SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) - The Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals ruled in favor Wednesday night of an appeal petitioned by the people living by the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy plant.
The move takes back a building permit issued for the project by the Springfield Building Commissioner in November, 2011.
The Zoning Board of Appeals decided the proposed biomass plant would be an incinerator and therefore needs a special permit.
The move leaves Palmer Renewable Energy without any permits for the project. The company said they plan to fight the decision and take their case to Superior Court.
After a false start, Springfield's City Council votes
Thursday, December 15, 2011
By Maureen Turner
Last week, the Springfield City Council took a decisive step toward trying to stop a controversial wood-burning power plant proposed in the city. At a special meeting on Dec. 7, the Council voted, 9 to 2, to appeal the building permit issued last month to the would-be developers, Palmer Renewable Energy.
The decision came as no surprise; indeed, the previous week, a group of councilors had been poised to vote to appeal the permit but were stopped in their tracks by one of their colleagues. At-large Councilor Kateri Walsh—a plant supporter who has received numerous campaign donations from the developers—invoked Rule 20, a procedural strategy that allows any one councilor to postpone a vote until the city comptroller issues a report on its potential fiscal effects. A few days later, that report was released—an appeal, the comptroller found, could cost the city about $350—and the councilors were freed to take their vote.
They made short work of it; the meeting was adjourned in just a few minutes, with Council President Jose Tosado, at-large Councilor Tom Ashe, Ward 1 Councilor Zaida Luna, Ward 2's Michael Fenton, Ward 3's Melvin Edwards, Ward 4's Henry Twiggs, Ward 6's Amaad Rivera, Ward 7's Tim Allen and Ward 8's John Lysak all voting to appeal. Walsh and fellow at-large councilor Jimmy Ferrera cast the two dissenting votes. At-large Councilor Tim Rooke (a plant supporter) and Ward 5's Clodo Concepcion (who in the past has voted against the project) were both absent from the meeting.
*
The proposed 35-megawatt, $150 million power plant would burn almost 1,200 tons of wood chips a day, converting the energy produced into electricity, according to documents filed by PRE with the state. The project is opposed by a broad coalition of organizations, including neighborhood councils, social justice and environmental groups, and health organizations including the Mass. Medical Association, the American Lung Association and the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition. They contend that the plant would pose too great a health risk in a city that already has poor air quality and elevated asthma rates, among other public health problems.
Initially, the project was supported by the majority of the City Council, which in 2008 granted Palmer Renewable Energy a land use special permit to build the plant on Page Boulevard, in East Springfield. Only four of the councilors who voted in favor of that permit—Walsh, Ferrera, Tosado and Rooke—remain on the Council today; Tosado has since changed his position, saying that, in light of emerging information about potential risks, he no longer supports the project. Indeed, as public awareness, and then opposition, grew, the majority of councilors responded, and this May the Council voted, 10 to 2, to revoke that special permit. (Walsh and Rooke cast the two dissenting votes; Ferrera was absent from that meeting.)
Those councilors who voted for revocation were rather perturbed, then, when the city's code enforcement commissioner, Steven Desilets, issued PRE's building permit last month over their objections. Now the councilors will have a chance to contest Desilets' decision before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
"We just feel so invested in this process," Tosado said of the decision to appeal. "At the end of the day, the real question is: is this good for Springfield and its residents? I just feel a moral obligation to move forward and try to do anything we can to prevent it."
Michaelann Bewsee, a leader of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, a grassroots group opposed to the plant, told the Advocate that she will also appeal the building permit before the ZBA, as will an abutter to the proposed site.
Frank Fitzgerald, Palmer Renewable Energy's attorney, has not responded to multiple requests for interviews by the Advocate, including one last week.
*
Rooke, who opposed the decision to appeal, believes the Council is overstepping its bounds, as it did when it revoked PRE's 2008 special permit this spring.
"The City Council's major role is in land use. And our role is to determine whether an appropriate piece of land is suited for the proposed business"—and in this case, the land is properly zoned for a power plant, he said.
In fact, Rooke argues, the Council made a bad move, strategically, when it revoked the permit, since the city could have used that permit to impose restrictions on the project. "Now we have no leverage with the developer at all," he said.
Does Rooke have any concerns about the public health risks that medical groups warn the plant poses? "I've always felt: let the experts decide if there's a problem or risk," said Rooke, who said he's satisfied with the reviews done by state environmental agencies, which have approved the project thus far.
Mayor Domenic Sarno has expressed similar sentiments, saying he supports the power plant as long as it meets state standards.
*
As the plant proposal has moved its way through the public approval process, David Callahan—manager of PRE as well as president of the family-owned Palmer Paving Corp.—and members of his family have given generously to elected officials and candidates.
