      |
SPRINGFIELD - A proposed wood-burning energy plant in East Springfield got a cold reception Monday night as one speaker after another stood up and condemned the idea at a public hearing.
None of the nearly 20 speakers who addressed the panel of state health and environmental officials supported the $150 million biomass project planned by Palmer Renewal Energy at 1000 Page Blvd.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection is preparing to hire a consultant to study the health and environmental impact of burning wood from construction, renovation and demolition at the Springfield plant.
Plants under consideration in Russell and Greenfield would burn so-called “clean wood,” generally from wood scraps or logging operations.
During the two-hour session at the John F. Kennedy Middle School on Berkshire Avenue, opponents repeatedly pointed out that the Springfield plant would pose too many health and environmental risks, and generate too little electricity in the process.
“This is a Neanderthal - it’s reminiscent of something from 100 years ago,” said Kurt M. Freedman, a Longmeadow engineer and professor at Western New England College.
“The air quality in Springfield is bad enough already,” said Jean C. Caldwell, of Springfield, adding that three schools would be located within a mile of the plant and the city already has an unusually high asthma rate for school-age children.
Others questioned why the state is willing to pay for a study, given how little is known about the risks of plants that burn construction or demolition materials.
“The state should just save its money,” said Bonnie L. Tessman, of West Springfield. She also expressed concern that if the project has advanced this far, the state had an interest in seeing it built. “You can’t legislate common sense,” Tessman added. “You have to have it.”
James Colman, of the state environmental department, assured the crowd that the review process is still in the early stages, and the department wants to study the amount of potentially harmful contaminants that would be emitted from the plant, and determine if they can be minimized.
Suzanne K. Condon, of the state Department of Public Health, also said the two agencies have a strong record of working together to protect state residents.
“I can’t remember the (public health officials) saying this is a really horrible problem, and the DEP looking the other way,” Condon said.
Several members of a Russell group opposed to the so-called biomass plant in that town also appeared at the hearing, carrying signs reading: Keep Russell Clean Green and Pristine - No Biomass.”
|
|
| Environmental and community activists in Springfield Massachusetts are appealing to city hall to stop a proposed biomass power plant. WAMC reports.
|
|
SPRINGFIELD - A proposed wood-burning energy plant in East Springfield got a cold reception Monday night as one speaker after another stood up and condemned the idea at a public hearing.
None of the nearly 20 speakers who addressed the panel of state health and environmental officials supported the $150 million biomass project planned by Palmer Renewal Energy at 1000 Page Blvd.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection is preparing to hire a consultant to study the health and environmental impact of burning wood from construction, renovation and demolition at the Springfield plant.
Plants under consideration in Russell and Greenfield would burn so-called “clean wood,” generally from wood scraps or logging operations.
During the two-hour session at the John F. Kennedy Middle School on Berkshire Avenue, opponents repeatedly pointed out that the Springfield plant would pose too many health and environmental risks, and generate too little electricity in the process.
“This is a Neanderthal - it’s reminiscent of something from 100 years ago,” said Kurt M. Freedman, a Longmeadow engineer and professor at Western New England College.
“The air quality in Springfield is bad enough already,” said Jean C. Caldwell, of Springfield, adding that three schools would be located within a mile of the plant and the city already has an unusually high asthma rate for school-age children.
Others questioned why the state is willing to pay for a study, given how little is known about the risks of plants that burn construction or demolition materials.
“The state should just save its money,” said Bonnie L. Tessman, of West Springfield. She also expressed concern that if the project has advanced this far, the state had an interest in seeing it built. “You can’t legislate common sense,” Tessman added. “You have to have it.”
James Colman, of the state environmental department, assured the crowd that the review process is still in the early stages, and the department wants to study the amount of potentially harmful contaminants that would be emitted from the plant, and determine if they can be minimized.
Suzanne K. Condon, of the state Department of Public Health, also said the two agencies have a strong record of working together to protect state residents.
“I can’t remember the (public health officials) saying this is a really horrible problem, and the DEP looking the other way,” Condon said.
Several members of a Russell group opposed to the so-called biomass plant in that town also appeared at the hearing, carrying signs reading: Keep Russell Clean Green and Pristine - No Biomass.”
|
|
| WFCR reports on an Earth Day rally to bring awareness to the proposed incinerator. |
|
By Courtney Llewellyn
SPRINGFIELD -- The city's Special Committee on Green City Initiatives took a bold step at its last meeting by having its members unanimously agree they are in opposition of the proposed biomass plant.
"People use the expression NIMBY -- not in my backyard," committee member Burt Freedman said before the vote. "I say not in anyone's backyard."
The motion, made by Freedman, followed a presentation from Dr. Mary Booth, founder of the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, regarding fuel supply and air emissions issues that could tie into the proposed plant.
