mitigating measures. It is intended that thermal wastes will be processed in a useful manner through agriculture or aquaculture. 4. Consequences of Project a. Consequences of Construction 1) overall Description of Construction Activities Since the only anticipated construction for this project is the putting in place of gasification equipment existing buildings and the replacement of some of the existing diesel generations, (with the possible construction of one building for storage of peat) there will be little disruption from construction. What disruption that does occur will be on the disturbed sites where the power plant presently exists, where the sewer plant presently exists and where the town landfill presently exists. 2) Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts i.No atmopheric impact from construction itself is anticipated. ii. There will be no anticipated hydrologic impact from construction itself except from nominal rain runoff on direct construction work. This is anticipated to be very minimal. iii. Plant Use Impact There will be no plant use impact from construction since already disturbed sites are expected to be used. iv. Public and Occupational Health Consequences The type of construction anticipated is a very low risk. All normal safety precautions will be employed. The introduction of new equipment should improve safety and working conditions for present power plant employees. IV. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY DISTURBANCES Construction should not cause any ecological community disturbances since it will be done on existing construction sites. 1. Community Impacts on Construction Labor Force It is anticipated that persons presently living on Block Island will comprise the construction labor force. The labor force to be employed should have all construction skills except for certain engineering consulting services as needed. 2. Increased Demand for Local Services There should be no increased demand for local services of any consequence because of the construction except to the extent that the increased income of Island residences will increase spending on the Island. This should not cause additional tax expense, however, and should increase revenue. 3. Increased Demand for Housing There should be no increased demand for housing from the construction. except to the extent that Island persons with greater income may upgrade their existing housing. This is a positive impact. Community Economic Benefits Attributed to Payroll 4. or Tax Benefits As indicated previously, it is expected that the employment from construction can be accomplished in the Fall through Spring period and thus improve the economy load factor which is otherwise heavily dependent on summer tourism. IV. 2 CONSEQUENCES OF OPERATION A. Environmental, Safety and Health Impacts as a Result of Project Operation 1. Atmospheric Impacts The possible emissions from the operation of the project will, under four classifications noted, be less than that from existing diesel operations. The precise amounts of emissions are not known. However, peat, when it is directly burned, ordinarily has one-tenth the sulphur content of other fossil fuels. It would have approximately the same impact as wood. However, because is would be a dispersed site impact with the high wind velocity over the open ocean of Block Island, it would not, under any circumstances, stay and accumulate over land areas. Most emissions, if any, would come from the combustion of the low BTU fuel which will be produced in the gasification of peat, solid waste and sewage sludge. These emissions (expected to be small amouts of CO and CH4) will be produced at a high inefficiency level. They will be of small amount in relatioship to the existing diesel generation from inefficient machines. The existing power plant produces electricity at 23% efficiency factor, and from observations appears to produce significant quantities of SO2 and H2S. The existing plant probably produces significant CO and other emmissions which should be determined in the Bureau of Mines study. 2. Hydrological Impacts There would be no adverse hydrologic impacts from the operation of this project. Disturbances of water bodies will only occur in the actual peat bogs and, in this instance, drying will take place on site. Therefore, water will either evaporate or run back into lower lying bog areas. The use of waste heat in the form of hot water should have a positive environ- mental in its use in agriculture and aqua- culture. 3. Solid Waste Impacts The project should have a positive impact on waste disposal on Block Island, since it is intended that that volume presently being either buried or burned will be substantially reduced in the gasification process and the only end product will be a small amount of inert ash as a waste product after separa- tion of inert metal and glass. 4. Geologic Imports. The only geologic impact presently forecast is the reclamation of peat bogs. Ther is an issue regard- ing open water versus vegetated marshed. Some forms of plant and animal life prefer one rather than another and the balance between the different forms may be affected by the peat digging. There may also be some short diversion of any consequence for the entire island. Consentrations of iron and maganese should be ruduced in ground water since removal of peat will reduce run-off of these elements. 5. Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts There should be improved public health and safety from this proposal. There will be less exposure to petroleum products and less odor from diesel genera- tion with the present smell of sulphur. There will also be fewer breeding ground for moswquitos and other pest insects. 6. Ecological Impacts As indicated before, ther are both positive and negative impacts of the peat digging operations. In any instance they would not be substancial in relationship to the entire island. Since hunting is very greatly restircted on Block Island there should be a positive impact on the recreational use of Block Island in that the aesthetic detriment from the burning of diesel fuel will be eliminated. Bird watching (a substancial pursuit on the island) should be improved. Further, revegetation should occur naturally. To the extent that a study of endangerment of certain kinds of vegetaion, this will be included as part of the proposal. Also, it is expected that sport shellfishing will be improved to the extent that certain forms of shellfish may be intentionally grown using thermal discharges from the project. 7. Impact on Local Plans The proposal has the support of local public officials including th ePlanning Board and the Chamber of Commerce since it should have a positive impact on land use and employment on Block Island. 8. Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The only irreversible impact on resources may be a short-term one of the peat use itself. Peat is a semi-renewable resource, since there can be regrowth 0 of the peat bog within one century. However, to the extent that this is a long-term impact, other possible.uses of peat may be limited. B. Socio-Economic Impacts I. Community Impacts It is anticipated that this proposal will allow exist- int Island populations to remain year-round, rather than having to pursue other employment opportunities because of the present seasonal nature of the Block Island economy. This should improve the cash flow for all Island businesses and should increase the taxable incidents for the Town of New Shoreham Income per capits on Block Island is presently the lowest in Rhode Island. The current population is 500 year-round persons, although this can swell to as many as 3,000 during the summer. It is expected that income per capita should improve with this project. Real spendable income should improve even more since ii is anticipated thate the cost of energy will increase at a rate lower than the rate of inflation if this project is implemented. 2. Aesthetic Impacts: There should be a positive aestetic impact form this proposal, since there will not be the odor from the burning of diesel fuel and the smoke whitch presently occurs. In addition, because the proportion of open water to vegetated marsh should change, there should be a decrease in the amount of insect pests being bred on the Island and an increase in migratory water fowl. 3. There should be no impact on religious practices and sites from this proposal. Any change in community character would be a positive impact and a movement back to the former character of Block Island as a year-round community. V. EXTRACTIO/PREPARATION/TRANSPORTATION OF RAW FUEL FEEDSTOCK A. Peat Extraction Raw fuel (peat) will be extracted by draining bogs, if necessary (most are now dry), and surface digging the peat, utilizing existing small construction equipment (backhoe, crane, payloader). Peat will be field-dried on site for a period of two weeks or until mositure content is down to forty percent. Material will then be transported to central site (power plant), using local dump trucks. At this point peat will be mixed with shredded solid waste to a moisture content of 30/32% and compacted to pellet form at 1.2 atmospheres, and placed in stortage sheds. 0 B. Resource Requirements 1. Energy (gasoline or diesel fuel) enough to run two pieces of small construction equipment for seven months would be needed.. Approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel would be used for transportation. Shredding, mixing and compacting equipment would be electric. using excess or off -peak power at power plant site, amount unknown. 2. Water Use and Consumption No water will be used at this point. Run-off returne to source. 3. Land and Productivity At this time some bogs have been donated; negostis- tions have begun to acquire others. The legal department will work on these matters. It is expected thate the bogs and surrounding lands will be returned to their original condition as pond and meadows. 4. Waste Disposal Sites Bying using solid waste in the process, we expect to prolong the life of our present landfill by twenty to thirty years. There will be no waste from peat extraction. 5. Manpower Eight to ten workers will be employed in the extrac- tion, preparation and transporation phase which will occur during the seven winter months, when unemploy- ment figures on the Island are at their peak. It is our plan to use local fishermen who are idle during these months. Another eight to ten full-time employees will handle waste collection, separation, shredding, mixing, cubing and storing. We expect total employment during this operation to be sixteen to twenty. 6. Transportation Needs Transportation will be sub-contracted to local existing companies. C. Environmental Discharges 1. Since initial drying of the peat will be done at sit of extraction, water will simply return to source. Bying removing peat from ponds, most iron and manganese will be removed from the ground water. 2. A presently ongoing environmental impact will identify any endangered species. An employed full-time biologist will continuously monitor all work. At this point it is felt that by opening these overgrown bogs we can effectively maintain an organic mosquito control program, and hopefully entice the migratory water fowl back to the Island. 0 3. Air emissions - only normal exhaust emissions from standard small construction equipment and over-the- road. trucking. Liquid effluents-water run-off from the initial extraction-will return to the original source, Solid waste-because of our use of solid waste as a source of raw material, the local land- fill operation will be greatly reduced. Other discharges-only normal noise and odor from small construction and over-the-road trucking. Shredding, compressing and cubing equipment will be enclosed B. EHSS Impacts 1. Ecological Community Disruptions In that the extraction will take place during off- season, the visual impact will be minimal. By digging and deepening the pond, most of which are urn now dry, we will return them to their original condition. a. Incidental by-products of operation. 1) A large percentage of iron and manganese, will be removed from.ground water. 2) Migratory water fowl. will return. 3) Local fire protection, which normally uses available ponds, will be enhanced. 0 4) Recreation will be increased by greater be .:increased availability of ponds for fishing and 5) Land values will increase because of enhancements of visual beauty and non-chemical pest control. 0 2. Public and Occupational Hazards. We will comply with OSHA standards. 3. Socio-economic Impact The immediate impact is the creation of sixteen to twenty new jobs. It is alson hoped that with the implementation of cheaper energy fishing industry. 4. Geological MOdifications to Terrain Because the bogs will become ponds--open and deeper-- a better habitat will be afforded to water fowl and marine life. The holding capacity of deeper ponds, before normal spill-off, will greatly inhibit evaporation so as to maintain a constant fresh water habitat. Because of the extremely dry summer, most bogs and ponds on the Island are now dry. 5. Reclamation All facilites used in the extraction and drying process (i.e. roads, scraped areas, etc.) will be returned to their original condition. This will include planting of local shrubs and grasses. Ponds will be stocked with appropriate aquatic life. 0 IV. COLLECTION/DISTRIBUTION/USE OF ALTERNATE FUELS Identification (other) The peat together with the selected solid waste, will be processed through a bio-mass processing and, collection system. Produced in the system is a low BTU synthetic fuel which will be used to power electric generators. Electricity will be trans- mitted over existing tranmission lines to the consumer. B. Characterization of Products 1. Not identified in TSCA (peat, solid waste, ash). 2. Not identified in TSCA priority list. 3. Not on OSHA exposure list. 4. Not in RIOSH registry. 5. Not identified in OSHA cancer policy. 6. No known potential health effects. C. Description of Collection and Distrubution Systems Collection of alternate fuel (low BTU syntha-gas) will be through a closed system bio-mass gasification system, with a short direct feed to diesel generating equipment. Electrical energy will pass through existing trans- mission lines. D. Description of Impacts There will be no short- or long-tern impacts other than socio-economic, i.e. reduction in cost to consumer. VII. REGUALTORY COMPLAINCE The full detail of regulatory compliance should be developed in the course of the Bureau of Mines financed Study of Enviromnmental and Economic Impact which will be completed in the earlier part of this project time scale. It is anticipated thate the environmental and economic study will be completed in May 1981. All permits should be granted by December 1981. What follows is a preliminary evaluation of the law and regulations which may apply to this proposal A. Applicability of Current Proposed and Anticipated Regulations 1. Clean Air Act - National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) It is anticipated that the concentrations for TSP (total suspended particles in air), HC, CO, SO2, Pb, photochemical oxidants and NOx production of HCCO, SO2, and photochemical 0 oxidants will be reduced. Specific numbers should be provided by the Bureau of Mines Study. a. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) (Attainment areas) There should be one-tenth of the current emissions of SO2 from this proposal than in the existing diesel generation and use of number two heating oil in homes. There should bo no TSP emissions. CO should be nominal as should hydrocarbons and ozone. There should be no lead emissions. To the peat-derived diesel fuel for trans- portation, the existing lead concentrations from gasoline use may alson be reduced. b. Non-Attainment Non-Attainment standards do not appear to apply. c. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) It is anticipated that there will be no difficulty in complying whith NSPS standards when such are developed for the particular processes that are proposed. The figures should again be developed by the Bureau of Mines Study. d. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESAPS) There are no expected emissions of asbestos, 0 beryllium, mercury, vinyl chloride, benzine VOC, or any other known carcinogens from this proposal. Again, this will be studied in the Bureau of Mines impact research. e. Visibility To the extent that class one, pristine area designation applies to Block Island, there should be no difficulty in compliance with such regulations since the gasification process and combustion should reduce substantially the amounts of particulants presently being discharged on Block Island. 2. Clean Water Act There should be no problem of compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). for this proposal. There has been previous consultation with the Department of Environmental Management for Rhode Island regarding the peat proposal. There will be no problem regarding the initial digging on one site and there should be no problem with the future. This will be studied, however, in the Bureau of Mines Study. 0 3. Safe Drinking Water Act There should be no impact on the underground injection control (UEC) from this proposal, since it isnot anticipated that discharge will go into ground waters on Block Island. The only substantial discharge will be of heated water. 4. Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA It is not anticipiated that the RCRA will, apply to this proposal since it is not anticipated that any solid and hazardous waste will be produced by this project. The solid waste recovery will have positive impact. Block Island presently has no industrial waste although there is a substantial volume of restaurant and resi- dential garbage and trash production. It is anticipated that this trash and garbage, as well as sludge, will be used in the project. 5. Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) This impact will be studied under the Bureau of Mines Study. It is not anticipated, however, that any toxic substances would be involved in this proposal. 