On the City Council, the biggest beneficiary of the Callahans' largess has been Walsh, who so far this year has received $1,750 from members of the family, as well as $750 from Fitzgerald, PRE's attorney. Right behind her is Ferrera, who received $1,700 from the Callahans over the same time period, as well as $350 from Fitzgerald.
Sarno has received $4,275 from the Callahans since the fall of 2008, when the plant first came up for a special permit. Of that, $2,250 was donated on Nov. 7 of this year—one day before Sarno won re-election, defeating Tosado, a plant opponent. Sarno has also received $750 in donations from Fitzgerald this year.
Rooke has received $750 from members of the Callahan family this year. Those donations, he told the Advocate, did not come with any stated expectation that he would support the PRE plant. "The donations I received from the Callahan family don't have any sway to me," he said, adding that his position on the project is based on logical analysis. "I think there are people who donate to my campaign because they think I do my homework, study the issues and speak intelligently on them."
Tosado declined to speculate on why some of his colleagues support the power plant. "There are 13 people on the Council. If we all thought the same, there really wouldn't be the need for 13 people," he said. "I'm sure they have their reasons. They have to live with their consciences."
*
More Good News for Plant Opponents
Last week's vote by the Springfield City Council to appeal the building permit issued to Palmer Renewable Energy for its proposed power plant wasn't the only good news for activists eager to keep the project from being built. The day before that vote, they also received word that their appeal of an air quality permit granted the project by the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection will be heard,
On Dec. 6, DEP Commissioner Kenneth Kimmel ruled that the appellants—the Conservation Law Foundation, Arise for Social Justice, the Toxics Action Center and a group of residents—should be allowed to make their case, at a hearing expected to be held in March.
Kimmel's decision was a rejection of a recommendation issued the previous week by a DEP hearing officer, who found that the opponents did not have legal standing to challenge the permit. In a public statement, Kimmel wrote that "there is little judicial guidance on the issue [of whether residents can appeal an air permit] and there is a significant risk that whatever decision I reach on it will be the subject of judicial review, with an unpredictable outcome."
Therefore, he wrote, "In the interest of mitigating this uncertainty, affording petitioners an opportunity to be heard, ensuring a complete record and timely disposition of the case, and resolving the important question of whether the Department erred in any material respect in issuing the permit in this case, I direct the parties and the Presiding Officer to focus their attention upon resolving the merits of this appeal."
The groups that filed the appeal cheered Kimmel's decision, saying, in a press release, "We are pleased that the Commissioner did the right thing and we look forward to using this opportunity to show why the PRE air permit must not be granted, based on evidence demonstrating that the Power Plant's air emissions would further harm the health of residents already suffering from a disproportionate share of air pollution."
Frank Fitzgerald, Palmer Renewable Energy's attorney, did not return a call from the Advocate.
"We're feeling very relieved that we are where we are now," Lee Ann Warner, a member of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, told the Advocate. And, she added, if the DEP ultimately rejects the appeal, the Conservation Law Foundation, which has been representing STIS pro bono, is committed to taking their case to Superior Court. "So it's not going to be over for a long time," Warner said.
City Council members who previously voted against granting Palmer Renewable Energy a special permit for the Biomass Plant took a stand against the City's decision to grant the company a permit Monday.
"We've been fighting this for a year in a half and at this point it's become very well documented that this incinerator processes serious health risks to the city of Springfield," said a member of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, Jesse Lederman.
"I don't want this plant in my city," said City Councilor John Lysak. "I have children I'm raising in this city. This is going to spew tons of pollution into the air.
Monday the Springfield City Council approved two resolutions reaffirming their earlier stance against the plant. And while both were approved, they do not take away the prior ruling to grant the permit. But, they do put the City Council on record voicing their disapproval.
"What we've done is we've gone on record and said that as the body that writes the zoning ordnances in the city of Springfield," said City Councilor Michael Fenton. "We interpret it to mean that Palmer Renewable is subject to it at this property. That helps us build our record for an appeal if we choose to take one."
In May the council had voted against granting the plant the special permit required to begin construction. But, to many people's dismay, last week, the city's Building Commissioner gave PRE the green light. This is because the property on Paige Blvd is already zoned to allow projects like the Biomass Plant.
So, Monday in a vote meant to make a statement the council is moving forward with their effort to prevent the plant from coming to fruition.
"It gets us moving in the right direction," said Lysak. "It shows that the council is for the most part united against this issue and that we're willing to work for the people and we will appeal this project in anyway possible."
On Nov. 28, the City Council will hold a special meeting to consider filing an appeal.
