Wiscasset board allows vote in November

WISCASSET - On September 18, a meeting of the select board was held during which the board voted to allow a vote on November 6 that would amend a town ordinance to allow structures of 230 feet at the proposed site of a gasification plant near Sheepscot Bay.  The height ordinance is for the structure only.  The smokestacks are expected to be higher. 

The vote was 3-1, with Chairman Duane Goud. David Nichols, and William Curtis voting in favor, while Alex Roberts voted not to place the question on the ballot. Selectwoman Nicole Viele was absent for the vote because she left the meeting early to put her children to bed.

Several times during the question and answer session that preceded the vote, some members of the board made comments that suggested they were unclear with the process if a vote in favor is taken in November.  Chairman Goud believed that protective ordinances could be added after the height ordinance passes; however, the town manager Arthur Faucher acknowledged that the town’s ability to construct protective ordinances will depend on large measure on how long it will take Twin River to put together a proposal after the vote is counted.  “If they submit their proposal soon after the vote,” he said, “it will be difficult to write ordinances that will affect this particular project.”  Larry Lomison said that ordinances should already be in place before the vote.

"You should have drafted restrictive ordinances before this," he said. "Now it's too late. The people need more time to gather information. We took almost nine months to draft ordinances on the Mason Station, now we're given three months for this energy plant. What's the rush?"

Another selectman, William Curtis, thought that the people of Wiscasset would have another chance to veto the proposed plant after the height ordinance vote.  In fact, the only body that will review the plan after the vote is the planning board, and they will be obligated to follow the regulations that will be in place at the time the proposal is submitted.

Concerns about where the water for the plant will come from have been high, due in part to Twin River’s changing plans.  “First, they say they will get the water from surface streams that drain into the Nequasset Watershed, then they say they will try desalinization or use brackish water, then they say they will get water from the Bath Water District,” said Steve Hinchman of the Conservation Law Foundation. 

The Bath Water District was quick to correct the idea that Twin Rivers could take water from Lake Nequasset.  “We provide water that we can afford to provide to some other local water districts, including Wiscasset Water District,” said Trevor Hunt, superintendent of the Bath Water District.  “But we cannot be forced to give water that we cannot spare, and our first responsibility is to our own customers, and to protect the watershed.  There will not be ten million gallons taken out, or anything like it.  At most, we might provide domestic water.”  Domestic water is water for drinking, toilets, and sinks. 

Hunt went on to say that Wiscasset Water District would have to file a request for additional water to support the proposed plant, and so far, no request has been made.

Other issues of concern were the noise the plant would generate.  According to Karl Tarbox, former selectman, engineers he has talked to have told him that the sound of the turbine engines needed to heat the coal to gasification temperatures sound like living next to an airport.

Only two of the many residents who came to register their concerns spoke in favor of the plant.  One was Mark Ramsey, who owns property which is currently for sale on Young’s Point.  He said he believed that state and federal regulations would protect the town.  His comment was greeted by laughter.

Other concerns of neighboring communities are coming to light.  One involves the strong potential that the plant will have to use the rail lines through Bath, for at least part of the year.  It is estimated that if all the rail cars carrying coal are joined together, the City of Bath would play host to a coal train a mile long every single day.

In addition to the traffic nightmares this would cause in Bath, Cook’s Corner and Brunswick, none of Bath’s railroad crossings have gates, and some do not even have lights.  School buses, City buses, and countless cars and pedestrians, pass over the tracks daily.

Additionally, especially in Bath, the train tracks are very close to homes, businesses and schools.  According to City Planner Jim Upham, the City has not yet taken a position with respect to the gasification plant, but the City Manager has been informed.

A recent boating accident in the Back River has reminded anyone who needed reminding of how hazardous boat traffic in the Back River can be.  The crash is under investigation, but in the Back River, with its interesting mix of currents, large boat traffic can be a serious hazard.  It is in the Back River where coal barges are expected to be brought for landing.

Meanwhile, Chewonki Foundation, which is planning a conference to explore the science and the state of the technology behind carbon capture and sequestration on October 24, has returned a $10,000 grant from Twin River to help put on the seminar.  While there were no strings attached, appearances and concerns by the community and by some within the Foundation led Chewonki to refuse the support.

“The relationship [between Chewonki and Twin River] was poorly understood by the public, and clearly defined by the public,” said Don Hudson, president of the Chewonki Foundation.  “There was no influence.  We thought initially that it would be a good thing, to accept some money from the developer, so we would be seen as balanced ourselves.  It just didn’t work out that way, so we decided to eliminate the proximal cause of confusion, and return the money.”

Hudson said that an anonymous environmental organization donated funds to help make up the shortfall.
“It is still very important to learn all we can about this technology ... where it stands, where carbon might be able to be sequestered ... and get the full picture of this kind of development.”

The vote will be taken on November 6.