SEA Exec Paul Chakroff Responds To CIF Article On Donors, Support Of Alpine Proposal
Crucians In Focus has received the following response from Paul Chakroff, Executive Director of the St. Croix Environmental Association, to an article entitled “Conflicts, Contradictions Abound In Alpine Support System; Why Is The SEA Testifying In Favor Of AEG?” We have printed his response in its entirety.
The sections in italic represent excerpts from the CIF article to which Chakroff is responding.
Michael Springer, President
Crucians in Focus
Dear Michael,
Thank you for publishing the Crucians in Focus article Conflicts, Contradictions Abound In Alpine Support System; Why Is The SEA Testifying In Favor Of AEG? I am happy to address the issues you have raised. Below I have addressed your statements or questions (in ital.) point by point.
Why would Paul Chakroff, Executive Director of St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA) testify in favor of the Alpine Energy Group (AEG)?
St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA) has endorsed waste-to-energy (WtE) and the technology proposed, not Alpine Energy Group.
The Legislature is holding hearings on the latest AEG proposal Tuesday on St. Thomas and Wednesday on St. Croix. Hearings on both islands begin at 6 p.m…. A review of the testifiers reveals all the usual participants, and one that caused us to question why an organization that was forcefully against the original Alpine proposal would now stand in favor of their newest plan…. A visit to the SEA website may have provided part of the answer to this question. If you were an organization committed to the preservation of the environment of the Virgin Islands, would you accept donations from some of the donors on this list?
Yes! SEA seeks and welcomes grants, contracts AND charitable donations from all sectors. There are many motivations for people, foundations or corporations to make charitable donations: EDC requirements, tax benefits, environmental impact mitigation, guilt, philosophical agreement, financial advantage, etc. The challenge to me is to ensure that a) donations are used according to any stated wishes of the donors, and b) charitable donations do not influence my advocacy position vis-à-vis the donor. There are both legal and ethical rules that apply here.
Let’s take HOVENSA as an example. For many years SEA has received $10,000 – $20,000 per year from this corporate citizen. We restrict their donation to our environmental education program and do not allow the donation to influence our advocacy position regarding our review of their air or groundwater pollution emissions. Our testimony on HOVENSA permit applications has not been particularly favorable to HOVENSA and I am happy to share that with you or your readers if you are interested in reviewing it. Similarly with DIAGEO, I am currently discussing a project designed to mitigate air pollution impacts on the people residing in Bethlehem Village and Profit Hills. If receipt of funding by SEA for education or environmental impact mitigation is a problem for you for your readers, we have to agree to disagree about a fundamental difference in opinion.
Any guesses as to who the “Anonymous” donor might be?
SEA’s anonymous donors are private individuals who shall remain anonymous until they instruct me otherwise.
Time certainly does bring about a change. Back when Alpine brought its first proposal to the VI in 2008, Chakroff had a completely different view of the company, its proposal, and even whether it was qualified to bid on the contract in the first place. Those contracts are still in place for the current Alpine proposal. What changed his mind?
What changed SEA’s position are the significant changes in the proposed project design (made in response to public pressure brought by SEA, VICS and other Virgin Islanders), not least of which is the guaranteed removal of petroleum coke as a preferred or even opportunity fuel.
At that time Chakroff, then director of the VI Conservation Society, waged a public campaign against Alpine through a series of letters to local media. The main objection to that project was the use of pet coke in the generation of energy – a possibility that officials have admitted still exists with the “new” plan.
I question your assertion that petroleum coke may be used in the WtE facility as currently designed. SEA understands that petroleum coke is out, even under emergency conditions. It is our understanding that (if approved) EPA and/or DPNR permits issued pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act will not permit petroleum coke combustion in the Alpine WtE facility.
However, note that he wrote with equal vehemence questioning Alpine’s suitability to bid on the project, and the effectiveness of the solid waste solution they were then and are now proposing. “How did Alpine get prequalified for a contract by WAPA in the first place? Alpine appears not to have prequalified under at least four of nine mandatory criteria, all of which the “respondent must pass to prequalify according to WAPA’s request for proposals (RFP)…” We at CIF have asked the same question.
After raising these questions, SEA made it clear that (per our mission) we would continue to carefully review environmental and public health issues related to the proposed project. We called upon ratepayer associations, financial experts or other concerned citizens to take up issues related to transparency in government, RFP procedures, contact law, and ratepayer/taxpayer costs. The fact that no legal challenge has come to these non-environmental issues is not SEA’s fault.