Booth stated that biomass energy production -- which involves the burning of organic matter as fuel to generate electricity -- represents "a threat to forests and air quality and an increase in carbon emissions."
The carbon emissions from the biomass plant would be approximately 1.45 times more than what is currently produced at the Mt. Tom coal-burning plant and 3.96 times more than the proposed Pioneer Valley Energy Center which would burn gas to produce electricity.
Booth listed nitrogen oxide (NOx), particulate matter and metals like lead and mercury that aren't caught by filters as some of the emissions that could come from the plant.
She pointed out that these emissions in particular are a major concern for the Greater Springfield area, as instances of childhood asthma in Springfield are already twice as high as the rest of the state.
Booth added that the incineration plant proposed for Springfield would see up to 45 tractor trailer loads of construction and demolition debris hauled in daily to be burned.
"The science is a no-brainer," Freedman said following the presentation.
"Not to the proponents," Booth replied. "It's hard to see the impact because they think 'What harm can a little more pollution really do?'"
City Councilor James Ferrera III, chair of the Special Committee on Green City Initiatives, told Reminder Publications that the state's Department of Environmental Affairs (DEP) has put projects across the Commonwealth like the one proposed for a site off Page Boulevard on hold until studies on the full effects of the plants are completed and more public hearings take place.
"The Green Commission agrees with the state. We don't endorse this project and we won't [make another decision] until all the findings are presented," Ferrera said.
He added that while this is a major issue for the committee, it is also focusing on using more solar and geothermal energy in the city. Not only will alternative energies like these save Springfield money, Ferrera said, the energy could even be sold to surrounding communities to generate new revenue.
He said the committee will tackle recycling issues in the city (most notably increasing the rate at which residents recycle) and educate residents on the importance of energy audits as well.
|
|
By Michael McAuliffe
December 16, 2009, 9:15PM
SPRINGFIELD – Gov. Deval L. Patrick did not voice opposition to the project Wednesday, but he did express concern about a proposed biomass plant in the city that would burn construction and demolition debris, a plant opponents say would emit pollutants such as lead and mercury.
Patrick, speaking to reporters during a press round-table discussion at the state office building on Dwight Street, said “biomass has a place in our renewable energy strategy” but that he envisioned fuel sources such as switch grass.
“My instinct tells me that burning the stuff that is hauled out of old buildings is problematic,” he said.
The governor, however, also said he wants to see the results of an assessment ordered last week by Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles of projects such as the Palmer Renewable Energy facility proposed for East Springfield that would generate energy by burning wood chips derived from construction and demolition debris.
“Let’s get some science. Let’s get some understanding of what’s really at stake,” the governor said.
On Friday, Bowles directed Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Laurie Burt to suspend review of permit applications for facilities proposing to use the materials until a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts is completed. The Palmer Renewable Energy plant, proposed for 1000 Page Blvd., would cost about $170 million and provide enough power for 23,000 to 30,000 homes.
Burt said the assessment will likely begin next month.
Opposition to the plant has been vocal and visible in recent weeks. On Dec. 2, nearly 300 people attended a DEP public hearing at John F. Kennedy Middle School and not one person who signed up to speak voiced support for the project.
The developers have said that the plant would meet all emission standards.
|
|
Springfield Reminder on Patrick Administration Biomass Misstep
By G. Michael Dobbs
Managing Editor
Could someone please explain to me why putting a biomass plant that burns construction and demolition waste in the middle of a residential area is a good idea?
Since I do have permission from Mayor Domenic Sarno to give him a kick in the backside when I think he's wrong, I'm taking him up on his offer this week.
But the mayor isn't alone. The members of the City Council, the Finance Control Board, the city's economic development staff and anyone else who approved this plan should bend over and be prepared to say, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
City Councilors Patrick Markey and Rosemary Mazza Moriarty, since they voted against it, are excused.
The mayor and other city officials will have some company as well, because Gov. Deval Patrick and his energy/conservation czar, Ian Bowles, also should be lined up. Frankly I want to kick those two much, much harder.
My leg is going to be sore.
Governor, if putting a waste-burning biomass in an urban area is such a good idea, then why isn't your administration advocating one for Boston? Nope, that wouldn't be prudent in an upcoming election year. Let's allow it for Springfield, which is well out of harm's way.
And by the way, gentle readers, this just isn't a Springfield issue. If you don't think the emissions from this plant aren't going to have an impact on the air you breathe, you're wrong.
Now I know the plant has been framed as an economic development issue as well as a "green" solution to the area's strained landfills. I understand we need to dispose of this waste. And I also understand the pressing concern to generate power through means other than burning fossil fuel, especially imported oil.
I get all that and I'm definitely in favor of seeing private businesses and government work together to find solutions that would clean up the state and free us from foreign oil. Instead of tearing down a building and burning it, what about recycling as much of it as can be reused?