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) - The biomass battle continues in Springfield, as environmental groups and city councilors continue their attempts to stop construction of a wood burning plant on Page Boulevard.
The Springfield Building Commissioner recently issued a new construction permit to Palmer Renewable Energy. Now activist groups and some city councilors are lashing out against that move.
“I think absolutely the people's voices are being ignored,” said Ward 2 City Councilor Mike Fenton. He was one of ten councilors who voted to revoke Palmer Renewable Energy's special permit back in May. Now he's leading the charge against a new permit granted by the city's building commissioner.
Members of Stop Toxic Incineration Springfield testified at Monday's city council meeting, urging councilors to adopt two resolutions. The first negates PRE’s claim that they don't require a special permit to build. The second calls on the state to prevent the developer from building without a state air permit.
A state permit was granted to Palmer, but is currently under appeal. Activists told 22News until that appeal is resolved, state law says no construction can be done.
“In fact the regulations define construction to include the building of the foundation,” explained Conservation Law Foundation attorney Jennifer Rushlow, “which is exactly what the building permit which was issued by Commissioner Desilets here provides for. He was aware of those regulations. It’s not clear to me why he felt he had the ability to do that when the state regulations, which clearly supersede any local ordinances, said otherwise.”
All but three city councilors voted to approve the resolutions, just another step in what will no doubt be a long legal battle.
Next up: At a special meeting scheduled for Monday the 28th at 6 p.m. councilors will meet to decide whether to formally appeal the permit granted by Commissioner Desilets.
SPRINGFIELD, MA (WAMC) - Developers of a controversial wood-burning power plant in Springfield Massachusetts have secured all the permits required to begin construction. But, opponents vow to exhaust all available appeals to block the project they say will cause air pollution and traffic jams.. WAMC's Pioneer Valley Bureau Chief Paul Tuthill reports.
Feds hedge on greenhouse gas; state grants air pollution permit; Springfield City Council sued by Boston law firm; Conservation Law Foundation at the ready; City Solicitor vows vigorous defense.
By Mary Serreze
SPRINGFIELD — Western Mass. biomass opponents suffered a setback in recent weeks as actions by state and federal regulators supported plans by Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) to build a 35-megawatt wood-burning electricity plant in the eastern part of the city. In addition, the plant’s developers have sued the City Council for their recent vote to revoke zoning approval for the project.
The parcel, located at 1000 Page Boulevard, is zoned “Industrial A,” the city’s least restrictive land-use category.
The plant has been the subject of much controversy, and is opposed by a host of environmental, public health, and neighborhood groups. Supporters include the Springfield Chamber of Commerce and local construction unions. Mayor Domenic Sarno says he’ll support the plant if it’s approved by state environmental regulators.
In a move that affects biomass proposals across the nation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on July 1that it will defer regulating carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) from the plants for another three years, pending more scientific research. This means that new biomass air permits won’t face limitations on that greenhouse gas pollutant at least till then, a break for developers and the industry.
“This is a prudent step towards restoring the federal government’s longstanding policy that biomass energy is an environmentally beneficial alternative to fossil fuels and does not increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere,” wrote National Association of Forest Owners David P. Tenny.
But the Natural Resources Defense Council has called the rule a “perverse incentive” that will lead to more deforestation and climate change. “Congress gave EPA the duty to keep up with developing science and to act when science shows that pollution endangers our health and welfare,” the NRDC testified at a congressional hearing on the matter.
State air permit issued on same day as EPA greenhouse gas deferral
Also on July 1, the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) approved PRE’s final air emissions permit, a disappointment for those who have been trying to block the plant.
As for the timing,public interest scientist Mary Stuart Booth of Pelham, co-founder of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, said she wasn’t surprised: “The DEP essentially accommodated Palmer (PRE) by issuing the air permit before EPA announced its decision about the three-year carbon deferral.”
“This is more business as usual,” Michaelann Bewsee of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield said on a web posting. “What could (the DEP) be thinking, allowing the siting of an incinerator in an urban setting, already challenged by serious environmental and health issues? This incinerator will be one of the top particulate matter polluters in the region.”
The state air permit also specifies that PRE won’t have to report its CO2 emissions, estimated by PRE at about 400,000 tons per year, to the Northeast’s cap-and-trade program known as RGGI, or the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
PRE’s smokestack will emit nitrogen oxide, sulfer dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and metals such as mercury and lead, but “the potential to emit any regulated air pollutant will not exceed any applicable major source threshold,” DEP regulators wrote.
In issuing the permit, the DEP said that PRE has “substantially reduced the emissions profile of the facility” by switching its fuel source from construction waste to green wood chips.