Chakroff went on to write: “It is our understanding that Alpine has never designed, constructed or operated a power plant, much less one similar to the one being proposed; and that neither the burning of petroleum coke in combination with municipal solid waste (MSW), nor the processing of fluff® or pelletized refuse-derived waste (PRDF) by the WasteAway® process are commercially proven.”
As a result of our thorough review of the proposed project, SEA has come to understand that the proposed energy generation technology is commercially proven and proposed to be designed and operated by companies with extensive experience in the industry. We remain uncertain about the Waste Away process and will continue to assess it through the CZM permit review process if the project reaches that stage.
“How much of VIWMA’s current budget will be displaced by payments to Alpine for processing PRDF? VIWMA will continue to incur costs for collection, transport, sorting and disposal both before and after the PRDF process.”
This issue has been addressed by VIWMA Executive Director, May Adams-Cornwall. As I have stated in testimony before the Senate, it is SEA’s position that this is among a number of issues that must be addressed in CZM Environmental Assessment Report, Sec. 7.00, Impact of the Proposed Project on the Human Environment. SEA and others will address this and other impacts in that appropriate forum.
“Does the Alpine deal solve our solid waste problem? While 40% (73,000 tons) of our MSW may be processed into PRDF, the Alpine facilities do not provide a solution for the other 107,000 tons of MSW generated in the USVI per year. Up to an additional 100 tons per day (36,500 tons per year) of metals, glass, grit and other noncombustible solid waste will be returned to VIWMA after PRDF processing…”
The answer to this question remains no. WtE does not solve our entire solid waste problem, but neither would any other single process. After nearly 3½ years of study, SEA has come to the conclusion that the territory cannot deal with 100% of our solid waste without landfilling, shipping off-island, and/or WtE. Without a landfill option (due to EPA and FAA court orders), or a shipping option for the bulk of our solid waste (due to the prohibitive expense to the people of the Virgin Islands plus its carbon footprint), we conclude that we must include environmentally acceptable WtE as part of a comprehensive solution to our solid waste problem for the near term, giving us time (2 decades, not 2-3 years) to maximize the role of reduction, reuse and recycling in addressing our solid waste problem.
“We need to separate the MSW discussion from the energy generation issue and allow VIWMA to move forward quickly on solving our MSW problem. Solid waste management and energy generation do not have to be handled together, and there appear to be strong regulatory compliance, economic, environmental and public health advantages to dealing with them separately.”
This remains SEA’s position. As now designed (unlike as designed prior to March 8, 2010), the Alpine project is principally a waste management project. The WtE project is a significant and critical part of an integrated waste management plan for the territory for the next 20 years. At the same time, a secondary benefit of the project is the supply of 91,646 megawatt hours of electricity at reduced cost to the WAPA ratepayer to the St. Croix grid.
The objections he raised at that time were valid then, and they are valid now. What is challenging to reconcile is how the representative of an organization whose mission is to protect the environment has apparently joined forces with an organization whose operation will only contribute to its destruction. Some of the objections that were valid then and valid now will be dealt with individually in public hearings required in consideration of various project permits.
To say that ALL previous objections are still valid is false. SEA has vigorously addressed (and been successful in pursuing) mitigation of environmental and public health impacts of the proposed WtE plant. Other financial and contractual investigations that have not been pursued by others may still be pursued within the framework of the permitting and legal system.
As you put it, SEA has joined forces with the people of St. Croix and the Virgin Islands for the last 26 years, and any suggestion that we take the part of an individual developer or project is totally erroneous. We comment on projects and issues, not individual companies. We have not joined forces with anyone but the concerned citizens of the Virgin Islands, and we believe that the project as currently designed, scaled and sited, offers a NET ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFIT to the people of the Virgin Islands.
In addition, the WtE project enables recycling at levels we have never seen in the Virgin Islands. SEA’s proposal (ref. attached letter to Mark Lichtenstein) allows and encourages recycling of:
100% of the territory’s glass; 100% of the territory’s aluminum, steel and other metals,\; 100% of the territory’s recyclable (#1 and #2) plastics; 100% of the territory’s after-market white goods; 100% of the territory’s e-waste; 100% of the territory’s construction & demolition waste, and; 29% (18.5 million pounds per year) of the territory’s green waste.
This level of recycling would bring the USVI to par with recycling efforts that have been underway for over 20 years on the mainland.
Please let me know if I can address any additional questions in print or on air.
Yours,
Paul Chakroff
Executive Director
St. Croix Environmental Association
Anon 1:04-
I am a Licensed Chief Engineer. Have been for many years (more than 20). I have operated, repaired, redesigned, activated, deactivated, administrated and otherwise managed large Steam, Gas Turbine and Diesel Plants.