And I also understand how this plant will generate jobs and tax money for a city that needs both.
Yes, so far the project has met state's standards, but consider these facts: the state has changed the definition of the construction waste so it could be used as fuel and be considered "green" and Bowles decided there didn't need to be a health impact study done for this project.
This is being rammed down our throats. The Hampden District Medical Society, the American Lung Association and Western Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition are three groups that fear the health impacts from the emissions from this facility.
If you're concerned about slowing down, if not stopping completely, the state's efforts, you must attend the Department of Environmental Protection's air quality permitting hearing on Dec. 2 at 7 p.m. at the Kennedy Middle School, 1385 Berkshire Ave. in Springfield.
|
|
Springfield Reminder Article about the Toxic Incinerator
|
|
|
|
"The reclassification of waste as 'fuel' for this plant will be precedent setting in Massachusetts and it will be the start of a very slippery slope." Mary Booth, president of Massachusetts Environmental Emergency Alliance
|
By G. Michael Dobbs, Managing Editor
SPRINGFIELD Opponents of a proposed biomass plant at 1000 Page Boulevard say that concerned members of the public have three opportunities left to comment on the facility and possibly stop its construction.
The plant, which will be operated by Palmer Renewable Energy, will be allowed to burn construction and demolition waste as up to 75 percent of its total fuel. According to Michaelann Bewsee of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, the proposed plant will be the first in the state licensed to burn this kind of waste to generate electricity.
Mary Booth, president of Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, said, "The reclassification of waste as 'fuel' for this plant will be precedent setting in Massachusetts and it will be the start of a very slippery slope. The plant already plans to import waste from other states. According to the incinerator's draft air permit data, burning this waste will produce lead arsenic, hexavalent chromium, mercury and dioxin emissions as well as conventional pollutants; with some rates comparable to and even higher than the Mount Tom coal plant and the Bondi's Island waste incinerator."
The Massachusetts Department of Health has documented that Springfield children have high rates of asthmas and nearly double the blood lead levels of other Bay State children.
"We're really guinea pigs here," Bewsee said.
The Springfield Public Health Council will devote its entire meeting on Nov. 18 to the proposed biomass plant. The meeting is open to the public and will be presented at 6 p.m. at the Pine Point Citizens Council at 335 Berkshire Ave.
According to the Department of Environmental Protection's Web site, the agency has issued a provisional approval draft for a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) for the plant. Public comments may be submitted in writing to daniel.hall@state.ma.us by the deadline on Nov. 18 at 5 p.m.
According to the Department of Environmental Protection's Web site, the agency has issued "a draft conditional approval of a Major Comprehensive Plan Application by Palmer Renewable Energy LLC to build and operate a 38-megawatt (MW) biomass-fired power plant at 1000 Page Boulevard in Springfield." The agency has scheduled a public hearing on the draft conditional approval at 7 p.m. on Dec. 2 at John F. Kennedy Middle School Auditorium,1385 Berkshire Ave. Public comments may also be submitted in writing to marc.simpson@state.ma.us by Dec. 4 at 5 p.m.
Bewsee told Reminder Publications that she has yet to find anyone in city government who has been "involved in a substantial conversation about the pros and cons" of the project.
"My impression is no one was watching out for us," she said,
"The City Council approved a zoning change for the plant, which was classified by the Planning Department as a "recycling plant," Bewsee explained. She charged that a general discussion of the merits of the plant was never on any City Council or Finance Control Board agenda.
Springfield has been designated as an "environmental justice community" by the state, which requires greater notification, public input and more stringent project reviews, but Bewsee said little was done to involve the public. She said the developers attended an East Springfield Neighborhood Council meeting at which they discussed their plans, printed a legal notice about the plant as a legal notice in a Spanish-language newspaper and supplied a notice to the New North Citizens Council to have on file.
Ward Eight City Councilor-elect John Lysak has been a critic of the plant. Although Lysak said he is a supporter of businesses that would increase the tax rolls and bring green jobs to the city he sees this project as "nothing but minuses."
"As much as I love the idea of green energy, I don't think the Palmer Renewable Energy plant is the way to go," Lysak said.
|
|
The Wilbraham Hampden Times and Ludlow Register on the Springfield Public Health Council Meeting
Click here to read the article. The article is on pages 1 and 11.
|
Springfield Health Council Meeting
On Wednesday, November 18, the Springfield Public Health Council Hearing convened to listen to opponents of the toxic incinerator voice their opinions. Channel 22 news and CBS 3 both ran clips of the event.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
By MICHAEL McAULIFFE
mmcauliffe@repub.com
SPRINGFIELD - There would be no decision coming from the hearing, but the sentiment was clear: There are a lot of citizens opposed to a biomass plant proposed for East Springfield.