6. Surfacing Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) It is not expected that the SMCRA will apply to this proposal. But it is anticipated thate the Department of Interior. Bureau of Mines, will indicate whether its enforcement of SMCRA applies in the study it is financing. 7. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) OSHA will apply to this proposal, but no problem of compliance is anticipated. There should be no toxic noise or dust from the proposal, although the gasifi- cation process must have appropriated venting for elimination of CO. This will be implemented. The safety and work environment should be improved by the introduction of new equipment and landscaping. a. Preliminary Description of Dust Control Technology Since it is anticipated thate there will be no need for control technology other than normal safety precautions in operating this project, there should be no problem of control. Howevere, there will be monitoring of any fugitive CO which may occur. b. Preliminary Assessment of Environmental Monitoring Requirements As indicated, there will be monitoring for any emissions although this is not expected to be a difficult problem. c. Filing for Major Permits There will be no need for major permits in the proposed phase one of this project which will be the design and permit application stage including the initial digging and compacting of peat from a test bog and development of usage plans for resource recovery. Shortly thereafter all major permits will be applied for and a preliminary environmental impact statement will be created. It is hoped thate the Department of Environmental Management will hire a parttime biologist on the Island who will participate in any further planning, monitoring, and implementation. APPENDIX D, @l 0 AN ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR MARTHA'S VINEYARD Directive of Work No. 10 Contract No. 68-01-4940 Prepared for: U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region I John F. Kennedy, Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Prepared by: GORDLAND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 405 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 828-7300 October 10, 1979 0 Procedure for Analysis of Recycling Feasibility.. Gordian was to define the steps which island officials should pur- sue to analyze the possibility of, and if feasible, the implementation of, a recycling program. In order to present the analysis results more clearly, this report has been organized along slightly different lines, although the four main tasks are still thoroughly addressed. Gordian's basic approach to this project was to gather as much data as possible form on-island sources through a brief site visit followed by telephone interviews, and then to supplement this information with data from existing sour- ces such as EPA publications and previous studies of communities with similar problems. It was understood and agreed to by EPA, the BSWD, the Martha's Vineyard Commission, and the Island-Wide Solid Waste Dis- posal Sub-Committee that Gordian's effort was not to include the devel- opment of detailed local data since that would necessitate a much more lengthy and costly level of involvement. Consequently, much of the analysis presented in this study is based on assumptions and estimates which Gordian feels are reasonably accurate, but they should not be construed as definitive values without further on-site investigation. Summaries and results of the analyses are presented in the main body of this report. The underlying assumptions and background calcultations are displayed in full in the appendices. The systems developed here are intended to be conceptual designs and should not be considered implemntation plans, as they are not necessarily the best or only solutions to the solid waste problems con- fronting Martha's Vineyard. Rather, the purpose of this study is to provide a comparative evaultion of several solid waste management op- tions which are capable of satisfying the island's needs, while comply- ing with state and federal statutes. This information is intended to enable the relevant decision-makers to make a more informed choice as to which system is best suited for the citizens of Martha's Vineyard. 0 WASTE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION The solid waste problem on Martha's Vineyard is aggravated by the fact that the size of the waste stream fluctuates dramatically from winter to summer (see Appendix A). This obviously reflects the huge influx of "summer people" from June through September. Determining the size and distribution of this influx is the most important element in deriving an accurate estimate of the nature of the waste stream. Since there are currently no direct measurements of the size of the island's waste stream, Gordian's estimates are base upon applying a reasonable per capita waste generation rate to estimates of the population. The population estimates used in this study were provided primarily by the Martha's Vineyard Commission. Information garther during a visit to the island on July 11-12, 1979 indicated that the summer influx was spread over four summer months ( June - September), with greatest con- centration in July and August. Gordian approximated this montly dis- tribution as shown in Table 1. This population curve can then be ap- plied to per capita waste generation estimates to determine the quan- tity of the waste stream. The waste generation rates employed in this study are base pri- marily upon local information and studies of similar areas, rather than generalized national data. The rates used are shown in Table 2. These rates were then applied to the corresponding population estimates (from Table 1) to determine an estimate of the annual distribution of solid waste on Martha's Vineyard. Table 3 displays the waste stream informa- tion resulting from this calculation. Note thate the estimates for 1990 and 2000 are based upon population increases while holding waste gen- eration rates constant. This appears to be a reasonable assumption given the uncertain and often conflicting nature of professional opion- ion on this subject. oil- rML! 10MIATION 91111PAM FOR M";44,'$'!VIMKVAN (ILRUAMIM12 041141trabli. Jae. Feb. Mae. Apt. Nay. ;"a JeIF' Auj@ OC9. MQ a 0 a Oct.-May June July' Amuse Sept. Oct.-"4*- June July August @Opt. oct.-Ifer, Juas July August so 1.394 2.061. 3.611 JII 1,611 2.160 2.3" 3 1,110 3.520 Z.sao SOG 6.930 &.m @.4 N 4.148 &.545 6.541 2,135 4.503 .2.340 S.100 11.8so 114,"a 3.320 2.68%' 13.465 6.3sa 2,63S 10.605 14.4" 14.400 6.120 485 Gay 114164 165 1.411- 2.06i' a."$ 194 ISO 1.650 3.140 in Sao 300 -1.346 3.320 1.320 oil IQ $1.610 I&L&60 040 Ai, 12.S411 11.440 11.64o 041L 1,965 to. 293 i4.460 14,4JOL' 6.130 2,3 2.7 Be. 5.133 9.104 ''ll"foo 9.660 11.600 12.00 6.130 1.931 "'Soo 6 301 4 IJ 145 3.691 1.216 5.9se i*511 .9.4 4,111 6.30 6. )w 33.119 4.615 10.110,;t .500 .3i.514 &).ON 6).wo 28.1" et, Tbase guwns else acco Jogs day-tFl rfs.urlag J W, mW August. Is 1919 it is a 8.9 1i!k eb4a.4.105 4sy-trIppeca, per day visited eacb of Ibises i9wes. Is 1190 tiks Ou"Ar 147.160 orJ is Ima . ISO.- TABLE 2. F-STMTED WASTE GEMATION RATES -SU=Qr Winter (June-September) 'Large Towns gartown, :i Oak Bluffs T@@bui:7) 4 lb/person/day 2.5 D/Perscii/di7 small Towns 40. _:...((ZhapVaqu:kdd:k;k. Ch-I I marks G&7 Emd, W. Tisbury 2.5 lb/person/day .1.83 lb/ver3on/da7 -Day-Triv]2ers (only'du ring@ anA .21 -Ib/"r3dn'..dav---'. 7Jv.-"' thtidAn hCir,these rates !were eterl d Appen ix: A. 7 w' 0 SUMMARY The objective of this report was to examine severl solid waste management alternatives for Martha's Vineyard and present a clear pic- ture of the design and cost parameters of each system. As requested, the emphasis of this study was placed on the analysis of the collection system alternatives and the regional Landfill system, based on detailed estimates of the size and distribution of the waste stream. Prelimi- pary evaultions of a modular incineration/energy recovery system, and of a source separation program were alson performed. The information developed for these alternatives is supported by the detailed Appendix- ces included with the report. Although Gordian was instructed to refrain from making specific recommendations, the results of our analysis point to severl conclu- sions: In view of current state statues and impending federal regula- tions regarding landfill design, opting for a system based on a central disposal facility appears practical. Although the cost of constructing and operating a complying re- gional landfill is relatively high, it appears to be more eco- nomical than implementing a modular incinerator-based system. This holds true even when incinerator system costs are esti- mated assuming maximum revenues from the sale of steam to a year-round market. The potential landfill sits should be more thoroughly investi- gated. More information is needed concerning the site's hydro- geology and the suitability of the island's soil as liner and cover material. Strong public interest and the existence of nearby markets in- dicate that a source separation program warrants a thorough analysis geared towards designing and implementing an island- wide system. tABLE CAMAL AIM ANNUAL COSTS (EST. 1979) 3Y TOWN FOR A SELECTED COLLECTION sysm ALTERxATvz Aim REGIONAL LANDFILL Collection Sys tear 1@ndfill. System Z Caoital Azinual Capitla Costs ts TOWIMS .4st .osts Cbs 6,205 $269138 7,032- Z51529 $22 7.84,'-', $36,612 604- - $. 82,P57- $60,780 $220,6" $29,578 $66,378 Gay. Read 7 143 --.$27,;17. 8 288 30,'088 6,850 Ill 500 $65', 306 $237`05@, s T -s 6 638..' ! 113% 9, 7 $i29 761: W. Tiabur7 $20,564 $46,655 $23,860 86,616 OP ofcz"Ibed@:. !.Section 3 ws, used -to ganorate these ,f rt" 2f 11 st a Itures. A" azi4i,' "diai@tend sy, 4* in see b ion 71 q. 4L 0 As soon as possible, the island needs to organize the admin- istrative body which will manage a regional system. There are a number of visble management options available; the important point is, to select one so that system design can be finalized around it. The data developed in this study will provide local decision- markers with additional information upon which an informed selection can be based. This represents another significant step towards achieving a well-designed solid waste management system that will serve the need of the citizens of Martha's Vineyard. 0 POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS AND WASTE STREAM BACKGROUND DATA Population Estimates Estimating the population of Martha's Vineyard presents several problems, both because of the large annual swings in population (from 9,000 to 50,000) and because of the lack of accurate data. In order to arrive at what w feel are reasonable estimates, it has been necessary to make assumptions and extrapolate from existing data. However, the results shown here represent the most reliable population projections available at the present time. The data used to derive the population estimates are drawn from several sources including the April 1978 208 Water Quality Management Plan for Martha's Vineyard, steamship authority estimates, and Martha's Vineyard Commission estimates, both from William M. Wilcox's report, "Seasonal and Future Populations of Martha's Vineyard: Summary," and from William Maravell. Due to the differences among these figures and the limited amount of data, the numbers have been averaged to produce estimates both by town and by season. The year-round population estimates for the whole island for 1979 are an average of the figures from the Water Quality study (9,020), the Wilcox report (8.782) and a projections by the Joint Transportation Com- mittee in "Transit Development Program, Martha's Vineyard," July 1, 1979 (8,760). The population distributions by town have been derived from the Water Quality study. Projections for 1990 and 2000 result from the averaging of information from the Water Quality, Wilcox, and Joint Transportation Committee reports. Example: Chilmark's year-round population in 2000 Year-round population in 2000 from Water Quality report 563.5 Percent of island population in Chilmark in 2000.....5.1% 0 Androscoggin Valley estimated residential per capita generation rates: Winter 2.25 lb./day Summer 2.48 lb./day Hancock County estimated, residential per capita generation rates: Towns of < 1,000 1.40 lb./day Towns of > 1,000 2.00 lb./day Estimates by Martha's Vineyard landfill operators and refuse col- lectors: Chilmark 2.04 lb./day Tisbury 3.89 lb./day Edgartown 3.99 lb./day ERC estimates: Oak Bluffs 2.19 lb./day Using this data, generation rates have been estimated as shown in Table 2 of the main text. The actual Martha's Vineyard estimates pro- vided a figure of approximately 4 lb./day during the summer for the three large towns. A figure of 2.5 lb./day was chosen for the rest of the island. Is is assumed thate "day-trippers" are concentrated in the three large towns and that they generate approximately 50% (or 216 lb./ day) of the amount of refuse that overnight residents do. The winter generation rate for the large towns (2.5 lb./day) is slightly higher than the figures derived from the studies to account for industrial activities and occasional vistiors. The winter number for the rest of the island is the average of the winter estimates from the two studies. Several studies conducted previously for Martha's Vineyard, in- cluding the "Water Quality Management Study," use significantly higher generation rate estimates. As these are based in part upon national averages, and because they differ greatly from the on-island estimates, they have not been used in this analysis. 0 The data pertaing to waste composition in the main body of this study (see Table 4) were derived from national estimates drawn from En- gineering and Economic Analysis of Waste to Energy Systems. As little or no industrial activity occurs on the island, these estimates of resi dential and commercial waste composition are appropriate measures in a The figures in Table 4 in the main text have been derived by averaging the appropriate rows of columns 2-11 from Table A-1 of the Engineering and Economic Analysis study. APPENDIX E 0 Oct. 12, 1981 34 Island Park R Ipswich, MA 01938 Elliot Taubman, J.D. Box 277.Westside Rd. Block Island, RI 02807 Dear Elliot: As I promised in my letter of October 1, 1981 I have made a preliminary assessment of the methane potential from sewage sludge, seaweed and municipal solid waste (MSW) for Block Island. Also included with this letter are some reprints of reference papers on digestion of seaweed and digestion of MSW for the production of methane gas which you may find interesting. Sewage sludge is produced from the aerobic treatment of sewage via the activated sludge treatment process employed at the Block Island sewage treatment plant. According to your operator, on the average, approximately 20 pounds of solids are produced each day. If this sludge is produced in a 5% Total Solids slurry then the daily quantity of slude produced can be calculated to be: Volume = 20 lbs/day x 1.0 gal = 48 gal/day 0.05 8.33 lbs If this sludge is anaerobically digested in a tank at a retention time of 30 days, the required volume will be: Digester Volume = 30 days x 48 gal/day = 1440 gal Each tank that is presently not being used at the sewage treament plant is 50,000 gallons in volume. Therefor to use one of these tanks solely for the digestion of sewage sludge is impractical. A more practical application would be to combine the sewage sludge with seaweed and digest them both together. If enough seaweed could be harvested from the shores of Block Island one 50,000 gallon tank could be converted to an anaerobic digester to digest both the sludge and the seaweed. If the sludge were to occupy 1440 gallons the seaweed would occupy the remaining 48560 gallons. If it is assumed that a 5% Total Solids slurry of seaweed is used, the seaweed was held in the digester at a retention time of 30 days, and the initial Total Solids of the seaweed was 60%, the average quantity of seaweed can be calculated to be: 0 Seaweed Harvest/day = 48560 gal x 8.33 lbs. x 0.05 = 1125 lbs/day 30 days gal 0.60 The potential methane production from a digester recieving 1125 pounds of seaweed and 20 pounds of sewage sludge each day is approximately 2000 ft 3/day, if it is assumed that 70% of the sewage sludge and 40% of the seaweed can be converted to methane in 30 days. Of this gross production approximately 20 - 30% will have to be returned to the digester to keep it heated at mesophilic (95 F) temperatures. Therefor the net methane potential will be 1400 - 1600 ft/day. The cost of producing methanie in this fashion is dependent upon several factors which will have to be carefully assessed. These factors include the cost of harvesting the seaweed, the final disposal method of the material from the digester and associated costs, the use of the gas and the cost of gas cleaning, and the cost of converting the tank to a digester (which will include insulation, a gas cover, a mixer, and equipment associated with transporting the gas in a safe manner from the digester to where it will be used.) At present it is difficult to determine what many of these costs will be but I believe it is a fair assumption that conversion of the tank to a digester will not be a major factor. Due to the small quantity of gas being produced, a very carefeul economic analysis should be performed to see if it is even practical. The conversion of MSW to energy presents a significantly different situation. If it is assumed thate 3.5 pounds of MSW are produced per person per day and using the sewage treatment plant data indicating a ten fold increase in sewage flow from the winter to the summer, and a base Block Island population of 500, the MSW production will be 0.875 tons/day in the winter and 8.75 tons/day in the summer. Thus a daily average for the year of 4.8 tons/day is assumed. A yearly total of 1750 tons of MSW results. As I mentioned when I was out at Block Island, due to the problems both in preparing MSW for digestion in a conventional digester and in mixing the MSW once it is in the digester, conversion of MSW to methane via this process is not recommended. Since you are considering burning peat for