I live in the VI, (have for many years) and have taken the Naval Architecture PE License exam, and are scheduled to retest in April.
I am currently the Chief Engineer on one of the fastest cargo ships ever built, 107 MW Main Propulsion. 8 MW Power Generation. Largest Marine Boilers ever built- 543,000 lbs/hr (each-there’s 2) 875 psig, 945 deg F. Dual Oil Fired….
Been very busy. I am FULLY SUPPORTIVE of Ms. Parten. I have already ran all the thermal and electrical MW calcs for the former numbers (posted on this website earlier) based on the 400T per day figure- which gives ALpine a 15% margin. I will work the MWH backwards tonight based on B&W thermal stated efficiency….Let me get back to bloody work so I can crunch numbers tonight…
Here’s a little more data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algol_class_vehicle_cargo_ship
numbercrunching with those who can aford the verry best number crunchers is silly, you show up at a gun fight with water pistol. what ever the statistics say the simple fact is we wont know untill we actually produce pellets to be burned, the scales are in alpines favor because you simply leave out what happens to those pellets when they dry out, DUH!!!! and because it hasnt been done here yet no one will know will they, hence you have alpine asking for gaurentees, now why is that they have crunched the numbers and they have an idea of whats going to happen to your wet weight trash generated at the landfills on stt stj and stc
im sure that alpine will use top equipment because it will be less maintanace required.
if we have to crunch numbers lets crunch what alpine/efi will do with the 55% net income they will take from the island. they say 35% is debit service they cite twenty years as the pay off ,theres no real gaurentee that they wont apply a differet percent to the debit service is there ? there 20% profit they speak of is just that, for every dollar they make 20% wll be paid to the same people who are getting the 35% loan payments to me that equils 55%. they will be spending 45% on maintance and payrole this is suplemented by the 20 milion they will be getting from the VI goverment via WMA. perhaps when they say you have to do somethingwith your garbage anyway and what we propose is the cheapest way to deal with that problem they could be right, peraps we should just take the deal and be rid of one stone around our necks, what i dont understand is why we need to gaurentee them so much, the facts are efi is a billion dollar company its a private company and so it its only investors can pretty much do what they want, alpine is a llc and as such it has no gaurentess as to our protction if somehting was to go catostrophic, they simply cant be held persoanly responcible hence the limited liability status. they wont own the building or the generator efi will via the loans, they wont be required to have substancial assets here, they will pretty much just be a management company.it would be interesting to know if mr hurd and the other top members of alpine were not in fact owners of efi stock.
like i said alpine could be a good thing for us or alpine could be just another stateside group looking to reap a profit from what is a volitile place but has a history of not signing good deals for us the people of the VI.
Greetings Steam Chief, and welcome aboard this discussion. As you crunch your numbers in the wee hours of the morning, keep in mind that the VI produces currently (with ZERO levels of recycling of organics / combustibles) 336 tons per day of raw municipal solid waste, which when processed into RDF, using a 75% conversion ratio, becomes 252 tons per day of RDF (refuse-derived-fuel), for which we’d be paying $20 Million annually to produce.
And, for those out there who think somehow that the $20 Million would be “solving our waste management problems”.. think again. For starters, a WTE operation will take 3+ years longer to put on-line than recycling and composting operations. And, currently, the VI spends TWICE per capita what other communities with showcase operations do for solid waste management. By “showcase”, I mean the most robust recycling and composting operations in the U.S., and landfills operated so cleanly and in such safe conditions that one such community has an exotic animal preserve on top of their non-active fill areas, and gives Jeep tours there.
So, we can implement comprehensive VI recycling and composting for LESS than we’re spending right now on solid waste “management” activities, and apply ALL of that saved $20 Million we’d be paying to Alpine, for truly clean and renewable energy supplies, and fixes to our current WAPA power generation and distribution systems. That is, by the way, exactly what the VI Comprehensive Energy Strategy (2009) says, which recommends NOT these cost-prohibitive and unrealistic projects cooked by those who seem clueless on how to really run a utility, but rather just good / sound utility management practices.
See the newer poston the other column
Whew are those yellow belly con men from Alpine Energy Group? They got the hell out of here. Pressure buss pipe!
AndyH stop hiding you coward and keep your word.
even Paul Chakratt is ducking CIF these days.
It’s time for doors at the St. Croix Environmental Association to be shut close forever. That so call environmental association compromised itself and now Alpine has left them with egg on their face.
Paul Chakroff resignation should be immediately requested by the SEA board if that association is to ever regain any credibility in the Virgin Islands.
Paul and AndyH are not dating anymore.