But environmentalists say that the air permit is flawed.
Conservation Law Foundation attorney Sue Reid told Northampton Media that the terms of the air permit are “profoundly disappointing. (This) represents a failure of the DEP to protect public health and the environment.” She said that “CLF expects to get involved.”
With the air permit, project manager Victor Gattoand company CEO David Callahan now have nearly every piece of paper they need from the state, having already soldiered through two rounds of Mass. Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review.
Even with state and federal support, the project might be dead in the water without a special permit from the Springfield City Council. Last month, the council voted 10-2 to revoke the permit it had issued PRE in 2008, effectively yanking local zoning approval.
Resolution sponsors said that Springfield’s zoning code allows for the revocation of a special permit where “just cause” exists, and point to ways the project has changed since it was first announced.
Now PRE is challenging that decision in court.
Lawsuit Seeks Judicial Review of Council Decision
Thelawsuit was filed with the Mass. Land Court by the Boston law firm of Mackie, Shea, and O’Brien on June 23. It seeks an annulment of the revocation, declaratory judgment that the revocation was invalid, an order to quash the revocation based upon procedural violations, and the reimbursement of costs.
Opponent concerns are outlined in a public hearing noticedrafted by councilors Melvin Edwards and Jose Tosado, who sponsored the resolution to revoke the permit.
Edwards and Tosado referred to a Notice of Project Change (NPC) approved by state regulators in Nov. 2010 that eliminated construction and demolition debris from the plant’s fuel source. Now the plant will burn green wood chips only, but in higher volumes.
This change from 900 daily tons of mixed fuel to 1,184 tons of green wood chips would trigger significant site plan changes, more truck traffic, and a different air emissions profile, Edwards and Tosado wrote.
The proposed change was submitted to the Mass. Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office in the wake of a 2009 state-wide moratorium on the combustion of construction waste, which derailed earlier state permitting efforts and forced PRE to go back to the drawing board.
The councilors also noted that emerging scientific information regarding the health impacts of biomass power plants “which currently do not appear to be sufficiently addressed under the framework of ongoing review,” and said that none of those were addressed when the plant was granted its permit in 2008.
Edwards and Tosado suggested that air pollution impacts of the plant may have been understated by PRE, and called for a more detailed analysis. PRE’s new numbers on emissions barely qualify it as a “non-major source” of air pollution, they noted, which means less stringent environmental review.
Arguments not relevant, writes lawyer for PRE
But to attorney Peter F. Durning, representing PRE, those arguments are moot.
The council exceeded its legal authority when it voted on June 6 to revoke the plant’s special permit, Durning stated in his appeal.
Massachusetts zoning law provides no mechanism for the revocation of special permits, and a phrase in the local zoning referring to “just cause” only applies to an overlay district that doesn’t include the Palmer Paving site, Durning wrote.
The proper route for opponents on the council is an administrative one, he said, and requires going through the building commissioner and the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), rather than the council voting to revoke the permit.
Site plan changes and truck traffic increases will be insignificant, and local zoning contains no requirements for a health-risk assessment or Board of Health site assignment, he maintained.
The Springfield zoning ordinance uses DEP standards when regulating air pollution; as such, Durning argued, local arguments about air pollution impacts aren’t relevant.
But for good measure, Durning referred to a November 2010 MEPA certificate where former state Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles said the change to green wood would reduce rather than increase environmental impacts.
In that certificate, Bowles ruled that no Environmental Impact Report would be required from PRE.
Durning also wrote that the City Council, acting as the permit-granting authority, committed enough procedural violations to invalidate the revocation vote.
DEP approval of PRE’s air emissions permit was issued one week after the zoning suit was filed; now, issues of local zoning approval are the only significant impediments to PRE’s applying for a building permit.
Defense Team Forming; PRE Mum
Lawyers at Mackie, Shea, and O’Brien declined to comment on the lawsuit, referring all media inquiries to lawyer Frank P. Fitzgerald, a spokesman for PRE.
Fitzgerald did not respond to Northampton Media’s requests for comment.
But Springfield City Solicitor Edward Pikula vowed that the city will mount a vigorous defense. “The law department stands ready to defend the council’s action,” he told Northampton Media.
Pikula said that PRE, in filing the suit, was likely seeking to preserve its rights in the event that a host of other complex variables play out in their favor. “This is more of a defensive than an offensive move on their part,” Pikula said.
The city solicitor also confirmed that lawyer Sue Reid of the Conservation Law Foundation had been in touch with his office.
Reid has been actively involved in the issue, and has testified at public hearings on the plant’s air permit and on the City Council’s move to revoke the special permit.