The Pine Point Community Center drew a standing-room-only crowd on Wednesday night for a Public Health Council meeting that focused on the Palmer Renewable Energy project proposed for 1000 Page Blvd. which would burn wood chips derived from construction and demolition debris to generate energy.
More than 100 people were present for the meeting, and the applause Michaelann Bewsee, spokeswoman for the group Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, received after she addressed the council left no doubt of the overwhelming opposition in the room to the plant.
"This plant isn't going to save us a penny if it goes forward, not one penny," Bewsee said.
Mary S. Booth, co-founder of the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, followed Bewsee with a presentation in which she said lead, mercury, arsenic, chromium and dioxins would be emitted from the plant.
"Quality of air is quality of life," Booth said.
In September 2008, the City Council voted to grant a permit for the $150 million plant that Booth said would generate 38 megawatts of power. One megawatt supplies enough power for 600 to 800 homes. At that time company officials said there would be no toxic emissions. A spokesman for the company could not be reached Wednesday.
The state Department of Environmental Protection has provisionally issued a beneficial use determination and a provisional air quality permit for the plant. A public hearing regarding the air quality permit is scheduled for Dec. 2 at John F. Kennedy Middle School.
Helen R. Caulton-Harris, the city's health and human services director and a council member, said the panel will hold another hearing on the proposed plant before Dec. 2. Caulton-Harris also said she asked City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula to research whether the council "has any standing" regarding the plant proposal.
The Page Boulevard plant would differ from biomass plants proposed in Greenfield and Russell. The plants planned for those two communities would burn "clean wood" that would include trees turned into wood chips. Other fuel sources could include pallets and limbs removed from trees at housing construction sites.
Last month, the executive committee of the Hampden District Medical Society announced its opposition to the Russell plant, and this week the committee expanded its opposition to "all other biomass power plants in Western Massachusetts," society President Dr. James K. C. Wang wrote for the organization.
"There are over 800,000 people living in the four counties of Western Massachusetts, and nearly half of them are at increased risk for health related complications related to air pollution," Wang also wrote. "In April 2009, the American Lung Association rated the air quality in Hampshire and Hampden Counties as 'F' based on levels of smog, short-term particle pollution and year-round particle pollution for the period 2005 to 2007."
Detrimental long term health problems from air pollution include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, and heart disease, Wang wrote, with children and the elderly being especially susceptible to pollution's effects.
|
Senator Rosenberg states that "We don't want" CDD burning
GREENFIELD -- State and local leaders are not currently planning to file any legislation related to the building of ''biomass'' wood-burning plants in Massachusetts, including Greenfield's. However, they do say they'd be open to suggestions for regulating the harvesting of wood fuel, capping how many plants can be built and governing what type of materials plants can burn.
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst, said he has discussed a number of those issues with his constituents and colleagues, but has not been asked to file a bill.
''There are clearly a significant number of plants being proposed for Massachusetts and we really have to think about that,'' said Rosenberg. ''I have a little trouble understanding how Massachusetts is going to supply that many plants of the sizes proposed with 'clean' wood.''
Rosenberg said he's also concerned about what the wood-burning plants might eventually burn if the ''clean'' wood supply dwindles.
''If we don't plan well and we build more than we can supply, then we run into the possibility of plants burning construction wood and demolition materials, as well as other things, and we don't want that,'' he said. ''We definitely don't want clear cutting,'' either, he added.
Rosenberg said he is meeting with the governor today to discuss biomass and that he is reading many reports by experts and looking to those experts for guidance, before he makes any decisions.
Source: The Greenfield Recorder
|
Mass DPH Substantiates Our Concerns About Health
The Department of Public Health confirms that this plant will have an impact on Springfield air and will be emitting harmful toxins. In the following letter, DPH notes that Springfield children's lead blood levels are already twice as high as the statewide rates and that Springfield residents have higher rates of respiratory diseases, including twice the statewide rate of asthma related hospitalization. Click here to read the letter. |
Senator Stan Rosenberg on Biomass: “These are not Renewable Facilities”
|
“No, I’m not familiar with it, but I think that would be an excellent idea—we fought over that in the legislature but we lost that battle—we mitigated to some extent that language but not enough…Those are not renewable facilities.” Listen to Senator Rosenberg’s position on biomass plants and the state’s renewable energy policy… |
The EnviroShow airs at WXOJ 103.3 FM, alternate Tuesdays, 6:30-7:30, and podcasts from this site.
Stan_on_biomass_and_ballot_initiative_9-29-09.mp3
Credits: The Enviro Show and Northampton Media |
|
If you would like to join our mailing list to receive updates and action alerts, please send an email to admin@springfieldincinerator.info and include the passphrase Incinerator Mail List in the subject line. To report a problem with the webpage, please send an email to admin@springfieldincinerator.info and include the passphrase Website Comment in the subject line. |
|
|