electricity generation, combining the MSW with the peat seems to be the most logical option. According to the data in the report issued by URI on peat reserves on Block Island, 95,000 - 190,000 tonnes (104,700 - 209,500 tons) of peat are available from 50% of the wetland area. If the peat were to be burned over a 20 year period the annual peat usage would be 5,200 - 10,500 tons/year. Therefor adding MSW to the peat would result in approximately 17 - 33% increase in the amount of material to be burned, thus not requiring a significant increase in the size of the peat facility. If you are interested in an alternative method of converting MSW to methane gas, I sugguest you consult with Dr. Jewell on the applicability of his dry fermentation process to solid wastes. Although not exactly-encouraging, I hopethis information will be useful to you. I look forward to hearing from you in the-future and hope your project is a success. If I can be of any further s.er-vice please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, Alfre P. Leus chner @P/L APPENDIX F 0 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION In re: Arrangements Between ELECTRIC UTILITIES and Docket No. 1549 QUALIFYING COGENERATION August 12, 1981 and small Power Production Facilities. REPLY BRIEF REGARDING COMPLIANCE BY BLOCK ISLAND POWER COMPANY TOWN OF NEW SHOREHAM, Elliot Taubman, Esq. Energy Coordinator Town of New Shoreham P.O. Box 277 Block Island, RI 02807 William J. Gallogly, Esq. Town Solicitor Town of New Shoreham Longolucco & Lenihan 43 Broad Street Westerly, RI 02891 ARGUMENT The arrogance of the Block Island Power Company is quite apparent at this state. in the proceedings. After policy decisions have been made by the United States Congress, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and this Commission to encourage Cogeneration and small power production, the Company says that they are all wrong and it should be able to continue to use its inefficient diesel generators for all power production. Fortunately for the future of Block Island, the policy decisions have already been made to encourage such small power generation. Contrary to the protestations of the Company, the use of cogeneration, wind and solar power on Block Island will be fully in keeping with national policy and is likely to benefit all Block Island rate payers in reduced use of imported petroleum. The only entity on Block Island with any cause to complain would be Island Services, Inc. However, complaince of the Power Company with this Commission's existing regulations will allow the rate payers of Block Island to reduce their tribute to Island Services, which has for too long victimized the Island residents. Wind Generation Potential The Company has the burden of proof in this proceeding and has failed to come forth with any competent and material evidence to overturn the considered view that small power production will reduce petroleum use. The only evidence submitted is Exhibit 4, the ratios of wind to diesel fuel and total fuel use.l It is submitted that to the extent this exhibit shows anything it is that the wind turbine, when it is working, increases the total fuel efficiency on the system. The clear test cases are the months of April 1980 and 1981. The Company tries to cite otber months, but fails to indicate their compara- bility. It must be noted that,according to the Company's own testimony, the MOD-A wind turbine was hit by lightning in June 1981 and this explains this negative production in that month. The better test may be July 1980 and 1981 for which the Company should be able to now supply data. In any case, there is obvious evidence of reduced use overall since the MOD-OA turbine has been in operation. Competition The Power Company is simply wrong in its citation to Statures 39-3-1 and 39-3-2. These statutes must be interpreted consistently with Section 210 of PURPA. It is quite clear (and explicity stated in teh FERC regulations) that if the term "sell exectric power" in 39-3-1 and 39-3-2 were interpreted to apply to "qualifying facilities" then it would be preempted under the authority of Section 210 (e) (i). Section 210 (e) (i) explicity give FERC preemption authority over state laws where "mecessary to encourage congeneration and small power production. " 210 (e) (i). In fact, part of the philosophy of section 210 is to encourage competition Exhibit 4 does not indicate what the "ratios" in the column on the far right are. It now appears that these are Kilowatt-hours per gallon rather than gallons per kilowatt-hour. The units of measure- ment have no impact on the arguments in the Town's Brief-in-Chief; the wind turbine still increases total system efficiency; and even when lugging the sewer plant diesels have a fuel efficiency greater than the system average. between small power producers and regulated electric utilities. "The conferees wish to make clear that cogeneration is to be encouraged under this section. . . .the conferees do not intend cogenerators or small power producers to be subject, under the commission's rules, to utility-type regulation. Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4018, Public Utilities Regulatory Pollicies Act, Report No. 95-1292 (Oct. 5, 1978) at 98. The apparent thought is that without the discipline of the market- place, monopoly utilities would not fully exploit new and more efficient technologies. It is preceisely becaue of such arrange- ments as that between Island Services, Inc., and Block Island Power Company, that stringent regulation to encouraage competition is needed. As Professor Alfred Kahn noted in 1 Economics of Regulation 17 (New York, 1970) the purpose of regulation of utilities is to take the place of competition. Hopefully, this bit of creative legislation - Section 210 - will encourage the greatest levels of efficiency. System Control Report The Power Company has attached a report: David Curtice and James Patton, "Operations of Small Wind Turbines on a Distribution System" (Systems Control, Inc., 1981) as part of its brief. This paper (to be referred to as the Report) cannot be considered as evidence and is not a government document of which administrative notice may be had. Further, the Report itself indicates that only utility company engineers were consulted in doing the report, rather than public officials or consumer representatives. Since the actual numbers of the Report are not available, the only comment one can make is about its assumptions and conclusions. The assumptions in the Report are unremarkable except for the claim that shut-off at the individual wind generator is necessary to protect utility repair personnel. The Report cites no wind systems where this would be no problem. In fact the two wind systems marketed on Block Island (newspaper advertisement attached), the Jacobs and Bergey systems, have built-in Systems, have built- in System protection so they cannot operate if the utility grid is not energized. If there is some reason for the argument for specific disconnection (and therefore a charge for this) the Company should have come forward with competent evidence on this point. All that exists in the record is the unsupported conclusion of the Company president who made no claim to expertise in this area (a specialized area of electrical engineering). While the Report is not evidence as to Block Island Power Company, it has some interesting conclusions from the actual numerical studies done. These were in the areas of system reliability and stability. Some of these conclusions which are favorable to wind power are: "In general, reclosing on a line-comutated inverter is not a problem because out-of-phase sychronization is not possible when the interconnection point is at the dc bus." (Report at 14) "Wind Turbines on a feeder tend to decrease the voltage drop along the feeder...." /emphasis added/ (Report at 14) "Based on the distribution system studied, present voltage regulation equipment was found sufficient for regulating voltage with various penetrations of small wind turbines affecting the feeder's voltage profile." (Report at 14). The only generally negative. point would be the comment that "if the utility's control process is designed to m@nimizetie- line.flow.deviations from scheduled exchange with neighboring, utilities,.. then generator/ldad mismatches slow up as increased control error and decreased system performance". However, this, point is.immaterial on Block Island since it is not interconn@cted with any-other utility.. Connection Costs The short answer to the Company's arguments om-connection costs are that the Narragansett Electric approach has already, been found reasonable by this Commission. The Company,has failed to indicate.what,,"necessary"*financing.would be displaced by the tion, fi@ -year---. ayback of cornet costs.: Conclusion it is in the public interest that a meaningful avoided cost be determined for..the. Block Island Power Company and that no,unreasonable,-.. conditions,of service.be imposed 6n.cogenerators arid-small power proAucers... 2 On, questioning by, -counsel for --the Town,'the Coriipapy President. a stantial sum was being spent on a new ompany, indicat"d. that. s,6 C e building.. There. hAs.been no,ruling by this @ommiss 'ion that the. new building is necessar y or beneficial to the rate payers. Respectfully submitted, Town of New Shoreham. by Elloit Taubman William J. Gallogly Block Island Times - July 24, 1981 Ocean Wind Electric Company Quality And Dependability The Jacobs and Bergey wind systems are the finest available. Whether your electric bill is astronomical or simply high, a wind system will cut it down to size. The Jacobs is capable of producing 2000 kWH PER MONTH. The Bergey can do 200 kWH per month. These are con- servative estimates for Block Island. Ocean Wind Electric Company in Peace Dale is the next best thing to on island. We're 15 minutes from the boat and 25 minutes from the plane. We stand behind our work and our products. Call us at 789-5895. Ocean Wind Electric Company Curtis Corner Road Peace Dale, RI 02879 Ir Certification This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply Brief on Compliance by BlockIsland Power Company has been sent postage prepaid to Peter V. Lacouture, Esq.F Michael A..Postar, Esq., and Hugo T. Ricci, Esq. This 9 l1th clay of August 1. 81. f Ell i6t Taubman 7 44 P. 0. BOX 518 BLOCK ISLAM, RHODE MAND 02807 Phan* 466--= For April 27, 1981 Plant Generators Net Windturb Fuel Net Km Ratio 1/80 14 7.,,5 0 0. 17SS .22,7.84 152*753 4-6. - 2/80 80,0 .46 23,694 17 1, 000' 250'0400 8153 20r029 i9sio0a 9-o 74 i 0 224,200 0 33,203 181o654 5; 48 iG 19EG.200 15,144 34,888" 6 0'4 4. 6/90 527P700 0 47,399 372,760 7.96 7/8-6 690,400 0 56.0629 532f-084 1. 40- '575 956 9 0-26 8/80 74o,.90.0, 17,666 q62,015- f 91SQ- 5 9 6 -@ d 00 14,729 52,294 @382t@889@- 254,431 7 - U 10/80 3041-800, 18 206, 35 8 16" -215, 2 '27'196. 14 190,412 Ll/td 228' 35,9'74 27,018: 1/81 2S4,400 19,247 25,831 201,196 7.79 filed (7.91) .2/81 216j500 32,211 22,695 191,475 1/81 201,460 43,263 2 1,@ 0.2 6 -174,892 a.' '32 3--7 U 49- 31 404 4/n .210 100Awh.,@'.,; @196490 358' 2 Z-3S,-- . --,343, 9 9 7 8 3 .264@ (54) 44 '492 -:988 382, ..@71r0t 4 U-05 F I N A L ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. WASTEWATER COLLECTION.AND TREATHM FACILITIES ale NEW SHOREHAM, RHODE ISLAND at st e r.nvir0o',hnmental 0. - 0 Pr tect! O*n--.-, mgewncy- 41: PMR JOHN'F KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING GOVERNMENT CENTER BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203 measured during this period even approached violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards or Rhode island Ambient Air Standards; and therefore, the State discontinued the operation of the site. TABLE 3 1970 Air Sapling Data Plock Island Airport* Pollutants Particulates Sulfur-Dioxide Nitrogen-Dioxide Number of Readings 13 12 12 Maximum 24-hours 66.7 15.7 86.5 Minimum 24-hours 19.2 7.9 5.6 Arithmetic Mean 36.8 8.7 12.4 Geometric Mean 34.2 STandard Deviation 1.45 1.23 2.20 *latest complete data available Source: State of Rhode Island Department of Health Fish and wildlife. The predominant fish species found in the waters adjacent to Block Island are: yellow tail f1ounder, ocean pout, little skate, winter flounder and spiny dog fish. Comercial fishing on the Island is limited to the off-season, as the primary occupation of fishermen on the Island is shellfishing. Lobster harvesting is minimal but clams and scallops are harvested in great quantities. Great Salt Pond, which is protected from the ocean currents, contains at least five species of shellfish commercially available to local fisherman. A marine biologist from the Rhode Island State Department of Natural Resources indicated that about 80% of the shellfish (hard and soft clams, mussels and bay scallops) are located in beds outside of the closure (shown on Map 6) in the open classification of this natural saltwater pond.* The hard clams and ocean quahogs are distributed around the Island with concentrations of surf clams growing in beds close to shore. The quahoqs and hard clams are in waters about one to two miles off-shore predominantly an the western side of the Island. There are clams on the eastern side: however, the density and Memo from Edward Wong, Natural Resource Officer, Surveillance and Analysis Division, EPA. ", Second Edition, AP-42, p.3.1.5-2 (emission factors for -duty, diesel-powered vehicles), the following annual are predicted from the diesel engines: Particulates 741#/year SOX (as SO.) 1540 #/year (Based on ave. sulfur content of 0.2%) CO 12820 #/year HC 2120 #/year NOx (as NO*) 21200 #/year Aldehydes 171 #/year (as RCHO) Organic Acids 171 #/year No background CO levels are estimted due to the absence of monitoring on Block Island. However, as stated in the section on air quality, no major sources of air pollution (including CO) exist on Block Island. Due to the relatively low background levels of so and particulates and the relatively insignificant amounts of air pollutants estimated for this facility, the emissions from the diesel engine will not cause a violation of any applicable ient air standards. To determine the effect of the treatment system on the Island's wildlife, various authorities were consulted. According to the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, neither the wildlife refuge area in Sandy Point nor the "Block Island Vole" will disturbed by the proposed system. In addition, Dr. Howard Winn, a marine mammalian expert from the University of Rhode Island, who has been studying the seals indicated it was unlikely that the effluent from the proposed treatment plant would advesely affect the reported seals. The environmentally sensitive areas indicated in Map 8 were evaluated with respect to the physical system proposed by this alternative. There do not appear to be any major conflicts. Economic Impact. The costs associated with alternative A are show on Table 13. The costs for Stage I are based on bid prices of August 1974. All other costs are based on best estimates. STATE OF RHODE AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN RE: ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN . ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND . QUALIFYING COGENERATIOIN AND . DOCKET NO. 1549 SMALL POWER PRODUCTION . FACILITIES . Reply Brief of the Division of Public Utilitie's and Carriers The Company's positions as contained in its proposed terms' and conditions and in its brief reflect a significant misunder- standing of sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (hereinafter "PURPA" or the "Act"). The Company has predicated its position with regard to the small power production and congeneration rate upon the fol- lowing: "The Commission should be emphatic in rejecting the notion that small power producers are encouraged either by PURPA or under Rhode Island law to compete with existing electric utilities." (Company brief p. 2) (Citation omitted) "It is clear that the motivation for installation of a qualifying facility should be to provide electric energy for one's own needs and not to compete with the electric utility" (Company brief p. 22) Based upon this incorrect reading of the Act the Company has advocated positions not in compliance with the Commission's order of March 20, 1981 which should be rejected. The issue in this proceeding is whether the tariffs filed by the Division and the Company are in compliance with the spirit and the letter of the Commission's order of March 20, 1981, Order No. 10391. The Company disputes the Division's avoided fuel cost calculation in the interest of "fair[ness to] both the qualifying facility and the Companys other customers... (Company brief p. 8). No policy considerations or data introduced, which would support the ."one-half of the average. fuel cost..." position proposed by the Company (Company brief p. 8). The Company offered a "simultaneous buy and sell arrange- ment" and rejected as "most unfair" a net output arrangement. (See Company brief p. 8) The Company failed to recognize that PURPA, the FERC. regulatios and the Narragansett Electric, Blackstone Valley Electric, Newport Electric and Pascoag Fire District tariffs incorporate both types of arrangements with the option of election left to the qualifying facility, not the utility. The Company proposes to "make payment for purchase of power by way of a credit against the customer's monthly bill." (See Company brief p. 9.) The Company's proposal is inappropriate since there is no requirement that a qualifying facility be a customer of the utility. The provision for the repayment of interconnection costs, as approved by the Commission in the 210 tariffs of the other four Rhode Island electric utilities is similarly appropriate for Block Island and should be adopted. The Company's discussion of the interest numbers was of no relevance in this compliance proceeding. (Company Brief p. 9) The Company's attempt to limit the number and aggregate output of qualifying facilities, is contrary to the intent of the Act and not supported by competent technical testimony or data and should be rejected. (See Company brief p. 12.) Thereasoning proffered by Mr. Renz for