Reached by telephone, Reid declined to be specific about the zoning lawsuit, but said that “the Conservation Law Foundation expects to get involved in some way.”
The CLF’s policy statement on biomass says there are “right and wrong ways” to use the technology, and that individual proposals should evaluated as to whether they reduce or increase greenhouse gasses compared to fossil fuel plants.
Asked about a recent state decision that disqualifies biomass plants in Massachusetts from receiving Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), a production subsidy designed to encourage clean renewable energy, Reid said it was probable that the plant’s financing doesn’t depend upon that.
PRE, with principal offices in Canton, Mass., states it has invested $5.8 million in pre-development costs so far, and that, if construction of the $150 million plant is delayed past 2011, a federal stimulus tax grant worth 30 percent of eligible capital costs will expire.
Even though PRE’s lawsuit mentions these figures, Reid said that these costs aren’t recoverable in state Land Court. “These are investment risks that the developer has to take responsibility for,” she said.
Biomass wars are being played out across the country as developers strive to take advantage of state and federal programs designed to promote renewable energy. Proponents, including government agencies, say biomass plants are “carbon neutral” because trees will always grow back to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. Opponents say that the math on carbon accounting is wrong, that the plants will contribute to climate change and deforestation, and as such shouldn’t qualify for “green energy” subsidies.
(c) 2011 Northampton Media
Massie: No to PRE Project
The Democrat vying to replace Scott Brown in Congress sides with Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
By Maureen Turner
As the Advocate went to press this week, there was still no word on whether the Springfield City Council would revoke or amend the special permit granted to the controversial wood-burning power plant proposed for East Springfield. The Council was expected to vote on that matter at its May 23 meeting, after the newspaper's deadline.
While councilors were mulling over the call from plant opponents to revoke the permit, which was granted in 2008, one would-be elected official took a strong stand against the project.
Bob Massie, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Scott Brown, last week issued a statement in which he called the plant the wrong kind of development for Springfield and its residents, who already struggle with enough health and environmental problems.
"A safe and healthy home is vital to creating prosperity, and the proposed biomass plant in Springfield will only perpetuate a cycle of pollution and urban decay," Massie said. "Facilities like these have no place being sited in dense, urban areas, particularly those as overburdened as Springfield. As proposed, this facility would release hundreds of tons of known pollutants linked to asthma, diabetes, and heart disease, into surrounding neighborhoods, including over 55 schools within a five mile radius."
Massie continued: "We must focus on designing smart, vibrant, and beautiful communities that create sustained growth, both economically and environmentally. As a state and nation, we must build a better life for all. Do we want to continue risking our health and our safety, or will we lead a new revolution based on sustainable, clean energy? I applaud the efforts of STOP and all the other groups and citizens for engaging on this issue, and defending our shared values."
(By "STOP," Massie was, presumably, referring to Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, the grassroots coalition opposed to the project. In fact, the group tends to go by the acronym "STIS," not "STOP." While that sort of blunder demonstrates that the Somerville-based Massie is perhaps still not quite as closely connected to Western Mass. issues as a statewide candidate should be, it's hard to imagine the growing number of opponents to the PRE project will hold that against him.)
Massie is among the small group of Democrats who've already announced plans to challenge Brown. (Also in the running: Setti Warren, mayor of Newton, and Alan Khazei, who ran in the Democratic primary for the 2009 special election that ended with Brown's victory). He's also got a damn interesting background: the Democrat's 1994 candidate for lieutenant governor (he ran on a ticket with Mark Roosevelt; they were toasted at the polls, you might recall, by a couple of Republican fellows called Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci), Massie is a Harvard MBA and an Episcopal priest with a long resume of social activism and a lot of compelling human-interest stories to tell (including a 2009 liver transplant that his campaign says "cured his symptoms and renewed his strength and vigor," giving him a "miraculous second chance to become a US Senator Massachusetts will be proud of—a compassionate, courageous and relentless advocate for all Americans.") Last month, Joe Trippi, campaign manager for Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign (oh, if only), signed on a political adviser to Massie.
Meanwhile, the local battle over the controversial plant could be decided well before the 2012 election. At last week's hearing, attorneys for the developers insisted that the Council lacks the legal ground to revoke the permit, and threatened a lawsuit if it does. Plant opponents, meanwhile, contend that changes made to the project after that 2008 vote give the Council just cause to revoke the permit. That group includes former city councilor Pat Markey, city solicitor during the Ryan administration, who maintains the Council can, indeed, revoke or amend the permit because PRE has made multiple changes to the project since the permit was granted, including increases in truck traffic and the amount of wood that would be burned. Markey also notes that the project was originally pitched as a recycling project (the initial plan called for burning construction and demolition waste) but no longer meets that description.
