Story Not Found

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Thrive with Greylock

Have your business needs changed? Change to us! Greylock Federal Credit Union. Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

RIBCO Supply

Check out our great lineup of Boss Plows, and spreaders. 2 Locations Clarksburg & Pittsfield!

ribcosupply.com

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Your Comments

iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.

Its nice to be well-balanced and rational when responding to biomass burning but its hard! The developer comes on like, "don't worry, the EPA will protect you" then you find out that TONS of particulates will be coming pout of the stack each month and that his whole rational scientific thing is a manipulation designed to help him make a bundle of money off of a deal that will sicken residents for years after he's gone.
from: Julian	on: 10-29-2010 06:03AM I Agree (5) - I Disagree (0)

>>Beaver Wood's 100-mile-diamater woodshed would stretch from South Berkshire to Fair Haven, Vt., and encompass most of Western Massachusetts.<< I'm not so sure it was adequately explained that if all the recently proposed biomass incinerators were built in this region our forests would not be able to provide enough fuel even when the plants went to whole trees, which they surely will since there isn't enough wood "waste". In addition, much of that so-called "waste" needs to be left in the forest to breakdown and maintain nutrient levels in the soil and create habitat. Further, those trees need to be standing in order to sequester carbon. Perhaps you've heard about the climate crisis? Biomass incineration is the wrong pathway. It's all quick fix and greenspeak on the part of the industry and their friends in government. We need a war stance on energy conservation and efficiency before we go and decimate our forests in the name of energy independence or engage in euphemisms about biomass incineration being a "renewable" or "green".
from: Don Ogden	on: 10-29-2010 08:06AM I Agree (5) - I Disagree (1)

Keep in mind that Williams has it own C)2 spewing co-generation plant. Williams wants to appear to be environmentally conscious. It's good for business. http://tinyurl.com/24y2hya http://tinyurl.com/2dbu2kn Williams emissions in 2008 were 21,848 metric tonnes of eCO2, a 1% decrease from the prior year. The result was achieved by buying more electric from Canadian hydroelectric plants. It's still a lot to choke down. Could Williams be planning on buying electric or steam or heat from the Beaver? Could they be investors in the project? Current or future?
from: Bottom Line	on: 10-29-2010 09:19AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Glad some people arent being fooled by these proponents. The McNeil biomass plant at Burlington VT tops the list as the #1 polluter in the state. This is what we spend taxpayer money thats supposed to be for "green" technology on? Thin film solar is here, geothermal is here. New Jersey is building at 24 MWH thin film solar array, enough to power 3500 plus homes, with little to no pollution. Lets get real with green, not use what Fred Flintstone would use. Editor: These were not proponents; they were speaking from their expertise on how government regulates and permits.
from: Weather01089	on: 10-29-2010 10:16AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Twenty years ago, residents in Williamstown were opposed to the building of a large co-generation incinerator in Pittsfield, at that time known as Altresco. Time has passed and you don't hear anything about the plant now managed by Covanta Energy Corp. In fact, my understanding is that all Williamstown's household trash that we take to the transfer station is incinerated there and that the plant is starving for more stuff to burn. Cool, huh? In recent years, Covanta has been fined thousands of $$$ for numerous emissions violations at its plants including at least two fines for violations in Pittsfield, MA one of which was for failing to report its emissions violations, and another for exceeding allowable dioxin emissions by almost 350c. For this company the fines probably are not a big deal. On the other hand, breathing the air, is a big deal, whether we know we are breathing it or not!
from: Bottom Line	on: 10-29-2010 02:20PM I Agree (2) - I Disagree (0)

Paul is leaning in the wrong direction on this one. Our ability to regulate Industrial pollution through law has drastically increased since the days of Sprague electric and the Tannery in Pownal. What are we really talking about here? We are talking about burning wood, and using the harvest of an abundant renewable fuel source ( local tree's) to produce electricity and wood pellets for local homes. Laws also protest local forests from clear cutting and disproportionate harvests. I do agree that property owners near the site may experience a decrease in property value that should be compensated for. I am one of those property owners... but I won't protest if I am given nothing, because the benefit to the larger community far supersedes the risk to my property value in this case. While hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives as well as hundreds of jobs a plant like this will produce are certainly attractive for the interests of the local economy, we need to be honest about the Elephant in the room here. A century of warfare waged largely for control of energy has led us to a place where we are currently sending a lot of young people overseas to fight a fight that is in part, a fight we wage because of our dependence on overseas energy. We truly need to think globally and act locally before we press the easy button and say "no". While bio fuel is not the only solution, it can and should be part of the solution. This plant will produce electricity and wood pellets to heat homes. While that may be a loud and unattractive process, it is nothing compared to the ugliness of war. We should proceed with caution, but proceed we must. We must not maintain the status quo in the ways in which we consume and produce energy. That is the global priority. I own property right next to this plant, and I am from this area. Our first obligation here as a community is to use this opportunity given to us by the Obama administration to create this viable alternative energy biomass plant, reduce our consumption of outside energy resources, and allow for the creation of much needed jobs.
from: H Carter	on: 12-12-2010 07:59AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Letter: Williamstown Should Adopt Ban on Sewage Sludge Land Application

Letter to the Editor05:15PM / Saturday, May 16, 2026

To the editor:

This year, Williamstown Town Meeting will be considering whether to adopt a new bylaw that would prohibit the land application of sewage sludge or sewage sludge-derived products (biosolids). The ban would apply to land application of sludge and biosolids to farmland as a soil amendment or to home gardens where store bought compost may contain biosolids. The intent of this bylaw is to protect farmland, water sources, food crops and ultimately animals and people from PFAS contaminants.

PFAS are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of "forever chemicals," and are linked to health issues like cancer, liver damage and immune system dysfunction. They enter wastewater systems through residential, commercial and industrial sources. Conventional treatment processes are largely ineffective at removing them. As a result, PFAS pass through treatment systems into surface waters or accumulate in sewage sludge/biosolids.

Most states and the federal law have been slow to regulate this activity. The EPA's January 2025 Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment identified human health risks associated with land-applied biosolids containing as little as 1 part per billion of PFAS and yet federal law does not yet impose limits on PFAS in biosolids.

A growing number of states are adopting a range of regulatory and monitoring strategies. Maine is the only state so far to impose an outright ban on land application of biosolids from wastewater treatment plants, while Connecticut has banned the sale of biosolids containing PFAS for land application. In New York State, at least two communities, Thurston and Cameron, have banned the land application of biosolids.

At this time, we don't know of any farms in Williamstown that currently use biosolids. But we also don't know the future of the farms in our community. Biosolids can also be found in some commercially bagged compost. While this bylaw would not ban the sale of these products, we hope it will raise awareness and encourage our residents and local vendors to find biosolid-free products for use.

Let's keep our lands safe for our children and future generations. Williamstown's Select Board, Agricultural Commission, and the Board of Health recommend adoption of this article. We hope you will support this article on May 19, 7 p.m. at the town meeting at Williamstown Elementary School.

Stephanie Boyd
Sharon Wyrrick
Williamstown, Mass.

View Full Story