the limitations contained in paragraph 8 of the Terms and Conditions (BIPC, Exh 3, p. 3) is the fear of loss of load (Company brief p. 13). No actual company experience or tecnical explanation supported this assertion. The Company has appended a publication from the United States Department of Energy, Federal Wind Energy Program entitled "Operations of Small Wind Turbines on a Distribution System (March 1981)..." which was not offered as evidence in this proceeding and should not be considered. (Company brief p. 14) (There is no indication that this report studied the Block Island system or that it has any applicability to Block Island). The Division opposes the Company's tariff condition number 5 which requires insurance. Reasonable interconnection standards obviates the need for such insurance. (See Company brief p. 15) There is no requirement for Block Island Power to obtain similar insurance against possible damage to the qualified faci1ity. Again reasonable interconnection standards make this unnecessary based upon the present record. There is no basis in the present record for omitting the addition of line losses to the avoided cost calculation as argued by the Company (Company brief p. 17) The Commission has properly left the line loss calculation to each utility, in the first instance. The Company would not be able to terminate residential service for failure to meet an obligation with regard to interconnection costs. (See Rules and Regulations Governing- The Termination of Electric, Gas and Water Services, as amended and Emergency Rules Adopted Pursuant to Order No. 9439, section 3 (a.) Insufficient Reasons for Disconnection, p. 2). (See Company brief p. 20-21.) Respectfully submitted, Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers By its attorney, Michael R. Postar Division of Public Utilities and Carriers 100 Orange Street Providence, RI 02903 August 7, 1981 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on this 7th day of August, 1981, I mailed by U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid or hand delivered a true copy of the within Reply, Brief to counsel of record in this matter. Paulina Hasford TO: Norma Dahl, Ted Martin, Bob Ericson FROM: Elliot Taubman SUBJECT: Proposed Sewer Plant Cogenerstion and District Heating System DATE: May 8, 1982 It appears that we may be able to create a viable cogeneration and district heating system at the Town of New Shoreham Waste- water Treatment Facility together with the Harbor Church Barn. The important factors will be the avoided cost payment from the Blcok Island Power Company, the alternative cost of fuel and the total system efficiency. Further developement is needed of the concept, however. I. The system can be diagrammed here: II. Bob Ericson has previously done the following "back-of-the envelope" calculations: A. Assumptions: a. Disel fuel, 1 gallon = 142,500 Btu b. Generator efficiency = .9 B. 8 gallons in at 130 hp X .746 X .9 = 87.3 kwh output in one hour. 1,140,000 Btu in 297,867 Btu out in electricity (26.1% output) C. Alternatively you should have 12.1 gallons at 225 Hp: X: 746 X .9 = 151.1 kwh 1,724,250 Btu in 515,553 Btu out D. Engine & oil 34% low in TOTEM (diesels have lower in exhaust gas 36% low exhaust gas: more in mechanical mech energy 29% energy) (Fist Total Energy Machine: running on natural gas) Fuel in at $1.20; $9.60 = 87.3 kwh at $.110 kwh Fuel in at $1.40; $14.52 = 151.1 kwh at $ .896 kwh $1.40 = $ .128 kwh heat worth at least $5mm Btu, so $9.60-2.93 = $6.67 (net of $ .076 kwh) add operation and maintenance and deprecistion (assume as much as 50%, although 20% is more reassonable) = .076 + .038 = $ .104 kwh which is still far less than $ .149 kwh (present avoided cost) III. Other relevand figures: Town Facility Energy Use Doctors Office Library Old Harbor Dock Town Hall Sewer Facility Heating 3546 1020 1170 oil gallons gals. gals. Electri- 7588 11133 24400 5252 Pump Sts. city kwh kwh kwh kwh 15555 Sewer Plant 47640 kwh Diesel 40000 gals. Equivalents- Btu's; 1 wh = 3414.43 Btu; 1 gal Heating oil= 138,690 Btu; 1 gal. diesel = 135425 Btu. IV. Issues to be decided in calculations: A. Secondary heat exchanger efficiency B. Primary heat exchanger efficiency C. Generator efficiency D. Pecounting allocation for present 0 & M (operation and.. maintenance) and depreciation. E. FutUre trends for BIPCo avoided cost. F. What would have,to shown in application to R. I. P. U X:* G. Relationship to windfarm. H. Possible wheeling to'other town facilities; ice house. OPERATING CILNRACTERISTICS OF TWO CATERPILLER DIESEL GENERATORS Ar." BLOCK ISLAND SEWER PLANT EACH CAPABLE OF 150 KILOWATT PRODUCTION 7. I= PIPM 1000 RPM car,-&- 7000 ft. and 60'F 70M ft. and 60*F bility which can be dernonstrated TurboCharged (2100m) (16*C) (2100m) (IO'C) within 5% at the factory. 5000 tt. and 70*F 3000 ft. and SW F Naturally Aspirated (1500m) (21'C) (900m) (27'C) STANDARDS: Ratings based on SAE standard con- ditions; of 29.38. in. (746 mai) of mer- Bqtween Operating Capability and 7000 ft. (2100m) and 00-F (16*C) do -186i@ for- each 1000 M (300m) and 2% lot each I0*F (ST). Above 7WO ft. end 60T. cury and 85*F (29'C). consult your Caterpillar representative. IL Radng M Fuel Raft (T) J50 ILD It 0 1200 APIA IT. _.; .-T 1 ..0 9 - I U 30 0 loco APM 7. @0 A no 4. low 1100 1200 Im ISO IN Engine Sp"d-RPM Brake Moreopoweir 4., RatMg (MA) Fuef (KA) 50: :MAXI RWtk,. ILO - L _71 .,00-10, 30 Now-" 120? RP Ic E 1000 RPM 20. ISO low 1100 12M 50 100 ISO 200 Engine Sp"d-RPM Brake "W"Pommar Uft KW SHP x 0.746 X gowrator efficiency. Fuel consumption applies to standard electric mt engine W/O tan. 0 Uper based on fuel oil having a gross heat value of 19.50 ST pound 7- 11O.LJOK-cal/Kol and wainhina I a wable Energy July 30, 1982 Elliot Taubman Block-Isiand Development Foundation P.O. Box 619 Block Island, RI 02807 Dear Elliot: T e B OCK ISLAND ENERGY INSTITUTIONS REPORT attributes to me at least two canclIusions -that I did not make. When you asked for preliminary calculations on the sewage treatment plant's diesel generators, I worked within the context of the assumptions provided. Tdid not determine that suitable load matches could be acquired at reasonable costs, and so I cannot conclude that the "Sewer Commission would make a profit selling power back" to the existing utility. Nor is it my conclusion that "such sales could help to even out" any."Wintert.ime uneveness [sic]" in wind power production. I cannot imagine how a qualifyinig' cogeneration facility can be required to compensate,for.perceived deficiencies in a"qua:lifying wind generation.fac.ility, nor do I see a natural compl:ement. Calculations in Section_II on pageG-2 were separated from specific qualifications noted on the original sheet, although many of the issues are listed in Section IV on page G-3. I trust that appropriate corrections can be made to the REPORT, even if only by inserting this letter of qualification as page G-5. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ID Robert Ericson cc: Walter Cooper. Governor's Energy Office, 80 Dean Street, PT'Ovidenoe, RI 02903 401-277-3774 APPENDIX H September 30, 197' 7WOr' -qQ ......................................... raw oil" 0001whorft jHnRNALCOmWMOH ENGIM11 AND GAS-TURNk OFNERATING KANTS (Cerhinued) sL&tte" w percent of@ownemhjp by respondevL4.natne of eo. annual rest and how determined. Specify whether know is awner. bas" of skaring output, expe"SM or revenues. and an anociated company. bow expensex and/or mvenues; am -acccuated for and accounts 6. Designate any plant or equipment ow No opwa&4 affected. Spedfy if lesuw. co-owner, or other party is an and no Wand to another cm patty, Ir such p4as or equip assodated company. "I"t w" not opensted within the pm year. explain wtmhw S. Designate any plant or pwtiost thereat les to aaothw it haa been retired in the books of &COMMA Or what li ; i company and give name of kesee dam and w= of lease and. of the plant or equipment and in book cost we cousempleted. mom& MOVUS Tsui bossaw am. *-" C.06.*P is A Ion go "am MIMS As" so Ulaw ffmwwftlf@ "W h% go OW Two bessmsd Wba" a# U" IN Kjbpwwm ho POW PI" 55,0resl oil. M (n 00 M 60 1946 240 3 60 30 S5 30,.. 2 360 1952 2,400 3 60 245 #7 275 340 1969 2,400 3 60 225. #8 500 4 660 1959 2-400 3 .60, 400- #9 900 800 1965 2:400 3 60 500 #10 1#40 .0 S 225 1969 2,400 3 60 150 oil 1,550 300 1972 416 3 60 200 flu 1,750 1,660 1972 2,400 3 60 I-,POO 2,750 19-660 1972 2,400 60 1,000 #14 10 13 SA IS. 7 20 22 23 U lip 30 31 32' 33 U 35 U 37 30 441 200- KILowAT? WIND TURBINE SPECIFICATIONS Rotor Generator Number of blades. . . . . . . . . .... . . 2 Jyoe@ ... . . . . . . Synchronous ac Diameter, ft. . . . . . . . . . 125 Rating,, k.VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Speed, rpm .. . . . . A 3 1 . 51 Power.fa6tor. 0.8 Direction of rotation Counterclockwise (looking-upw'ind) Voltage, V. iob i6r;e*phase) Location relative to tower . . . . . . . Downwind Speed, rpm . . . . . . . . . . . 1800 Type of hub Rigid Irequency, Hz . . . . . . .. 60 Method of power regulation.' . V;riable Pitch Cone angle, deg . . . . . . . . . . 7 Orientation drive Tilt angle, deg . . . . . . . . . .. 0 Type_ Ring gear Blade Yaw:,rate,- rpm 1/6 Yaw drive . . . . . . . il;ciric motors Length, ft. 59.9 Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wood composite Contr2Ljystem Weight, lb/blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .... Airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NACA 23000. Supervisory . ... . . . . . Microprocessor Twist, deg . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. 0,0 8 'Pitch'actuator . . . . .. . . . . . Hydraulic Solidity, percent 4 Tip chord, ft . . . . . . 2.0 Perforgance Root chord, ft . . . . . . . . 5.2 Chord taper Linear Rated power, kW . . . . . . . . . . . @200 ..Wind speed at 30 ft, mph (at hub): Tower Cut-in . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 (9.5 Rated . . . . . . . . . . . 18.3 (22.4 Type . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . Pipe truss Cut-out . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2 (40 Height, ft . . . . . . . . . @93 Maximum design . . . . . . . 12i (150 Ground clearance, ft. 37 Hub height, ft . . . . . . . . . 100 Weight (klb)@ Access . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . Hoist Rotor'(including blades) . . . . . . . 12.6 Above tower . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 45.5 Transmission lower . . . . . . 44.0 Type . . . . . . . . .. Three-stage conventional System life Rptio . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45:4 Rating, hp. 460 All components, yr . . . 30 Note: Most of the information here wa9-provided_by'-D0E"NASA; the mach ine "a down ut 'e4t 31. xated at the xejueot 94 the 9 CqjopAn@ to.have aj'k5Q.KK gutv BLOCK ISLAND POWER COMPANY SCHEDULE'OF TAXES 10/1/79 TO 4/30/80 U N A U D I T E D CURRENT YTD CURRENT YTD- PERCENT PERCENT DOLLA RS..-.T DOLLA RS.. TAXES PAYROLL TAXES 3.95 2.45 6876, RI SALES TAX -CURR 2.58 .54 1053 1516,' PROPERTY TAXES 3.13 3.18 1277 8939 REGISTRATIONS .00 .16 0 436- RI GROSS EARN TAX 4.16 4.06 -1700 ti400'.@ PUBLIC UTIL CHGS .00 .13 0 354 ------- ------- ------- ------- - TOTAL TAXES. 13.81% 10.51% $ 5643 29520 SCHEDULE OF MISC OTHER EXPENSE 10/1/79 TO. 4/30/80 U N A U D I T E D CURRENT YTD CURRENT YTD t PERCENT PERCENT DOLLARS DOLLARS MISC OTHER EXPENSE - ------- ------- ------ ------- AMORT I'- L/T'ZEBT 19 .1? 76 -5Z3- INT EXP-MTGE&DEB 9:46 7@. 44 208'90 INTEREST-- OTHER .65 2.10 5900'.,-.. OFFI'CER @ S - LIFE - INS 07 -.451 .9 RES 6, DEV. EXPENSES 2.23 3.37 912 449 'CATV EXPENSE. 1 75 121 ------- ------- TOTAL MISC., OTHER EXPENSE 12.75% 15.35% $ 5209. BLC%.'K ISLAND POWER CO. P. 0. BOX 518 BLOCK IS!-kND, RHODE ISLAND 02807 Using the current rate structure for the 12ihonth 's.ended April 30j.1?80 with historical expenses for the same period., we derive Column 1#1 showing.. a-@Ireiv-z..,:* 279. Us e rates and forecasting additional.ex- enue, deficiency of $ 3.6, ing the ' sarr pense .s presently being experienced, we.derive Column #2 with-a revenue defic*ency of zero. If we do not,increase the current rates, we would-,have insufficent ,to pay creditors and interest charges. Temporary, Increase Column #1 Colt=n #2 Operating revenues-, $501,453 501M Fuel adjustments 186,511 357M Other revenues 6,140' 6M 694,104 864M Operating expenses. 654,801 655M AddItional Gros-, Earnings Tax 8M increased fuel costs. 171M Other operating expense increasd 25M InVes tmenL tax, cried .i st S (1,623) .(2M) 9.9.5% Return on.Rate Ba-se .78 V205. .42M 'dd, tional. Federal- Income Tax 730,383' .899M Revenue deficiency (36,279) -(35) Additional operating revenue f rom -proposed 4- temporary ratez fror a,full year 35 proposed rates. Revenue deficiency w.1. BLOCX ISLAND PBUER COMPANY SCHEDULE OF DISTRIB-OPERATIONS 10/l/79 TO 4/30/80 U N A U D I T E D CURRENT YTD CURRENT YTD PERCENT PERCENT DOLLARS DOLLARS s ------- ------- -------- ---------- DISTRIB-OPERATION SUPERVISION .26 .27 1.27 .59' 9 STATION EXPENSE .1658@ OVERHEAD LINES. .26 2.13 106- 5986''. ST LIGHTS&SIGNALS ,.00 li 0 .309 .07 .16 27 - 458' METERS CUST INSTALLATION 1.54 .47 6- 1328 ------- ------- -------- TOTAL DISTRIB-OPERATIONS- 3.39% 3.74% $ .1387 $ 10503:. SCHEDULE OF DISTRIB-MAINT 10/1/79 TO 4/30/80. U N A U DJ T' E D CbRRENT YTD CURRENT YTD PERCENT PERCENT DOLLARS DOLLARS,.@- BISTRIB-KAINT -- -------- ----- ------- SUPERVISION .27 @196 761. OVERHEAD LINES 4.37 1.48 1785 4145 LINE TRANSFORMERS .00 -.04 0 -121 ST LIGHTS&SIGNALS .00 -.01 0 -17 METERS .00 .38 Q 1070 ------- ------- ------- -- -- TOTAL DISTRIB".MAINT 4. 6 33 X 2.08% 1891 S 5838. too SCHEDULE, OF CUST A/C EXP-OPER 10/l/79 TO 4/30/80 U N A U D I T- E D CURRENt YTr, CURRENT YTD PERCENT PERCENT DOLLARS DOLLARS' CUST A/IC EXP-OPER ------- ------- ------- SUPERVISION 1.3,6 1.12 554 3136 METER READING .92 .75 375 2118 RECORDS & COLL EXP 2.11 3.30 861 9255- DIGITAL COMP SUPP .00 .05 0 148 RENT -DIGATTAL COMP .80 .59 329 16144 ---- ------- ------- TOTAL CUST A/C EXP-OPER 5.19X 5.81% $ 12119 16331 4A BLOCK ISLAND POWER COMPANY SCHEDULE OF ADMIN EXP - OPER 10/1/79 -TO 4/30/90 U N A U rl I T E D CURRENT YTD CU'RRENT YTD PERCENT PERCENT. DOLLARS DoLLAR-S -- ------- -------- -------- - ADMIN EXP OPER OFFICE SALARIES 2.14 2.16 876 --1,6072 STAFF TRAINING .00 03. o 85 OFFICE SUPP & EXP .79 2:14 322 6003 OVERHEAD-ASSOC CO -.67 -.58 _276 -1631 OUTSIDE SERVICES 2.45 6.15 1000 17276 PROPERTY INSURANCE 3.10 3.15 1265 -8855 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1.40 1'. 48 572 4157 TRAVEL & KISC EXP@ .00 .11 0 298 TRANSPORTATION EXP .0.0 .29 0 801 - ------- ------- - -------- 9--- -------- TOTAL ADMIN,EXP OPER 9.20% 14.93% 3759 419.17 SCHEDULE OF ADMJN@EXP - MAINT, 10"11/79 TO. 4/30/80 U N A U D IT E D CURRENT YTD CURR04T YTD.. PERCENT PERCEN.T. DOLLARS DOLLARS, ADMIN E)'P MAINT ------- ------- -------- ------- IiAINT GEN' PLANT 1.86 .57 759 ------- ------- ------- TOTAL Arim x NEXP - MAINT 1.86% .57% 759 14LOCK fSLAND POWER COMPANY SCHEDULE OF POWER PROD-OPERTNS 10/1/79 TO 4./30/80 N A.U D I T E D CURRENT YTD CURR ENT YTD PERCENT PERCENT DOLLARS POWER PROD-OPERTNS - ------- ------- ------- -- ------- SUPERVISION .26 .27 106 FUEL 67.81 57.05 27701 160191 .WATCHMAN 3.25 2.46 1326 6920 LUBRICATION 3.45 3.43 .1408 9636 FREIGHT .26 .52 105 1446 DOCK RENT .00 .16 0 500 LABOR - OTHER 3-.0-1 2.05 1`213 1 5759 ---- ------- ------- TOTAL POWER PROD-OPERTNS 78.03X 65.96% $ 31878 scHEDULE.,O*F POWER PROD MAINT 10/1/79: TO 4/30/80 U N A U D I T E D CURRENT YTD CURREk YT)) PERCENT PERCENT DOLLARS DOLLARS POWER PROD-MAINT ------- - ------- ------- SUPERVISION..' 26 .27. 6 106 7. -LABOR: .1.72.. 21. 37 703 @6655' MAINTENANCE .29: ..17 116 467-1 TRANIS EQUIPMENT .65 1 .17 266 -482- GASOLINE, .70 .55 287 15514. MISCE,LLANEOUS .12 .56 48 155T, - ------- ------- -------- TOTAL POWER PROD-MAINT 3.742.' 4.09Z $ 15227 $ .11477 .,BLOCK ISLAND POWER COMPANY STA7EMENT OF INCOME 10/1/79 JO 4/30/80 SEE ACCOUNTANTS* COMPILATION REPORT CURRENT YTD CURRENT YM INCOME PERCENT PERCENT DOLLARS ;,--...DOLLARS@ --- ------- ELECTRICITY CHGES 97. 06 99.29 39655 2:?8816 MISC OPER INCOME 2.85 .63 .1164 1767 MISC INCOME .09 .08 36 221 ------- ------- ------- ------- TOTAL INCOME 100.00% 100.00% $ 40854 280.803 VARIABLE EXPENSE ---------------- POWER PROD - OPER 78.03 65.96 .31878 185206 POWER PROD--- MAINT 3.74. 4.09 1527 11471' DISTRIB@- OPER 3.39 3.74 1387 10503 DISTRIB --8AINT 4.63 2.08 1891 5838 CUST A/C EXP-OPER 5.19 5.81 2119 --16.3'01@., 9. 12 0 14.93 3759 ADMIN EXP "OPER 1917@ ADMIN.EXP.- MAINT .57 759. 1@-as.' TAXES 13.81 10. 51 5,643 ----- --- ----- VARIABLE EXPENSE 119.85 101. 68 48962 ------- ------- ------- ------- VARIABLE GROSS MARGIN -1.9.85 -7.68 -elas -121569 --------------------- FIXED EXPENSE --------------- DEPRECIATION EXP 13.55 13.80- 5536 38752 MISC OTHER EXP 12.75 15'. 35 5209 43117, ----- ----- A TOTAL FIXED EXPENSE 26.30 29.16 10745 Sla69 - ------- ------- ------- ------- INCOME BEFORE-TAXES -46.15 -36.84 -18853 -103438 - ------------------------- FEDERAL INCOME TAX .00 .00 0 'o ------- -------- -------- ft NET LOSS 46.15Z -36.94% 1, -le853 $-103439 Al, .BLOCK ISLAND POUER COMPANY SCHEDULE OF DEFERRED CHARGES 10/1/79 TO 4/30/80 UNAUDI.TED DEFERRED TAXES-FED -2332 C@UST CONSTRADVANC -236B7 9 DEP. ON INVEST CHGS @-4375 CONTR AID COkST -47373 DEFERRED-CHARGES -71767 PEAT AS A FUEL FOR BLOCK ISLAND Table 1: Cost Data The following is a summary of cost estimates associated with the fa- or cilities necessary to convert peat and trash into fuel gas to power either a 300 or 1000 KW electrical generation station 6n Block Island, Rhode Island. 30OKW .100OW 1. Total yearly cost t2 produce peat 112,203 $ 292p'734 cubes,. a solid fuel 2. Cost per:ton of peat cubes $ 35.62 $ 28.08 3. Total net cost yearly to produce 500 $ 29,130 $ 29,130 tons of solid fuel from trash to extend 'pea It3- '4. Cost per ton for trash cubes $ 58.26 $ 58.26 5. Cost per___ton for:trash extended 38.72 29.46 peat 4ubes 6. Kilowatt-hours of electricity 745 .745 produced per ton of mixed solid fuei4 7. Gallons of nu@ber 42 fuel oil 154,500 515,000 conserved per year due. to substitution* 5 of solid,fuel-for #2 oil 8. Capital necessary to provide, facilities $1,158,500 $ 2,638,500.. for"this operation.6 9. Estimated yearly cost to produce 342,825 978,200 electricity6 4 .10. Cost per kilowatt-hour of 14.70i@/KW-Hr 1?