WGGB Reports on the Revocation of the Biomass Permit
WAMC Reports on the Springfield City Council Revoking PRE's Permit
SPRINGFIELD, MA (WAMC) - In another blow to the biomass power industry in Massachusetts, the city council in Springfield has voted to block construction of a wood burning power plant. A little more than two years ago, the city had green lighted the project. WAMC's Pioneer Valley Bureau Chief Paul Tuthill reports.
Thunderous applause followed the vote Monday night. The Springfield city council chambers were packed with a standing room only audience. By a vote of ten to two the council approved a motion, introduced by city councilor Timothy Allen to revoke a special permit it had issued in 2008 to Palmer Renewable Energy.
In the months that followed the council's vote in September 2008 to grant a special permit for the 150 million dollar, 35 megawatt power plant, neighborhood opposition organized. Environmental activists campaigned against the project claiming it would adversely impact public health and safety
The project opponents were estactic over Monday night's vote, Lee Ann Warner is a member of the grassroots group called Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield.
Frank Fitzgerald , an attorney and spokesman for the project developer said he was not surprised by the outcome..
Susan Reid, an attorney with the Massachusetts Conservation Law Foundation, one of the environmental groups that had campaigned against the biomass project, said her organization would help the city defend the expected lawsuit.
Councilors who voted to revoke the project's special permit said they believed they had just cause. They pointed out that details of the project had changed since it was first presented in 2008. At that time it was called a recycling facility that was to use construction and demolition debris , as well as green wood pellets as sources of fuel. Councilors pointed out that current plans would result in more truck traffic, larger trucks and a different drive-way configuration than what was proposed in 2008.
City councilor Timothy Rooke, who with councilor Katerie Walsh, were the only votes against revoking the permit, said the council was acting reckless and setting a dangerous precedent
The council's vote followed a four hour long public hearing the week before which featured sharply contradictory opinions on the impact the biomass plant would have on air quality. Palmer Renwable Energy is awaiting a final air quality permit from the Massachusett Department of Environmental Protection. The project has cleared all other regulatory hurdles.
Palmer Renewable Energy had touted the economic benefits of building the power plant in Springfield, claiming it would produce 200 construction jobs and 50 permit jobs. The developer said it agreed to pay the city one million dollars on top of property taxes.
The vote by the Springfield city council, heartened biomass opponents across the state. Susan Lang is fighting a biomass project is Greenfield
The Patrick administration, which once embraced bio mass recently crafted new regulations that would make it all but impossible for large scale biomass projects in Massachusetts to qualify for financing through renewable energy credits. The change followed a state commissioned scientific study that refuted claims that burning wood is green energy.
Tense hearing on biomass project brings out supporters, proponents
April 13, 2011
By G. Michael Dobbs
Managing Editor
SPRINGFIELD — The only real result so far from the April 5 hearing on the proposal to build a biomass electrical generation plant on Page Boulevard is that Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) officials have extended the public comment period through April 29.
The hearing for the clean air permit was conducted at Duggan Middle School and the entrance to the school's auditorium was almost clogged with protesters holding signs against the proposal as well as several hundred trade union members many of whom wore fluorescent green T-shirts and stickers stating they support biomass.
The MassDEP sat silently as they listened to speakers both in favor and in opposition to the proposed development. With hundreds of people in attendance at the Duggan Middle School, 72 people had signed up to speak.
John Mullin, professor of Regional Planning, director of the Center for Economic Development and dean of the Graduate School at the University of Massachusetts served as the moderator. The room was set up with two microphones — one designated for those in favor and one for those opposed. Each speaker was allotted three minutes.
Mullin would have three speakers from each side of the issue line up and alternate between sides — one pro, one anti.
Once the speakers began, it was soon clear that those in favor of the biomass plant based their decision not just on the scientific findings presented by the supporters but also on the promise of union construction jobs.
The protesters uniformly asked the MassDEP to make no further decision until a full and impartial environmental impact study could be completed.
As the evening progressed, the supporters of the plan regularly booed each of the opposition speakers, regardless of what that speaker said.
The tension grew to a level in the room that David Callahan, the president and CEO of Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE), appealed to his supporters not to interrupt or boo the other side.
At one point, the two Springfield police officers on duty rushed to the entrance of the auditorium to prevent a heated exchange between a union member and someone opposing the plant from growing into a physical confrontation.
State Reps. Benjamin Swan and Sean Curran both voiced their opposition to the plant, as did City Councilor Tim Allen, who noted the issue never came before the Springfield Public health Council he chaired in 2008.
"We still don't know the full implications of this plant," Allen said.