_.58;/KW-Hr electricity produced. Notes:, See next page SPECIAL DATA All yearly costs include costs for capital calculated as .15 times total capital for the associated facility. This allows a 15 yr depreciation and 12.8% interest to be repaid on borrowed capital. All capital assumed to be borrowed. Reserves of peat and the supply of trash will provide fuel sufficient to operate the 300KW unit for 140 years or the 1000KW unit for 45 years. The life of the existing landfill area on Block Island is only 5 years under present circumstances. Using the burnable fraction of trash to produce synthesis gas will increase the life of the dump 8 times to 40 years. 1. These are the ultimate capacities for these facilities. Cost data in this report assumes operation at 90% of ultimate capacity. 2. Each year 3150 tons of peat cubes will be produced for the 300KW units. This is 500 ton more than necessary- if the paper cubes are also considered. The excess will be sold as stove fuel for wood stoves. For the 1000KW unit 101425 tons per year of peat cubes will be produced. The excess 500 tons will be handled the same way. 3. The gross cost is $35 per ton greater than the net cost show due to the fact that the town will provide a $35 per ton tipping fee for trash removed. Also note, this cost assumes source separation of trash by island residents. 4. This figure is high because 7.5% of the energy required must come from a pilot fuel (#2 fuel oil). 5. All ecletricity on the island presently produced by diesel engines using #2 fuel oil. 6. The facilities to be used would be a trash shredding facility, a trash and peat densifying (cubing) facility, and a gasifier-electrical generation set, and all accessories to these facilities. Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. Block Island, Rhode Island 02807 TO: The Department of Encironmental Management State Office Building Providence, Rhode Island 02903 FROM: Julia Hayes, Peat Project Biologist Block Island A Supplement To Applications For Permits To Conduct Test Diggings of Peat At Seyeral Locations On Block Island: Summer-Fall, 1981 Introduction Block Island, in its eleven square miles, has two hundred wetlands, most of which contain peat. The wetlands formed as an irregularly melting glacier dropped clay, sand, gravel, and rocks to form a rolling, basin- studded moraine. Material washed to the bottoms of low areas formed seals, allowing rain water to accumulate rather than flow quickly through gravel to the sea. Plants grew, and vegetation falling to the bottoms of the young ponds, partially decayed, formed the first sedimentary peat layers. These deposits, along with clay and sand still washing down from higher areas, began the process by which lakes and ponds fill to become shallower swamps, marshes, and bogs. Plants creeping out over water underlying water. These, along withemergent plants growing in shallow ater, contributed reed-sedge and moss peats. Peat forms, in this part of the world, in acidic wetlands when plants die faster than the anaerobic (non-oxygen-using) bacteria of such wetlands can break them down. For thousands of years such peat has formed and continues to form on Block Island. Originally treed, the Island early lost its forests to land clearing, to construction, and to fuel. Wood gone, residents turned to peat for fuel, and many wetlands still show geometric shapes of open water where peat was hand dug in the peat, and where new bog mats are beginning to form. A gjood harbor, provided late in the nineteenth century, brought relatively inexpensive coal, then heating oil, to Block Island. Peat digging declined, then stopped. Now a new fuel crisis, the continuing increase in the price of petroleum, has prompted islanders to take a fresh look at their peat reserves. Jon Boothroyd of teh University of Rhode Island , with the assistance of tow graduate students, Colen Peters and Andrea Pickert, studied certain of the the Island's wetlands in 1979. Their work indicates that the peat reserves are considerable, and warrant at least exploratory diggings>( Boothroyd, Peters and Pickart, 1979.) This summer, 1981, certain wetlands have been selected for such explorations, and application has been made to the Department of Environmental Management for permission to conduct test digging in specific areas. Species On Block Island That Deserve Special Attenetion A review of endangered and threatened species in the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, revised October, 1980, indicated that Block Island does not have plants or breeding animals on the endangered or threatened lists. According to Dr. Irene Stuckey, Professor Emeritus of Botany, the University of Rhode Island, certain Block Island plants do deserve protection. A golden aster (Chrysopsis sp), though not rare, occurs here further north than it is usually found. Golden asters are to be found behind dunes, where their greatest danger would seem to be trampling sneakers taking shortcuts to the beach. A member of the rockrose family, Hudsonia ericoides L., grows in rare gravelly areas. Dirt bikes are among the greater threats to vegetation in such places. Cotton grass (Eriphorum) occurs on one privately owned wetland, now one of those considered in the present applications. The following members of the orchid family: Harbeneria clavellata, H. flava, H. lacera, and Spirantes cernua as well as the sundews Drosera intermedia and D. rotundifolia were reported from Block Island wetlands in a plant lst complied shortly before World War II. (Marks, unpublished ms., c. 1939.) I have looked for these plants, particularly in the area proposed for exploration, but have not yet found them. Uncommon species have not been found in the wetlands under consideration. This is one reason they were chosen. The most endangered animal on Block Island appears to be its meadow vole, a bariant of the more widely occurring Michrotus pennsylavanicus. This animal is threatened on the Island because meadow-grass habitat is diminishing, mowed or overgrown. The meadow vole is not a wetland species. Richard Bowen, of the Rhode Island Audubon Society, conducted a twelve-day survey of Block Island's breeding bird in June, 1981. With Mr. Bowen's premission I attach a summary of his fingings to this paper. (Bowen, unpublished notes, 1981.) Of the areas currently proposed for explortation, only one is near an important bird-breeding ground. Southeast of the wetland below the landfill, number 29, there are about seventy black-crowned night heron nests. For this reason I have recommended that: 1) Test digging be done at the northern end of this wetland, and 2) Any excavation of this wetland be done in non-breeding season. Peat And The Upper Perched Water Tat,,Je. Runoff Water. Eventually, by seepage or by overflow, a certain amount of water from Block Island's wetlands reaches the ocean. This is nicely shown on the ocean side of Franklin and Cooneymus Swamps. A walk along the beach from Cooneymus Road to Dory's Cove Road reveals a low area in the bank just.northof Cooneymus Road that, though now dry, carries runoff from these swamps in times of high water. All along the bank are patterns of- wet and.dry, the wet being seepage from the wetland to the beach. Were peat to@be dug in times of high water, runoff could be sediment filled, with consequent damage to nearby intertidal and. subtidal marine-organismm. (There is evidence, in the forms of drains and local oral tradition, that islanders used to avoid this problem, ard make the task simpler, by letting water out of their wetlands@ before digging. This water would have been relatively clear, though harmful ir released too quickly.) Such discussion does not seem relevant to present conditions, however. Another phenomenon,"the dropping upper perched water table, while ominous in its own right, means that less water is available to run from Block Island's wetlands. This minimizes or even negates possible damage to marine organisms from sediment or from too much fresh water at once. Where runoff does not exist it cannot cause damage.. During.the month of August, 1981, 1 checked outlets from thelkmb,rose Swamp, the Georgian Swamp, and Hal Madison's 'Cattail stand.* The outlets, from the Ambrose and Geor4an Swamps were dry. The outlet from Mr. Ma4ison's cattails petered out about half way to Trim's Pond, with no.surface flow reaching salt water. The wetland south of the lan(Ifill does not appear to have any outlet for surface runoff into salt water. Possible Increa:sed Water.Storage In-Dug Areas Peat digging would serve a double purpose. Fuel would bO L&,tained; and space provided by its removal, refilled with rain water, wouL.,1 restore some of the open water area lost.to Block Island in recerit decades. This has obvious value for fire protection when the wetland I., near buildin gs. It could serve, as well, to augment fresh water reserves. And it coLild provide increased habitat. for duejcs, @hich, according to Arthur Rose, DEK reprogentativc whQ5A family h4p.lived on the Island for generations, has diminished significantly in recent. year@'.. ..:To insure that water rather than dry hollows will result from peaL digging, it'is'suggested that a probe and dig approach be used.. Probes would show how far-digging could proceed, and the seal would not be broken letting all-the.water out. It is possible to repair seals, but it is far better not to break them to begin with.' Though labor intensive, the probe and dig approach, in Block Island's small wetlands, seems more practical than such methods for determining peat depth as radar or gravity meters. *RedGate Farm Wetlands Proposed For Test Diggings. Their Dominant and Frequent Plants. A crane and shovel will perform all test diggings, with perhaps a little supplemental handwork. The machine will stand on a firm dry spot at the edge of each wetland. fimbrose Swamp The test box,.at the edge of the wetland., combines shrub SWmpst of- the' box., with robust shallow PhraniLtes marsh and'' a 'bit of lightly,'vegetated open water.' Kvrics vennsyjvanics Bayberry Vaccinium,:.High,.bush blueberry Phragmites communis, Reed =ha angustifolia, Narrow leaved cattail; less frequent than Phrnamites SPhagnum moss;.- toward soUth'(8*aterY'side of'box riadenumvirginicum.(also called Hypericum virainicum), Marsh St.. Johnswort . Lycopus, water'horehound Glyceris Manna grass. Toodwardis virginica. Virginia chain fern Rhus.radicans, Poison.ivy Deco don-, vertic ill a tus, fnequent, alllong edge of.open water e ,.;duckweed;-:f-loating in water'-under Decodon y; somes phe .,".-Water lil t east side of open water zPecies. C0uscuts -Dodder; 'parasitic on1per plants st edge of wetbr.: II Maeis, H on C's tta *181 Stand - (Red Gate Farm) -If this were large enough, it would be a robust shallow, .Marsh, but there is well under an acre of wetland here. The test box contains three dominant species: Typha angustifolia, Narrow-leaved c attail Impatiens-ca-pensis ' Jewelweed EaJas species,, Naiad -4Landf ill South- South of - the'landfill-s dry, sandy area,-home to, broken gla ss and:suclf2pportunis.tic plants as ragweed and Japanese f rose, blackberry, and smilax, then kn6tweed,,-l:eads'to a band 0 elderberry.and the -,edge of a varied wetland. The test box here I's in -shallow marsh.,. mostly Phragmites dominated, but the far southwescorner it of it goes into cattail area. PhragMites and .swamp rose mallow are the most frequent plant species. Phragmites communis, Reed Hibiscus_palustris. Swamp rose mallow Woodwsrdia.virginice, Virginia chain fern Typha latifolia and Typhs angustifolia, cattails IV Georgian Swamp The test box area of the Georgian Swamp, though classified as robust deep marsh, does not now have standing water, though the ground between tussocks of Virginia chain fern is soft and wet. The original test box was to have been at the north end of the Georgian Swamp, but the owner at that end changed his mind; the box has been moved to the southern end. All open water is bordered by Decodon. Otherwise, the main difference between north and south is that north has more reed, cattail, and Virginia chain fern, and south tends toward sensi- tive,:'fern,.vervain-and boneset beyond the decodon border. South is, as species indicate drier.. Back from the wettest area are smooth rose, blackbery and bayberry. Woodw*ardia virginica, Virginia chain fern; common Osmunds-reglis L, Royal fern; one clump Phraamites communis, Reed and Typhs la -catta*ls Typhs --latifolis Deco don-vertic ills tus, water willow Triadenum virginicum.-Marsh St. Johnswort Spaghnum moss, in northern se-ction especially Onocles sensibilis, Sensitive fern Verbens - ha state, Blue vervain Eupstorium perf;liatum, Boneset Rosa blanda, Smooth rose -Rubus,.blackberry Myr-ica Pennsyl-0qvanici, Bayberry Cuscuts''s0peciesi-Dodder; parasitic on other plants at edge of wa tier 00 lop/ 77@7 ;1 71- ?_7 Irw ollf 7P 1@7 "77-X 71, ko' 7/ v 77 (I e wrx @@ Ic 7v xxy 5,ZK -,o 7r, @w2v Irl Excerpt from Governorls,Energy Office Report on Peat Potential on Block Island 5.3 Some possible alternative uses.of the peat Two uses are suggested for the peat resources of Block Island: 1) as fuel for.a 1-3 megawatt electrical-generating plant; and 2) use as a home-heating source in individual wood,stoves. The peat would most ltly be used on Block Island becaus e the small size of the wetlands and the relative isolation'of the Island make production and transportation costs prohibitively.high in competition with other mainland sources. The resource calculation for the power plant, 24,248 tonnes of good quality peat from Ambrose and New Meadow Hill.Swamp, is about 75% of the total resource of these two wetlands. Seventy five percent of the useful tonnages forthe entire island, 95,000 and 190,000, would yield 71,000.. and 142,000 tonnes, respectively, of good quality peat for all wetlands. Thus, the-power. plant would have fuel for.14-28 years. it should be point. ed. out that this'estimate is extremely conservative; a likely reserve could be 100% greater. A resource calculation for use as a home-heating fuel can be based on heat values of peat versus wood. Best quality wood gives about 7500, Btu/lb; whereas an average peat value, based-on the quality analyses, is 4000 Btu/lb, oi about.50% of the wood heating value. If the average home in Rhode Island uses four cords of wood per year (1 cord wood = 1 ton peat), then 8 tons of-peat are needed per home. Based on the useful tonnages, 95,000 and 190,000; 100 homes could be heated for 120-240 years, or 500 homes for 24-48 years. Again, t@is resource calculation is extremely conservative. Block Island Economic Development Foindation, Inc. Block Island, Rhode Island TO: Department of Enviromental Management, Wetlands Divison FROM: Elliot Tanbuman, Block Island Integrated Energy Institutions, Project Director SUBJECT: Prelimimary determination as to a test dig of peat on Block Island. DATE: September 2, 1981. This memorandum ties together the separate applications which are being submitted for a test dig of peat on Block Island. While the applications are on sperate pieces of paper, they should be considered together for most purposes. The points in favor of the proposed test dig are the following: 1. The intent of the test dig is to determine what the enviromental and energy inplications of the renewed use of peat will; these implications will not be appripri- ately tested unless the kind of experiment proposed is allowed. 2. A total amount of 500 cubic yards of peast will be obtained this amount of digging will not be a signif- icant alteration of any one wetland. 3. All substantila sized wetlands have been considered for possible digging, but the ones selected were chosen because of less apparent environmental damage, ease of access and because they appear to have been used for peat historically. 4. Migratiory water fowl may have additional habitati if deeper water ponds are restored on the Island. 5. Increased availability of open water ponds would also enhance recreational opportunities. The ponds would be stocked with fresh-water fish, and would provide provide increased habitat for ducks, geese and teals. 6. Suitable habitat for the cage-culture of channel catfish is probable in ponds created by the harvesting of peat. 7. The wetland chosen are not the primary habitat of any threatened or endangered species. 8. The peat obtained will be given away or sold at low rates to the year round Island population who prosently suffer the highest energy costs and lowest per capita income in Phode Island; the year round population historically relied on peat for home heating and this is why so many wetlands have already been disturbed on the Island. 9. The entire credibility of the peat experiment may hinge on whether any peat is actually used this coming winter.' 10. The total enciroment on Block Island may be improved by digging peat; a) peat contributes less to air pollution than the wood and coal which are not commonly burned, b) the increase in wildlife habittat and recreational values previously alluded to, and c) the pond vreated whould be used to augment the important upper perched water table. 11. The dug-out ponds which will be created in the mineral swamps involved will have all spoils removed. 12. A biologist trained in environmental impact, who was raised on the Island has been retained to monitor the actual digging of peat if this occurs in the later part of September or the earliest part of October. Permission to dig peat at an average of 100 cubic yards per wetland is requested for a total of 500 cubiv yards. The number of wetlands dug and the method of recovery is open to discussion. An analysis of the fauna and flora found in the subject wetlands is attached as are further comments by one of the Project biologists. Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. Block Island, Rhode Island TO: Christine Ariel, Wetlands Division, Department of Environmental Consevation, State of Rhode Island From: Elliot Thubman, Project Director, Block Island Integrated Energy Institutions Project and President, Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. SUBJECT: Further Information Regarding Wetland Preliminary Determinations for the Test Digging of Peat. DATE: September 9, 1981 Attached are corrected maps of the proposed sites for the digging of peat. Also attached are the written authorizations of the property owners ot each site. In three of the cases there has been a change in the percise site of the "box" for digging because of requests by the property owners. In the case of Ambrose Swamp and the Landfill South Swamp this is just a change of a few feet. In the case of Georgian Swamp the change was to put the test site on the west end of the existing large pond which was created by digging for peat (apparently the Mott and Littlefield families used peat for a very long time at that site). The method of digging will be to position a large crane on the solid bank of eack wetland and to swing out a claw to the designated box of 10 yards X 10 Yards X 3 yards and first remove the surface vegetation and ten go down to the tested peat depth to extract no more than 300 cubic yards from each site for a total of no mor then 500 cubic yards from all four sites. The intention is to see the wetness of the material and either directly load the past into dump truck for transport to either the landfill or other well drained site, or to leave the peat for two weeks (approximately) on the bank of each wetland. The peat would then be brought to the compactor for the reation of billets. As indicated before, a perferance will be given to the Island senior citizens for the peat. We also itend to give some of the compacted peat to each of the property owners to insure their continued coopartation. Please call if you have any further questions. @U P OAT Eb.. 46-0011.- PI t: 62 oodo 44 14 NZ T 21 N& 7 ............. 44,,e' 43 42 .41 Lea A. zs*&. Lea& S.'sma. As .ALos 1.438K.' iz.,&.. SWAMPti 33 AN 29 32, Is .4 -A S 0:. .0 O*A Z5 PAL off 14 is* ?%at 73 ikodwL 20400* 74 4.90 A. ?.?SAL vo t16' 1.3&A. PF 7*4 A16 GAO& lp so - RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of New Shoreham suports the application of the Block island Economic Development Foundation to dig for peat on a teSt basis on Block Island. It is recognized by the Town that the Block Island Economic Development Foundation (BIED) has sought to be sensitive to,,. environmental concerns as.well as the economic well-being o the year-round Island residents. The test dig for peat be for a small amount and will be done in the least destructive way possible. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that two sites which have been identifid for drying and compacting of peat are the Town Landfill-and the State Highway Building, that the Town supports the use of these sites for storing, drying and compacting of peat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that-use of Town land and facilities is specifically allowed fb r the purposes aforesaid and the Energy Committee of the Town is specifically authorized to participate in the above activities and represent the Town's interests in the digging and using of peat. J0 F. Gray, rst ar n, A. DePetex-l1,--S-e`4co-n-cT- Warden I-In, Cour0fil Mom H. Dennis HeInzo council Kiwoer F; NdVtis Pike-, Council-Member Adopted unanimously by Town Council on October 5, 1981. ATTE ST: Ed, 56&-2 16056, 8081 Edith Lit0t0Tefird 3iane, Town Clerk STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS Dpartment of Encironmental Management DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES 38 State Street Providence, R. I. 02908 September 24, 1981 Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. No. 4910-4914 P.O. Box 277 Block Island, RI 02807 ATTENTION: Elliot Taubman Subject: Preliminary determination request for proposed paat extraction, Block Island, Rhode Island We have received the materials and reports submitted concerning experi- mental peat extraction on Block Island. Description of our findings may be found in the enclosed letters. In accordance with current policy we have concluded that major disturbances to existing wetland values will result in all four circumstances. Therefore, the formal approval of this Department will be required to beginning work. In an affort to verify our findings and provide assistance in this matter the four wetlands under consideration have been evaluated by means of a wildlife habitat assessment model used by this section. Both ""andfill South" and Ambrose Swamp are considered "unique wetland", thus increas- ing the potential for denial of your application under section 5.03(6) of the rules and regulations. Georgian Swamp ranks "high" for wildlife habatit while the wetland associated with Trimm's pond at red gate farm could not be given a relative value due to its small size. Please also note that section 5.03(7) states that the application may be denied should the wildlife habitat value of a "valuable wetlanf"be reduced. With these factors in mind it is our option that a formal application for removal of the entire required volumn be submitted for either of the two latter wetlands, Georgian Swamo or Red Gate farm marsh. These comments should in no way be construed to mean that approval of your proposal is assured. Raterher they are offered to facilities further action by your organization and the Town of New Shorehae. Block Islan Economic Development Foundation. I n.c. .Saptawber 211 WAr Are-skers of ther t Imel I'miess. of your; request and vill provide; as imich' assistwwa as possiblw. If ym have spy questions please do not has[- tat& to contact t.his office (277-6820). Very truly yours, Pieter. M.Ja P, E. ..Chief- Divialm of Lanci Resources CA,(14U db Enclosures: COMstAJ Mwuppment Council. woot QrnorJ s' EnarW.64MCMP Victor sell- STATE OF RHODE ISLANDD AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 38 State Street Providence RI 02908 September 24, 1981 Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. APPLICATION No. 4914 P.O. Bo 277 Block Island, RI 02807 Dear Mr. Taubman: Kindly be advised that this Department has reviewed your Request for Fresh Water Wetlands. Applicablitity Determination and inspected the site in the Town of New Shoreham, east of Corn Neck Road; south of Tinker's way. end as described by the site plan accompanying your request. It is our conclusied that this proposal represents significant alteration of a fresh water wetland for the following reason: Your proposal involves the excavation of peat from Georgian Swamp, a fresh water marsh, resulting int he destruction of a wetland having "high" value wildlife habitiat. Therefore, formal application must be made on the enclosed form before further action can be taken by this Department. Upon receipt of your application, this Department will proceed with its processing as required by law. A copy of the Fresh Water Wetland Act is enclosed for your convenience. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office (phone: 277-6820). Very truly yours, Peter M. Janaros, P.E Chief Division of Land Resources CA/PMJ/db ENCLOSURES (2) CC: Victor Bell Governor's Engery Office Coastal Resources management Council. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 38 State Street Providence RI 02908 September 24, 1981 Block Island Economic Development Foundation Inc. APPLICATION NO. 4910 P.O. Box 277 Block Island RI 02807 Dear Mr. Taubman: Kindly be advised that this Department has reviewed your Request for Fresh Water Wetlands Applicability determination and inspected the sits In the Town of New Shoreham south of the intersection of east side Road and center road. Lots 76-2 and 75-3 and as described by the site plan accompanying your request. It is our conclusion that this proposal represents a significant alteratice of a fresh water wetland for the following reason: Your proposal includes the excavation of peat from a fresh water marsh resulting in the destuction of wildlife habitat. Therefore, formal application must be made on the enclosed form before further action can be taken by this Department. Upon receipt of your application this Department will proceed with its processing as required by law. A copy of the Fresh Water Wetlands Act is enclosed for your convenience. If you have any quiestions, please feel free to contact this office (phone: 277-6820). very truly yours, Peter M. Janaros P.E. Chied Division of Land Resources CA/PMJ/db Enclosure (2) cc: Coastal managememnt Council Victor Bell Governer's Energy Office STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 38 State Street Providence, RI 02908 September 24, 1981 Block Island Economic Development Foundation, Inc. APPLICATION NO. 4913 P.O. Box 277 Block Island, RI 02807 Dear Mr. Taubman: Kindly be advised that this department has reviewed your Request for Fresh water Wetlands Applicability. Determination and inspected the site In the town of New Shoreham west of corn Neck Roak south of West Beach Road, lot 98-1 and an unnumbered lot locally referred to as "Landfill South: wetland. end as described by the site plan accompanying your request. It is our conclusion that this proposal represents a significant alteration of a fresh water wetland for the following reasons: your proposal re solves the exteraction of peat from a fresh water marsh resulting in the degradation of the "unique" character of a wetland designated by the 8.1 National Heriatage Program. Therefore, formal application must be mad on the enclosed form before further action can be taken by this Department. Upon receipt of your application, this Department will proceed with its proceesing as required by law. Please note that your proposal may require review by the Coastal Resources management Council. A copy of the Fresh water Wetland Act is enclosed for your convience; If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office (phone: 277-6820). Very truly yours, Peter N habarcem P.E. Chief Division of Land Resources CA/PMJ/db Enclousure (2) cc: Coastal Resources managemane council Victor Bell Governor's Energy Office Madison Swamp ---- Plat 6 --- Plat 3 Lot 73.2 H. L. Madison Block Island, RI 02307 73.3 Keiron L Jesup 97 Daniel and Elizabeth Olson Huckleberry Hill Chapel St New Canaan CT 06340 Stratford CT 06497 73 Patricia C Young John F Gray Lone Tree Farm Rd Block Island, RI 02307 New Canaan, CT 06840 CBA Wetland ---- Plat 3 Plat 20 - Dees Tug Hole 10 St Caspian Associates Inc. 20 Town of New -West Bezca c/o E Allen Van Deusen 120 Fox Den Glastonbury, CT 11 Nicholas A Heineman Cider Mill Rd Stamford, CT 06903 Plat 4 21 Milton Carrow 1104 Waverly Way Mclean, VA 22101 25 Ernest & Charlotte Christofferson 44 Stewart Ave of Waterbury, CT 28 Mary O. Tinker Block Island, RI 02807 Georgian Swamp ---- Plat 4 13 Elizabeth Mitchell Richard P Hayes Block Island, RI 02807 55 E Center St Manchester, CT 19 Byron Littlefield Block Island, RI 02807 23 Mary O. Tinker Block Island, CT 02807 23 Wm. & Thelma Murphy 37 Runnymede Rd Chatham Twp, NJ 07923 23 Norma Mott Nordberg Block Island, RI 02807 23 Robert Sawyer 19 Granerry St Rye, NY Ambrose Swamp ---- Plat 3 Lot 213 Brewer Block Island, RI 02807 217 James & Eva Mott Block Island, RI 02807 218 220 John & Mabel Block Island, RI 02807 219 Mary Jean Kull Block Island, RI 02807 Lots-230, 235, 236, 238, 240, 242, 244, 246, 248, 253 Joan P. Abeshouse 110 Beach Ave Woodmont, CT 06460 Lots-225, 231, 233, 237, 239, 245, 249 Jack I. Drazen c/o Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. Mortgage Dept. 777 Main St. Hartford, CT 06115 ~0 ~2p~~936;348;56;64q4~1p~~$I Consents ~~ I~~m~~~ ~~~" U.S.- peat activity mounting despite go~qv"t ~qeut~q@ Canada ~~ Owls ~q0~0~% ~P~q"~M than I~qW miles is ~p~re~s~e~n~t~l~y~c~ons~i~. Or~rAWA - W~h~i~s C~A~n~q"~an ~~W~~~G~O - An official at the doted u~n~e~co~n~a~m~i~r- resource ~n~o~m~s~tr~i~e~s now know Gas T~oc~h~n~o~k~qW here ~F~e~d~w~a~i ~fu~nd~s-~h~ich p~@~WL~@d~- about peat can ~b~e told in.& ~a~qm a -milli was shocked d~ay when a ~$13 on in ~qM9~8~s~-~4pp~e~ar ~n~u~t~s~h~e~i~l: then's a lot of it; it group ~ ~~o ~K~A~W~w~w~oo~t~a appeared ~1~0 ham dried up for pool ~P~qW bur~n~i~t, you can make useful in th~ ~~f~0~c~* door carrying a beyond F~Y~1~9~6~2~, according to with ~I~L What they d~*W~t ch~~~k of local bog. After ~r~A~i~w Mai Ko~p~s~t~a~in. ~m~ar~t~a~g~er ~al DOE's =Is very nearly ~~~~g the and. he was asked by PON Program. Whether or not ~e~k~*~4q=~h~o~w ~inclu~st~ry~w~ill pickup ~t~h~e ~s~t~ack~'~t~s ~4~q" cam to ~r~e~t~r~i~e~v~v ~~~ ~~u~ it it could bat used to an u~nc~srt~imn~t~y~@~l ~g~ap~q~ adds. and dry it. and w~h~q~ its u~s~e~- produce I shot PA. ~'~C~o~m~e~r~a~l~l~y, I would Sums rim~. as a twat at an industrial That was Oman vows a", ~&~W fe~ed~sto~c~k~-4~s indeed ~o~c~o- ~oh~- ~-~- ~V. ~Pu~n~.~'~M ~"~P~. ~I~n ~i~f~t~f~a~m~u~n~t~h~e~"~wr~o~ph~y ~~~b~ h~o~w~n~sl~a~ir~m~ed~,th~q" ~p~o~t~on~q"~O~f~p~s~at~i~s~o~n~e~o~f~f~t~s~b~a~s~t Sul now i~n~e~i~r~r~i~t~" in t~h~e pate~. ~~~~~~~~ as selling ~F I Consider ~dw ~fol- lar~t~i~l~l~i~t that cover huge areas of . -~ took ~0qM~.~q"~, ~2qM~a, string wall sluff ~6~-~4 laughed~.~- the cam" is ~v~id~a ~t~t~w~n St~. ~0 ~f~t~e~L an ~u~m~n~ip~l~a~qf~qt~el ~en~s~e~qp John's to ~R~e~g~in~s. ~T~h~w~r~% a hi~r~d at ~~~w~~~ ~"~B~a~s~sa~w ell octal of source In the U.S.. is ~*~a~n~- gold ~I~*v~v~i~r-~a~lb~e~i~t be ~CT'~ d~ mot of chemical p~e~a~. mated to ~o~xc~e~*~d the ~t~o- ~m~u c~k~y ~go~ld--~i~n the d~ry bit- c~~~~ng ~~e~qw~ar~c~h. recently ~P~a~. ~m~a~i~n~i~n~g~, known. cam. C~~~~dL at . note~, po~wn~d~a~s~l of ~i~@ ad& has too long ~i~ni~s~t~w~e the *A on I ~F~, r~o~p~n~e~s~q-~d~-~qi ~q"~"~a~"~q-~' ~f~i~g~"~i~s~e b~i~tnar~s~t~a~l~mr~s~t~e~d ~t~h~a~s~ur~f~a~c~e~d the Mir~~e~s~a~f~t ~G~e~s~~c~omp~a~rr~y ~A~n~d~-~c~onv~ent~i~on~s~i natural its m~o~un~t~h~e~i ~~~~~~r~~~~~s~c~ol~. a utility ~s~e~r~v~m~g ~g~a~s reserve& ~-~U~s~b~e~& ~- natural ~~a~s to SWAM custom~. ~4~1 U~.S~. peat ~0 ~M~f ~.~, ~s~pr~e~n~t~s 11~11~4~1~4~-~1~111~M~I~S ~'~"l~e Go~M~qm Ap~- ~~, persisted. ~P~utr~w~ar~t~i. wow the ~e~q~u~iv~e~l~e ~t of ~Z~W billion ~I~l~w~a~s~dur~q"W~O~O On~s~. b~ar~n~i~f~t of oil., or ~U~G quads war ~~c~ ~ haw of ~s~c~r~s PON pro.. with ON prospect at Oki ~s~hor~*. ~~~. h~~l up to his ~o~b~e~r~.~6 ~- ~o~f energy~. i~ ~~~ ever ~di~nc~e. a part o~f a Some ~S2.~6 million~ acres of lend are considered Pass- ~t ~~~~~~~~M~l~i~m~"~qP~a~c~o ~a~i~k~"~I~'~l~e~s WWI In the U.S. If dried to ~~~~~~ t~~ ~g~e~t~w~6~c~o~n~an potential. ~2~5 per cent moisture~. this ~~~ ~`~~1~11~"~qW~ill ~W~id ~a~L~s~o~a~a~qm A represents ~1~M.3 billion tons ~i~a~~~~d talk pan of the ~s~t~ar~y at fuel. of w~~ pan has b~a~cc~i~i one *a# t~~ h~~ topics in ~th~e U~q4 ~a~i~t~t~or~. Then there, is the ~e~lu~est~i~on of ~~~~~p~~p~field. W ~wth~o~t PON ~bo~qv am "mew- ~~ ~~~~~i~q and pr~o~r~s~q"~r~i~tt~i~ng ~ab~l~e~e~n~e~i~g~y ~so~u~i~x~e~s. From d~w pow in the presence of h~y~dro~. s~andpow~n~a~l ~gr~ow~d~,w~h~ich ~~~-~~~~~ Sm- followed by a firm based in Now ~f~a~m~V~eh~i~n~t is pass ~w~i~n no now occurs ~" ~10~0~-2~0~0 ~c~o~nt~i~m~e~t~er~s steam a~~d ~o~ir~y~g~e~n trust. ~I~G~qTs th~e ~qw~ak~e-~scrubb~in~g ~equ~ip~@~. p~e~r 100~0 Vows. the answer is P~AT~AS ~p~r~oc~s~r~ss can extract ~n~i~v~e technology ~it i~n~sp~or~t~e~d ~t~o~st~ ~m~a~nt ~e~c~t~e~m a of cool p~I~w~v~n~6 data. ~~X~ cubic ton of go. U.2 ~g~o~l~- you from Swede . Known ~S~d~P~- University of South C~an~all~i~m~s Sul proponents "aft that ~c~~. ~l ~~~4. ~4~0 pounds at ~a~n~s- ne~r~i~c~a~qf~qt as ~wr~i-~c~ar~b~o~n~iz~eti~an (a ~I'~M~i~a~"~Or~A~.~O.C~ol~i~on~n~o~t ~O~qW. mon~~ arid ~I~f~t~er pounds of Sul- Process researched by ~q~u~k~q* maturing t ~s~e Mks older U.S. pow aid in remote ~a~n~s~w and ~p~o~p~i~n~e~. or cattails can be pow #or ~~v~er~v ton of dry ~P~U~L ad of U.S. co~m~p~a~n~k~q" the ~f~t~ch~- ohm so t~a~tc~l~e~i~n~g in local ~a~r~t~.~. 9~10~M on partially harvested That. according to P~u~nw~an~i. ~-~q"y takes orgy supplies. This could be ~o~i~- bo~p a a scur~a~s~t of a a ~w~obl~e ~~k~~ ~h~~t ~U~N~I~q;d SM" a p~s~- off. the bo~p it d~wr beneficial or ~p~r~o~b~k~w~i~w~f~i~r~@ ~o~n~er~q" stock. Arm Cok~o~W terms ~~~~r in past ~I~s~a~w~ic~at~i~o~n. pr~o~s~s~a~ir~e into a combustible fu~e~ll~depending ~wh~ath~e~i the moo - found that planting the p~t~a~- ~~~~~ technology will b~e compatible with ~o~w~ar~ed ~b~o~i~l~a~o~s~ ~h~ad a central demand for on. c~*s~s~e~d area yielded normal tested in a pilot plant Metal I& plus for peat am ~a~*~q" orgy. Transport of peat mane ~grow~e~qf~qt ad c~o~wn and ~so~r~b~o~or~i~a. spring.' ~W~art~a~g~asc~o is ~c~a~n~-. Th~e process ~b~a~c~i~s~m p~e~ae~$ D~Ud~W~q* ~,g cu~~n~~~ studying ~t~q ~w Wain in available ~a ~w ~g~y by 10 par can ~~~ impact Of harvesting a~qM 'or more. ~m~y~s~i John. =V~0~01~1 ~~-~-~W~ ~q-~qN~-~1~0~9~- as part ~p~r~a~s~i~d~e~r~" ~o~f the company @ft_ Vag bulk of ~qi~2ql~0qd~q"~6qS~'~4q,~8qbe~0qa~6qf~6qtu~0qh~6qd~qi~f a ~~~~~~l~o~t~y ~Stu~dl~y for an ~a~o~. orgy department. it ~l~o~ok~s~p~a~s million cu~b~i~c-~loo~l-p~e~r~-d~a~y ~s~yn- ~is~i~n~g enough~. he adds. that or ~qM~R~d~q" sew dam ~P~M~A~W~R in it' th~~~~ ~~1~1~1 plaint ~I~t~h~e ~n~4~f~i0~f~tS W~h~*~o~i~a~br~at~or-Fr~y~s plans can- ~W~I~W~*~w~m n~n~o~u~r~c~e~s~s~r~o~qw SOW* land "in I ~V~e~w~s~s~o~. first. ~~~ the thermal p~nx~b~x~- s~tr~c~t~i~qm ~a~t a Pass Process~q" ~t~i~m~a~t~ed at ~4~27~-m~o~i~l~lo~n hectares With over ~on~*.~third of the Aft ~s~d~*~M~I~qM haw d~i~m~a~ws~t~il~d nor, at a IWO ~M~qW pow" ~P~L~ar~"~? it Plant in M~O~M~M~. and I ~c~q"~q" to ~(~I~.~O~SS-b~i~l~l~i~o~n acres). ~& quirk ~4 ~v~j~o~r~l~d~% p~w~attand~s and 96 per ~i~n~err~y~'~s~i~t~h~e unkn~ow~nprop~e~r~@ ~~~W to ~0q" on line some- industries interested ~qL pu~r~q&~j~ts~- ~1p~~~~~p~p~p~1p~p~1p~1p~p~p~p~p~p~1p~ ~m~g tu~s~$ ~ho~pr~i ~r~i~m future plant peon global d~i~s~tr~i~b~e~n~e~s~s makes con of global pea production. ties of Pea. extending its ~s~t~sh~e~n~t ~9~~ it p~r~a~c~k~qO~f ~W~u~m~c~a~ss~ib~i~n to the ~t~h~e U.S.S.~1~1~. Is an undisputed at ~v~qW to production at ~o~o~k~s~, Studies am also u~n~d~o~r-~w~r at a of the world po~pu~l~w ~l~ead~e~r~in~d~i~efl-~l~d ~0- ~f~t~-~c~o~q" and fuel produces~. ~a~s ay am ~e~s~or~"~a~f~t~, the plant. ~P~it~t~s~b~u~r~g~h4~m~a~e~r~d ~on~g~in~e~en~n~g~. ~M~o~m~i~t~p ~ ~~~ a ~11 vow ~P a ~, VOW cat firm. the oar#*" company. "OIL t~o~ar~e~qm ~art~ic~k~i~n~P~r~ind~a~.~Ru~s- ~w~*~O ~q" light-weight ~bu~i~l~O~f~f~t~s ~~~~ ~~~~qW acres of pow h~a~o~- w~h~i~c~i is ~ar~s~o~q"~q" ~t~o~n~v~a~4q" ~A~s~s~u~e~sin~g bulk ~d~w~r~* s~i~a is now ~c~o~n~s~i~d~0q" a va~r~W~q ~Stf~Y~qM~r~*s and insulation~. As vested to & ~d~e~pc~h ~a~( six ~f~e~s~i~t. ~m~a~n ~a~# ~h~erv~e~s~dr~ig ~a~n~d d~o~, *a of t~S pounds per cubic foot of possible uses ~qW pea ~b~o~qw~a~s ~e~h~owh~e~r~s. d~w primary Wow of mi~~~~~~c~t~o~'~s pea s~o~t~w~c~i~r. The ~V~q~n~g p~o~s~s~. Rockwell ~I~n~t~o~m~e~. a~n~d~h~e~nt~l ~v~ak~wo~I6~A~W~gTU~@~- power production. ~V~w~at In ~r~i~m U~.S.~5~-L is ~a~0qo- p~a~r pound a~l ~3~3 p~a~r ~a~qm ~wi~p -Until ~r~ec~o~n~qf~qt pea ~h~a~s been ~c~i~r~h~ur~x~i~l.~' oft a" now ~yw~o~s~h~w~s~h ~i~n "~w ~S~o~f~t~e~l aid ~f~l~a~s~s~o~n4~w~a~nd ~O~r~n~s~, ~t~wr~e c~ar~n~s~o~n~. and -an average~. tow mainly Is a ~h~qw for also. ~s~i ~- ~- belated ~a~qw~q" "the ~p~or~t~a~l~t~h~o~st~o~w~a~w~i~t~. ~t~ach~a~f~f~l~e~x~p~l~ar~q"~th~e ~e~k~* ~W~P depth of ~a~b~o~t~s beside% ~C~A~"~ad~s end ~*~0~0~1p~1p~p~p~ law ~~~~N~w ~qw~qv~qm Malian ~O~w~- ~6~4~q" of. ~I~q"~f~" ~g~a~s~&~*~*~" ~"~I~t~o~qw ~O~qW of Pon p~q" in the ~co ~O~qW ~o~f~q"~C~a~l~l~y I ~c ~ ~8 the line "~n~l~ U.S. If I ~o~n~~1~5 high ~h~ir~ ~a~W~k~sl~on~s ~4 4~4 ~0~*~4~4~0 ~~~n~~o~c~e is an obvious p~i~nc~e VIVO with ~W~4~qW for the pow ~M~v~i~s~k~s~"~o~n to take thou ~w~a~k a seeks in ~it~q* pone- of ~o~g. Out ~a~l the total resource~. Belot piano to use Own~, pow ft- piece. ~~thin its borders ~P~* ~7.2 ~f~ia~il~y I~u~c~r~M~i~v~v~~*r~w~r~g~P~-~s~vp~p~i~V or~s~h~r ~a~bou~i~t ~q=~q" ~~~~"~~~ acres of b~o~g~l~and, or ~a~qm ~v~a~mum~. a c~o~n~v~e~qm~qm a~m~a~i~qm (79-3~4~*~1~1~i~o~n ~a~C~r~ws~t~. 0~1~F about to ~w~e ~p~&~K~* of ~c~l~M~s~e~i~m~p~oc~"~, ~Ir~v~i~o~n~e~L in the ~*~m~e fiscal rim~" pe~~~~~~~~i~f~i~ewo~o ~t~at~a~l.~c~o~rn. that ~s~o~v~w~W ~i~mpo~r~f~a~i~nt factors s~"~v~e~"~P~a~r~c~e~s~s~at~i~f~f~"~W~e" ~l~a~a~l~`~L~ ~a~s"~l~l no a~c~c~a~u~qf~qt w~a~s ~t~a~k~q" of ending in ~V~3~1~1~3~4~4. the Swedish ~r~~" ~~ ~I~s~qM~a~n earn of pane~. could ~r~un post development can be found in no. ~a~t~h~e~n ~w~npo~r~t~o~n~t c~o~mp~o~p~e~n ~g~ov~i~p~m~e~n~e~w will all- do- ~W~W~O the ~I~V~O~M~M to ~1~1~8 per c~ont of ft energy SUP- A~s~i~ta a ~I~s~a~id~er ~p~ly~R&~O~b~u~d ~to~l~o~r~e f~u~ni~s ~p h~ic: the ~f~9~th~a~qu~e~s- andp~o~et~s~e~c~o~i o~n~l~y~tov~o~nd~i~n ~~~ the ~p~e~a~s.~4~o~r~-~a~n~er~q" ~M~q~ ~ti~on of wh~q~ past pr~od~ac~q- tow ~e~xp~e~r~e~q"~A~s~t~s. Sir ~M~M, ~W~. ~~~~~~v ~o~n~e~l~l~e~ah~e ~a~s~w~e~ll. c~a~n satisfy the ~b~vv~y of ~st, Ic U~.S~. ~c~o~r~d~in~g~too~n~e~c ~4~'shEm~b~e~q" Eleven states have completed land. ~A~i~r and wells ~s~t~a"~d~a~c~e~l~l p~ub~l~ic~a~d~an~, about 3.~1 ~P~a~t ~q. ~~~ pow resource studies. with one r~esp~ec: ~e~n~v~i~nx~i~m~e~n~r~i~d of ~ft~* co~u~rr~ay~s anticipated er~i~o A~~~~~ tipping the scalers a ~6~1.~7~- ~e~%~l~p~m~r~o ~O~r~m~ar~y~i~n~n~V~O~L~O~M~I~"~, ~w~r supply "to come from Pow. ~b~q&~m tam of pea ~qr~qe~qso~qu~qrc~qo (at told ~<~X~EN -In the ~qd~qo~qc~q" Is. a greater contribution than ~qis ~q*~q%~qP ~3~S ~p~e~w I elm mc~qo~qo~qf~qt~qw~qo~qr~q)~q; Michigan ~qu~qw~q- it will ~qm~qa~qlu~qs or be a t~qh~qe& from ~q%*~qI~qar or wind. ~*~K~h ~*~4~4~qs~qi~ql~ql~qii~qon ton ~q: and Fk~6qw ~qinc~qlu~qs~qtr~qy.' She added that hw Although 12 p~qa~qr card of the ~sda with ~th, - tons. fir~qm~q.~8qW~qi~qll~qa~qrn~qs~q6rod~qw~qi ~qo~ql~ql~qi~qal~qs~qs~q. country is covered with Peat~q- The ~8~0~.~4 ~qQ ~qc~qf~q/d Islam cis Oklahoma~q. ~qm~qm~qe ~qt~qow~qi~qn~qa~qS~ql~qa~qS Lands. a Swedish Institute fact ~P~d~o ~ed by ~qA~qf~qtr~qin~qe~qg~qa~qsc~qo. Irv c~qi~qs~qi~qv~q@ m~qi~ql~qk~qin grant to ~qW I to the do& Pam utilization -is p~an~so~o. would c~qon~qsurn~qo ~qap- AM. ~q, ~q5~8q" on pew% ~qo~qnv~qi~qr~qo~qn~q. F~qW~qM by the transport p~qr~qob- ~. ~0q* ~q6~q-~qS~qt~qr~qo~qo~ql~qlon ~ql~qo~qt of mental ~qimp~qac~0qm ~ql~qe~4qm Involved~q. ~qw~qd by economic poor -'~q* The" t~qa ~qs~qn~qe is the ~qa~q44~q4 ~q4~0q" t~qw mod ~qarr~qA~qr~qan~qt~qr~qi~qon~qt~qa~ql c~qon~qs~qid~qo~qr~qa- ~T~h~e ~indus~4q"~q. boasting its question of cam. ~8qW~qil ~qP~qa~qm be ~qV~qi~qt~qw~qo ~q"pass a a fuel is ~s~k~w~* of ~b~6q*~qn~6qM~qW companies~q. able to ~qund~qe~qrpr~qic~qe co~qa~ql~qf currently in an introductory she ~i~p~, to be healthy do-, Individuals like John ~qI~qt~qchr~qer State.- ~qS~qt~qM~qO~qS ~qW~qK~qW~2qW ~qI~qn~qS~qd~qt~qW~qf~qt sow own ~qc~q%~qotb~qacks of fed~qL~qn have few doubts. especially b~qac~qk~0qr~qw~qnd~qe~qr. as much as ~q1~q-~q1~q- ~k~w~-d~k~% tar pow ~qR~6qW. ~4qW~qw~8qO~q- ~qw~qr~qi~qen pate a~qt users realize the ~qL~qa~qr~8qr ~qc~qa~qv~qe~qr~qp~qi~qm~qe~qw rd ~qh~qi~qs~qh ~q111,~q31~q01~q01, ~q*~qW~qu~qo~qn tons of fuel ~qa~8q" ~qw~4q" ~qO~qx~q. ~a~b~r~a~w~w~4~r~6qM an one ~qS, ~qs~qor~qoc~qir ~qs~qli~qSh~qt~qty more expensive. but to peat boo ~qw~0q!~qot t~qa~qt~qr~qa~qii~qs~qt. tr~qact~qed annually during W~qO~0qM PEAT RESOURCES OF RED GATE FARM WETLAND BLOCK ISLAND, RHODE ISLAND PREPARED FOR: BLOCK ISLAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC. BY Colen R. Peters Department of Geology University of Rhode island Kingston, RI 02881 28. May 1982 DRAFT COPY WETLAND CLASSIFICATION The 0.38 ha (0.95 acre) Red Gate Farm Wetland is dominated by Typha angustifolia (narrow-leaved cattail) and is classified as robust shallow marsh (SM-1; Plate 1, #42; Boothroyd et al., 1979). Short meadow emer- gents (Golet and Larson, 1974) areabundant on the uphill side of a sur- ficial break-in-slope that borders the wetland on all but the east side (Fig. 1). Appendix 1 of Boothroyd et al., (1979) indicates the wetland (#42) covers 0.76 ha (1.9 acres) but this figure includes an area of salt marsh along the northeast edge of Trims Pond. FIELD PROCEDURE Two cores (IA, IIB) and 9 probes were taken at 10 m intervals along two traverse lines. Traverse line I is oriented approximately north- south and traverse line II is oriented east-west (Fig. 1). An additional 8 probes were taken along a grid pattern paralleling the traverse lines to better define the subsurface shape of the wetland.. Because the edges of the wetland are sloping, a topographic map (Fig. 2) was made so that accurate cross sections of the wetland (Fig. 3). could be constructed. Utility, pole #1272-SPC-4-35, at the northeast corner of the wetland, was used as a temporary bench mark (TBM). A relative datum of +100 m was selected for the elevation of two nails placed 0.48 m up from the base of the pole. Elevations on the topographic. map (Fig. 2) and the cross sections (fig. 3)refer to this datum. LABORATORY ANALYSES Core IA measures 660 cm long and contains four peat types (Fig. 3). Seven samples from core IA have been sent to the Department of Energy's WETLAND CLASSIFICATION The 0.38 ha (0.95 acre) Red Gate Farm Wetland is dominated by Typha angustifolia (narrow-leaved cattail) and is classified as robust shallow marsh (SM-l; Plate 1, #42; Boothroyd et al., 1979). Short meadow emer- gents (Golet and Larson, 1974) are abundant on the uphill tide of a sur- ficial break-in-slope that borders the wetland on all but the east side" (Fig. 1). Appendix I of Boothroyd et al., (1979) indicats the wetland (#42) covers 0.76 ha (1.9 acres) but this figure includes an area of salt marsh along the northeast edge of Trims Pond. FIELD PROCEDURE Two cores (IA, IIB) and 9 probes were taken at 10 m intervals along two traverse lines. Traverse line I is oriented approximately north- south and traverse line II is oriented east-west (Fig. 1). An additional 8 probes were taken along a grid pattern paralleling the traverse lines to better define the subsurface shape of the wetland.. Because the edges of the wetland are sloping, a topographic map (Fig. 2) was made so that accurate cross sections of the wetland (Fig. 3) could be constructed. Utility pole # 1272-SPC-4-35, at the northeast corner of the wetland, was used as a temporary bench mark (TBM). A relative datum of +100 was selected for the elevation of two nails placed 0.48 m up from the base of the pole. Elevations on the topographic map (Fig. 2) and the cross sections (Fig. 3) refer to this datum. LABORATORY ANALYSES Core IA measures 660 cm long and contains four peat types (Fig. 3). Seven samples from core IA have been sent to the Department of Energy's Grand Forks Energy Technology Center in North Dakota for proximate, ultimate and calorific analyses but results have not yet been returned. However, ash content of the core (IA) has beeh determined by the Sedi- mentology Research Group at the Department of Geology, University of Rhode Island, from which moisture-free (MF) BTU value of the peat can: be approximated (Peters, 1981). Ash content and predicted BTU values of core IA appear in Table 1. TABLE I Sample depth Peat Type %Ash Predicted MF (cm) BTU/lb 50 silty reed-sedge 70.6 2833 150 woody moss peat 7.-8 9537 250 woody moss peat 9.2 9387 360 wood peat 6.2 9708 450 wood peat 10.9 9210 550 sedimentary 30.7 7092 660 sedimentary 74.3 2435 Cross sections (Fig. 3) and preliminary ash and predicted BTU values (Table 1) indicate fuel-grade peat (> 8000 BTU/lb MF,<25% ash; U.S. D.O.E. 1980) occurs between 100 and 480 cm below the wetland surface. The reed-sedge peat in the upper 100 cm and the sedimentary peat in the The reed-sedge peat in the upper 100 cm and the sedimentary peat in the lower 180 cm are not fuel grade. PEAT RESOURCE The peat isopach map (Fig. 1) was used to determine the volume of peat in Red Gate Farm Wetland. The area within isopach contour lines was determined with a planimeter and then multiplied by the I m contour interval to compute volume. The tonnes of peat within' each contour interval was determined by multiplying the volume by the mol-sture-free 3). bulk density of peat (150 kg/m Volume, moisture-free tonnes, and tonnes at 35% moisture of peat in Red Gate Farm Wetland appear in. Table 2. TABLE 2 Contour Interval Volume (m3 Tonnes (MF) Tonnes (35%) 0_1 3820 57.0 880 1-2 1480 220 340 2-3 1,220 180 280 3-4 1000 .150 230 4-5 120 180 5-6 590 '90 140 .,6-7 410 60 .90 .7- 80 10 26, 9400 m3 1400 tonnes MF 2160 tonnes 35%.m FUEL GRADE PEAT RESOURCE Fuel-grade peat does not occur in the upper 1 m or the lower2 m.. Consequently, the fuel-gr ade resource of Red Gate Farm Wetland would exclude the tionnes of peat in the upper meter (570 t6nne's MF) and. the lower two meters (70 tonnes MF) Therefore the fuel -grade peat resource of Red Gate Farm is 760 moisture-free tonnes or 1170 tonn.es at 35% moisture (air dried). REFERENCES Boothroyd, J.C., Peters, C R., and.Pickart,-A.J., 1979,'Peat resources of Block Island: Technical report for Rhode Jsland -Governor's Energy Office and U.S. Department of Energy, Grant No. DOEBO-365-8, 75 p. .Golet, F.C. and Larson, J.S.,, 1974, Classification of freshwater wetlands in the glaciated northeast: U.S.Tish and Wildlife Serv. Resourc. Pub.. 116, 56 p. Peters, C.R., 1981,'Peat resources of selected wetlands on Block Island, Rhode Island:@ unpub. M.S. thesis, Univ. Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 137,p. U.S Department of Energy, 1980,. Proceedings of the first techni-cal con- tractor's conference on peat, Contract 'No. DEX01 78ET1015.9, 332 FIG.-@ 3 CROSS SECTIONS.`AN:Q@l CORE LOGS ARM WETLAND' RED GATE,,,,,,Fl. BLOCKISLAND Rl - N s IA 100- 0 cm- TRAV@RSE LINE IA 98 IV 100-1 97- 25 96 215 C M 9 5E, 200 u0A 94- 93- 4 r. r. .300 92- 75 660 91- 90-1 755. CM 4QO - 0 10 20 30 M JIV loo. ..TRAVER SE4` LINE II 99- 600- IA@ 98- At , s 2 25 CM 97- ..... . . . 96- 95- 11 B 0 cm 94- 400 193- 92- 100- 91- 675 CM 660 680 90- 200 EXPLANATION CORE PROBE PEAT TYPES'' IA 300- REED-SEDGE i J F @ 151 moss 400 DRAFT COPY WOOD 5 MAY 2 8 1962 rl 11 SEDIMENTARY CAI- 9, rates wan' When Block Island got a windmill, electric rates were supposed to drop. Instead they rose. Islanders, who pay one of the country's highest rates, are mad at the power company. The company says they should be grateful. twined relationship between the Blo Island Power Company, which is overseen MY C. Eugene Emery Jr. by the PUC, and Island Service the private company that sells. Block Island Power the fuel to run its five diesel THE CRISP ocean breezes always generators. blow strong on Block Island, but Ninety percent of the stock in Block anyone visiting this quaint vacation Island Power is owned by Franklin W. spot these days is bound to get a whiff of Renz, a tall, lean, clean-shaven gentleman. something else in the air: discontent whose receding hairline is broken by a coming from residents who get their lock of black hair, Renza also owns Island Ninety percent of the stock in Bid* electric bills. Services, the company that sells oil to the -by For two years, a giant, $4.2-million power company. And Renz Hauling Cor- experimental windmill built by the federal poration rents a plane to the company. government has been generating electric- The relationship is perfectly legal thosethe, air: ity for the island's 500 full-time residents. is not in dispute. Transactions between the But although the windmill has generat- power company and the fuel company are ed up to $50,000 worth of free power, submitted to the PUC for prior approval islanders have not seen their electric rates as required by law. drop one cent. In fact, only a few months The question is whether the relationship after the windmill began generating elec- keeps electric rates to high, Many on tricity for the Block Island Power Com- Block Island say that it does. Renz says pany, the company asked for --and that, to the contrary, the relationship received -- an $80,000 rate increase from keeps rates on the island from going even the state Public Utilities Commission higher. (PUC). "I've heard both sides of the story and "I thought whatever electricity was it's hard to sift out facts as to what is fair genereated would be passed out among the and what isn't fair," said one resident of ratepayers," said Everett Littlefield, one the close-knit island, who asked not to be of many residents upset by the rate named. "I thought there were laws in this increase. country against monopolies, I just know For Block Islanders, whose summer- it's going to be increasingly difficult for time electric bills are nearly four times people to meet these bills." higher than what other Rhode Islanders When Renz of Block Island Power, pay, the dream of cheap energy has asked the PUC for the rate increase, it remained just that. was because the power company was too Since the federal Department of Energy deeply in debt to Renz, of Island Services. began the project, it has been plagued According to Renz's testimony before with political and technical problems, But the PUC, the situation works like this. When the Block Island Power Com- fueled a longstanding controversy on pany needs diesel fuel, it does not go out contrary, thqlati Block Island over who controls the price to bid. Instead, Renz of Block Island of power on this remote summer Power makes a deal with Renz of Island hideaway. Services. The markup on the fuel from The controversy is based on the inter- Island Services to Block Island Power, Renz testified, is 15 percent. C. Eugene Emery Jr. is a Journal- Bulletin staff writer. Block Island's Windmill: Cheers came immediately, The electricity didn't. remained just that. Since the federal Department of Energy provided the fuel for the Power Company' But the overlap between Renz's two (at the best possible price)," he said, companies goes farther. stressing later that Island Services" prices Island Services, Renz's fuel company are very Competitive." has no employees and no permanent The fuel, brought in by barge, is stored office. When Renz is doing Island Ser- in tanks owned by the power company vices' work, he rents the power company nts the power company and rented by Island Services for two office on Ocean Avenue, and charges cents a gallon, which includes the price of himself $60 a month. In, addition, the. pumping the fuel from the barge., power company's computer is leased from When Block Island Power doesn't have Island Services. enoung Money to pay Island Services for When Renz is at his home in Connecti- -loan. Block Island cut, he drives a car paid for by Island the fuel, it asks for a loan. Block Island cut, he drives a car paid for by Island Power doesn't go,to, the bank. The loan Services and insured by the power com- comes from Island Services. pany. "If I was going to the movies," he admitted at one point, "I would take it." Once again, Renz, the Island Services When Renz is on the island, he drives a President, decides the interest rate that car owned by the power company. Renz, the power company president, will To further complicate matters, the air- pay for the loan. According to PUC plane Renz flies is owned by Renz testimony, his contract with Block Island Hauling Corporation, the Connecticut- Power allows him to charge an interest based moving company that was paid rate two percentage points over the prime. roughly $5,500 in 1978 to bring new although he doesn't always charge that generators to the island. Renz said tha much. when he's on power company or Island Services business, he charges that particu- Renz said the loan is traditionally for lar company $60 to $80 an hour for the about $100,000. use of the plane. He said Renz Hauling is He also said that the price of fuel to the owned by relatives. power company varies with the market. So each month, if oil prices jump, Island For one day a week, 10 months a year, Services, which bought its fuel at a lower he spends his time on power company price month ago, immediately raises its business. For the remaining two months, Renz defended the practice, saying that he is in the office three or four days a when the price goes down, Island Services week. That two-month stint, he admitted, must pass the lower fuel cost to its comes "usually during the summer" when customers and absorb the loss. his family is on the island for summer vacation. "The oil he's using now is at September For his efforts, Renz asked the PUC to prices and yet he's charging us at the rate endorse an $18,000 salary for himself. that prevails today." complained F. Albert (By the way, the man be bought the Starr, the Town Council's lawyer. power company form, Henry G. Hutchin- A check with