Callahan told the panel his company has "worked tirelessly over the past five years to meet the challenges of the government ... our facility is the cleanest renewable facility proposed in Massachusetts."
He added the state should be closing fossil fuel plants to improve air quality.
Opponent Sue Reed question how the state could permit the plant considering the asthma rates in the region.
She was countered by Dale Raczynski, an engineer working for Epsilon Associates, a consulting firm hired by PRE, who said the new facility would be "four times cleaner than the Mount Tom power plant."
Mary Booth of the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, disputed Raczynski's statement and said the new facility would be "the first or largest particle emitter in [the four western] counties."
"Only a tiny fraction of people in this room are going to get a job at the plant but we're all going to have to breathe the air," Booth added.
Former City Councilor Bud Williams then spoke. He was president of the City Council when that body approved a special permit for the facility in 2008. He stated his continued support for the proposal and noted it would bring "200 construction jobs and 50 well-paying jobs."
"Nothing has changed in the past three years to shake my faith in this project," Williams said.
Ed Carlson of Princeton, Mass., said, "I don't have an oar in this water," but that he lived in the shadow of the Pine Tree Power Plant in Fitchburg and he hasn't seen any impact on the quality of life.
"I'm amazed at the fear in this audience. It's the fear of the unknown," he said.
Noting how a previous speaker, a doctor who treats children with respiratory illness was booed, Michaelann Bewsee of Arise for Social Justice wondered why union members "booed a physician who cares for sick kids."
"I know you need jobs," she continued, "but, man, I don't understand that."
"If there is nothing to hide why not do the [environmental impact] study?" she asked the MassDEP panel.
MassDEP requested that written testimony be submitted via e-mail to: mailto:marc.simpson@state.ma.us. Written testimony may also be sent to Marc Simpson, Air Quality Permit Chief, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Prevention, 436 Dwight St., Springfield, MA 01103 before April 29.
Hundreds turn out for DEP hearing on biomass plant proposal
Public comment period extended to April 29
By Christi Mills
Register Correspondent
SPRINGFIELD – Passions ran high when an estimated 500 people, comprised of concerned citizens, community activists, elected officials, union tradesmen and medical professionals, attended the public hearing on the biomass plant proposed by Palmer Renewable Energy, (PRE) to be built at 1000 Page Blvd. in East Springfield
The public hearing, conducted by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), was held Tuesday, April 5, at Duggan Middle School.
Before the meeting, proponents and opponents lined the sidewalks leading to the school’s entrance. Gathering in opposition to the proposed 35-megawatt project were guest speakers that included members of Toxics Action Center in Springfield Organizing Director Sylvia Broude; Springfield City Councilor John Lysak (Ward 8); McKnight Neighborhood Council member and Select Youth Board Chair Jesse Lederman; American Lung Association Board Director Donna Hawk, and Springfield resident Wynetta McDaniel, a mother of two asthmatic children, were the guest speakers at the Media Conference.
“How many times do we have to say ‘No’? It has become blatantly apparent that no one who doesn’t stand to make a profit supports it moving forward,” said Lederman. “Nine Springfield neighborhood councils, the Massachusetts Medical Society and the Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition have joined ranks to voice their opposition and concerns regarding this incinerator.”
Inside the school auditorium, speakers were given a three-minute time limit during the hearing An estimated 42 people spoke against the biomass proposal while roughly 26 people spoke in favor of the project.
Many opponents referenced Springfield’s low air quality ranking and its high rate of asthma among school children, claiming the rate is as high as 20 percent. Others questioned how the DEP planned to oversee the levels of toxins emitted from the plant and what disciplinary actions would be taken if emission standards were violated. The majority of opponents supported a comprehensive third-party review before permit approval.
A number of medical professionals shared statistics on a variety of diagnosed pulmonary diseases present in Springfield residents. Hawk said facility emissions are just below what is permitted by DEP regulations.
“The current regulations should not be accepted in Springfield, which have higher rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses,” she said. “There are over 50,000 adults diagnosed with COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease).”
Speaking about asthma rates among Springfield children, Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield (STIS) member Patti McCauley played a tape recording of a child experiencing an asthma attack. The recording, interrupted by moderator Dr. John Mullin, Dean of the Graduate School at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, who said “I think we have heard enough. We get the point.” McCauley continued to play the tape until her three-minute time limit had expired.
Proponents made reference to the estimated 200 temporary jobs and 50 permanent jobs that would be created if the biomass project is approved. Others highlighted the facility’s state-of-the-art technology, which encourages the promotion of going green by providing a cleaner source of energy compared to fossil fuels.