the state fuel allocation son, gets a $1,000 monthly consultant fee showed that over the past several from the power company. During testimony years diesel fuel prices have never dropped ny. Renz could only recall one time that significantly. he had to call Hutchinson in to solve a problem.) In addition, Starr charged Renn's Is- land Services charages Renz's power com- pany as if the diesel fuel came from New Jersey via Providence, which makes the FRANKLIN W. RENZ owns ninety price artivically high. Renz said he no percent of the power company longer gets his fuel directly form New Photograph by Anestis Jersey. Starr also suggested that if Renz Diakopoulos. went to a bank for his loan, the power company chief might be able to get the money at a slightly lower inters rate. Renz said he has gone to the island's two banks and been turned down Renz says his power company badly needs his fuel company. Island Services, he says, keeps Block Island Power alive by buying fuel the util- ity couldn't afford, by letting Block Island Power make a few cents on every gallon of fuel that Island Services sells to private companies, and by not charging Block Island Power interest on overdue bills. In addition, Renz said, the no-bid policy, the system of adjusting diesel prices monthly to match current rates, the loans between the fuel and power companies, and the dual ownership are all designed to keep electric rates low. "The power company doesn't have the money to buy fuel," Renz said, contending that Block Island Power's loan requests have been turned down by the island's two banks. Ask about the loans to himself and Renz will tell you that Island Ser- vices is now charging Block Island Power two points less than the prime (that was in the beginning of September). Ask about the no-bid policy and Renz will say that his fuel company has managed to underbid other firms for town jobs, even though some of the profits from those sales go directly to the power company. In the past four or five years, he contends, "we've only lost one bid." In fact, he adds, if the power company went out to bid for its fuel, the price would probably be even higher. Renz insisted that the relationships between Block Island Power and Island Services is not unusual. "All utilities have a service company they buy fuel from," he said. But Michael R. Postar, an attorney for the state Division of Public Utilities, said there are a few differences. Postar said the companies from which other utilities get their fuel are usually subsidiaries of a par- ent company. Island Services is separate from Block Island Power. The subsidiaries of other utilities do not make a profit on the fuel they sell to the power companies; Island Services does. The subsidiaries of other 'If a utility system is able to generate hundreds of kilowatt hours less from its diesel generators, thanks to free wind electricity, the cost should be less.' utilities are regulated on the federal level. Island Services is not directly regulated by anyone. The Division of Public Utilities, which acts as an investigative body and represents the consumer at PUC hearings, argued unsuccessfully against the rate increase. Renz says the relationship between Block Island Power and Island Services "is an open book" and that "any savings Island Services gets is put right through to the power company." But Renz will not open his books to the town-although they are open to the PUC. Opening them to the town, he said, would hurt the fuel company, which would in turn hurt the power company, which would in turn hurt the power company's customers. He said the pricing formula is public knowledge, "so the profit picture is very easy to figure I have nothing to hide." Renz noted that Postar went through the books to be sure there wasn't any impropriety. "If the townspeople had access to the records," Renz added, some of them would still say it's wrong." Postar said his division isn't directly concerned with how much money Renz o fIsland Services is making. "If Island Services were earning a tremendous profit, but Block Island Power was getting a tremendous deal, that would be all right," he said. "But the division found that Block Island Power is not getting a good deal," Postar said. "It could get a better deal." "I would disagree with him," Renz responded. "And I know the books." Photograh: Steve Woit F. ALBERT STARR, lawyer for the Town Council charges Island Services' prices are artificially high saved thousands in diesel fuel costs thanks to the roughly as much fuel to compensate for the windmill's windmill, the savings weren't being passed along to power power fluctuations as would have been saved if the company customers. Block Island Power was charging windmill weren't working at all. "I'd estimate that we're customers for oil it wasn't burning. about breaking even," Renz said in an interview. The reason, Renz testified, was that the power The Department of Energy, anxious to make wind company had spent about $25,000 of its own money on power attractive, has kept a low profile in the dispute maintenance and technical assistance for the windmill Daniel Ancona, branch chief for DOE's large with and expected to spend an additional $10,000 to $15,000 a program, said that while the power company has the year on the machine. right to use the windmill-generated electricity to offset Renz later claimed that the windmill was forcing the the costs of running the windmill, his department doesn't power company to burn extra fuel because its diesel know if Block Island Power has saved more than it spent generators must now run at varying speeds to compensate "We'll know if they're charging a fair share by the endof for the comings and goings of the wind. the test," he said. The project is scheduled to end Like an automobile that burns more gasoline during March. stop-and-go driving, the generators were consuming Ancona confirmed that "there are indications that the efficiency of the generators is decreased somewhat when they're running at part throttle." But he said he has seen no evidence that the extra oil needed to run the generators has wiped out the energy savings generated by the windmill. "In our own minds, we verified that (Block Island Power) had saved $35,000 to $50,000," said Postar. Postar added that the staff of the division of public utilities was "not convinced at all" by Renz's arguments. "If a utlity system is able to generate hundreds of kilowatt hours less from its diesel generators thanks to free wind electricity, the cost should be less." He said the company might have spent $35,000 of its own money for set-up and maintenance, but the savings should have been much more. Some residents are also skeptical of Renz's explana- tions, claiming that Renz may be juggling his figures to keep power costs high. Starr, Block Islan's solicitor, was blunt about how he feels about the figures: "I think it's a lot of baloney." But the PUC didn't think so. Although the Division of Public Utilities concluded that Renz's fuel company was charging the power company too much for its fuel, and that the power from the windmill should have prevented a rate increase, the PUC gave Block Island Power its $80,000 rate increase early last spring. The figure included Renz's $18,000 salary, which the PUC noted was lower that Renz's predecessor, Henry Hutchinson. In a recent interview, Public Utilities Commission Chairman Edward F. Burke said that when it comes to Block Island Power's fuel purchases, state and federal courts "have said our powers are limited to determining if it was (sold at) a fair marketplace price." "We would not be in a position to say, Block Island Power will purchase fuel from this company rather than Island Services," Burke said. "But we would be able to say, Block Island Power,(the price you pay for fuel) is to high. Therefore, we will not allow it as part of your fuel charge." "There has been no satisfactory evidence before us of any dramatic profit being made by Island Services at the expense of the island's ratepayers," the PUC chief said. "We didn't create the arrangement" between Island Services and Block Island Power, Burke said. "but we expect an arm's-length business-transaction approach" between the two. The town is now challenging the PUC's decision in the state Supreme Court, contending that the PUC should have considered the relationship between Block Island Power and Island Services in setting the electric rates. "The PUC has shielded Island Services," said Starr. "We felt it was impossible to make a fair determination without tying the two companies together. They did not relate the loss from the power company to (what I assume were) big profits from the oil company." The town is also challenging the PUC directly, saying it should have included the electricity generated by the windmill when it set its rates. Starr said new figures submitted by Block Island Power in response to the PUC case show that the power company saved money with the windmill. Renz chal- lenged that conclusion. "This is truly the biggest ripoff," said Town Council- man Nicholas A. DePetrillo. "(Renz) is getting all the Public Utilities Commission) and gets a rate increase." Renz admitted that he has a public relations problem. "Whenever anything like this happens, you're suspectful. That's human nature. There's always a problem, I believe, with any utility," he said. "I have always been amazed at the fact that, in essence, the same company can sell the fuel to itself at a profit," said state Senator James J. Federico. State Representative Edward P. Morrone said nothing has been done because the arrangement is legal and "because of the private nature of the business." Federico said he is also at a loss to figure out a way to deal with the problem. "We have to be careful as legislators that we don't do anything hastily to drive the subsidiary and the power company out of business. That would give Block Islanders no power whatsoever." "I don't think there's any way it's going to change," said one resident. "The only alternative," said another, "is to go back to kerosene lampsl." In many ways, the windmill has been a disappointment. Described by residents as "an airplane coming in for a landing." the 30-ton turbine was designed to produce 200 kilowatts of electricity, enough to power 60 average homes. (The latter figure was eventually downgraded to 35 homes.) Sitting on a 93-foot tower, each blade was built to sweep around 40 times a minute when the wind was between 18 and 34 miles per hour. At higher wind speeds, the blades were designed to "feather," twisting to shut it down and prevent damage. "The winds are above cutout for relatively few hours a year," said Ancona, noting that the risk of damage to the windmill is The cheers came immediately. The electricity "not worth the additional energy capture." didn't. It was dedicated June 15, 1979, on a bright Because of the novelty of wind power, DOE and breezy afternoon that may go into the was anxious to avoid any and all bad feelings history books as a day filled with hot air. about the project. So when its experts warned State politicians, bigwigs from the federal that the spinning aluminum blades might inter- DOE and their entourages flocked to the island, fere with island television reception, the feds followed by anxious television crews and news promised to give Block Island a cable TV reporters who dutifully recorded John M. system to send television signals directly into Deutch, acting under secretary for DOE, as he each home. predicted that the mass of aluminum and steel But the cable TV system produced a simmer- could save the island - which has one of the ing dispute among townspeople, local politicians highest electric rates in the country - more and Block Island Power. The power company than $30,000 in fuel costs. said it wanted to control the TV system. The Block Island residents, Senator Claiborne Pell Town Council resisted and the PUC agreed. announced, "will be receiving about 50 percent It took months to clear up the controversy. of their electrical needs from the wind turbine. (The town and the power company eventually In view of the spiraling costs of crude oil on the received joint management.) By the time the world market, wind power will mean a great windmill was ready to run, the town still hadn't deal to Block Island power consumers." The cermonial switch was thrown and the HENRY G. HUTCHINSON, former power windmill's two 62-foot blades began to turn company owner, receives $1,000 a swiftly. month in consultant fees. So for over three months, as island diesel oil prices jumped from 94 cents to $1.09 a gallon, the windmill lay dormant. "The way we look at it," Ancona commented at the time, "the risks of causing problems for even a small group of islanders is not worth the risk of having wind en- ergy get a bad name." Finally, in September 1979, with the cable television hookups still not installed, the PUC agreed to let the windmill run, but not between the prime TV viewing hours of 5 p.m. to midnight. It wasn't until March of last year that most of the hoo- kups were completed and the PUC agreed to let the nine- month-old windmill run full-time. "There's been lots of technical problems of the kind you have with experimental hardware, but generally the machines have run quite well," said Ancona. For example, the aluminum blades had to be replaced with wooden ones; DOE had to reduce the maximum turn speed of the blades. Between then and mid-June, after close to 5,000 hours in operation, the windmill had produced about 400,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. "There are times when we can produce slightly more than 50 percent of the island's power demand," said Ancona. "On the average, we've been running between 10 and 20 percent due to the fact that in the summer and fall the island's demand is higher." Renz blames the problems on the experimental nature of the windmill, insisting that the windmill hasn't been able to save any money for his company. If and when it does, he says, electric rates will be cut. He said he "absolutely" expected to be able to cut his electric rates when the windmill came on line. Once the operation is fine-tuned, he said, some savings will come. Renz says he 'absolutely' expect- ed to be able to cut rates - but the windmill had problems. "The first thing was to get the windmill working. Then you look at the finer things: do we go to batteries, do we change the frequency?" he said, "We may be able to solve the problems, but it's an experiment." "We're doing the best we can to save fuel," Renz added. But the federal government's role in the project is scheduled to end in March. Renz said he would like to continue operating the windmill once DOE leaves, providing that DOE is willing to give Block Island Power the money to pay for spare\ parts fo rthe prototype machine. But if the feds stop paying for the parts, he explained, "we would have to take a strong look at the cost of maintenance. This is a highly technical machine." If the power company doesn't want to keep the windmill, the feds will tear it down and go home Renz, expressed satisfaction with the project. "We proved it can be done and put into a grid." he said. But when it comes to getting power from other windmills, Renz is less sangaine. STATE ATTORNEY Michael R. Postar says the power company could get a better deal. Town councilman Ni- cholas A. DePetrillo says, "This is truly the biggest ripoff." Photography by Lawrence S. Millard. When the PUC tried to draft rules forcing the power windmills should encorage wind power projects, he said. company to buy electricity from smaller, private wind- In addition, "smaller projects with more certain mills on the island, Renz, through his attorney, objective technology may have a greater likelihood of suceeding." to the plan. Postar commented. "If I had a business or home on "The motivation for installation of a (private windmill) Block Island, considering the tax advantages, I would should be to provide electric energy for one's own needs seriously consider putting up a windmill and using the and not to compelte with the electric utility," said Peter power myself. Even with a windmill that isn't operating V. Lacouture. Lacouture also argued that any wind- too well, you can do all right." generated electricity the power company is forced to buy Ancona, in fact, said industry is beginning to develop a should be purchased at half price, that the individual strong interest in wind power. The timing is fortunate. windmill owner should pay to hook the windmill into the The Reagan administration has dramatically slashed power company's grid, that the individual windmill owner DOE's wind power research budget. should be forced to carry insurance to pay for any "It's beginning to look very promising that industry is problems in the power company's lines and that the going to take over from here," Ancona said. private windmill owner should be charged for shutting But on windy Block Island, feeling toward the windmill down the windmill every time the power company has to project blows a little cool these days. work on its line. "We all desperately hoped the windmill would do some Prostar said the arguments seem to indicate that Block good," Starr said. "We were told it would probably keep Island Power doesn't want to use wind energy. electric rates from rising a lot faster than they had. But Rhode Island, under a federal mandate, has developed none of the benefit has been passed on to the subscribers rules that require the large utilities to buy excess power Now we only have cable TV, and we were getting along from small alternative energy projects. As of the fine without it." beginning of September, Block Island Power was the only "I don't think the federal government expected the utility that had objected to the regulations. power company to hike its rates," DePetrillo said. "The While Postar said the federal windmill hasn't been "as federal government wanted experience with the windmill. successfull as we'd like," wind power is not dead. The But they also wanted people to have good feeling for rules requiring utilities to buy energy from private wind power and they didn't get it." 3 6668 14109 0599