“Not only is PRE’s clean technology the best on the market but it creates jobs that are needed here,” said former Springfield councilor Bud Williams.
PRE President and CEO David Callahan attended the hearing. He said the plant meets the “green goals” of Gov. Deval Patrick. A typical wood burning stove in most homes emits emissions 150 times higher than the proposed plant, he said.
“This is the cleanest renewable facility ever proposed in Massachusetts,” said Callahan.
Ludlow Selectman William Rooney spoke in opposition to the plant. Referencing PRE’s draft plan, Rooney was alarmed to discover that 177 public and private schools fall within 15 kilometers of the proposed plant.
“Although I feel this is a worthwhile project, I don’t think it should be located in Hampden County,” he said.
The public comment period on the proposed project has been extended to April 29. Comments should be mailed to Marc Simpson, Air Quality Permit Chief, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Prevention, 436 Dwight St., Springfield, MA 01105.
SPRINGFIELD - City councilors said Friday they are considering their options, including the possibility of a permit revocation for a proposed $150 million wood-burning plant in East Springfield.
The councilors' comments followed a three-hour meeting at City Hall on Thursday when councilors discussed the biomass energy project with the city solicitor, city consultants and project opponents.
Councilor Melvin Edwards said he has asked the Law Department to prepare the proper notices to the project developer, Palmer Renewable Energy, to appear before the council for a revocation vote on its 2008 special permit.
In addition, Edwards has asked the department to consider drafting an ordinance that would restrict the importation into the city for incineration of any wood foreign to New England, citing concerns about insect infestation.
Councilor John A. Lysak has asked the department to draft an amendment to the zoning ordinances to prohibit biomass facilities that use construction and demolition debris. The current project would only burn green wood, but Lysak said he wants to ensure construction debris is never added should it be built.
In addition, Lysak has asked for a requirement that any facility using just green wood require a special permit from the council and site assignment from the Public Health Council.
"I think a few of us are looking at options to bring PRE back in front of us," said Councilor Timothy Allen.
Palmer Renewable Energy, through its lawyer, Frank P. Fitzgerald, has warned the city that any revocation would trigger legal and financial repercussions for the city.
In addition, project officials have repeatedly defended the safety of the plant, saying it poses no harm to the public or to public health.
The former state secretary of environmental affairs did not require an environmental impact report for the project. The state has issued a "proposed conditional approval to construct."
Opponents have raised concerns about increased pollution, hazards to health, and traffic issues.
City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula said Friday he "will continue to work with the council to explore various options."
Approximately 60 people attended the meeting at City Hall on Thursday, and the developer was represented by a stenographer.
Those speaking included representatives of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., hired by the city for a limited review of the project.
Some of those speaking at Thursday's meeting raised concerns about the limits of that review, as did councilors.
The project remains under review by the state Department of Environmental Protection. A public review process ends April 9.
In addition, the state has a hearing scheduled April 5, at 6 p.m., at the John J. Duggan Middle School, 1015 Wilbraham Road, for public comment.
The Springfield Public Health Council's job is to advise the mayor on matters that could have detrimental effects on the health and well-being of city residents.
And that, say a group of local activists, is why the Council should weigh in on the wood-burning power plant proposed for Page Boulevard in East Springfield.
Last week, Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield—a grassroots organization made up of neighborhood, public health, environmental and social justice groups—came to the PHC's monthly meeting to present a petition calling on the group to investigate the potential effects of the plant, proposed by Palmer Renewable Energy. STIS maintains that the PHC has both the legal right and the responsibility to take up the matter.
"The Public Health Council is the guardian of public health in Springfield. It is responsible for assessing whether the proposed incinerator is harmful to Springfield residents or dangerous to public health," Pat Markey, a former city solicitor who has been working with STIS on a pro bono basis, said in announcing the petition. "We hope that it exercises the authority vested in it by state statute to consider the appropriateness of locating an incinerator in the heart of Springfield."
*
The $150 million, 35-megawatt plant would burn almost 1,200 tons of "green" wood chips a day. In a project description filed with the state, Palmer Renewable Energy says the chips would be supplied by Northern Tree Service of Palmer, and would "be limited to clean (uncontaminated) non-forest woody material, such as tree stems, branches, stumps and brush," from sources including private landscapers, developers and municipal parks departments.
An earlier version of the plan called for the burning of construction and demolition waste. The developers dropped that plan after strong concerns were raised about the potential release of toxins such as arsenic and lead.
PRE describes the plant as a way to produce sustainable energy using an environmentally sound process. In 2008, when the project first came to public attention, developers said the plant would create 50 full-time jobs and offered a number of perks to the city, called "host community benefits," including $667,000 for local improvements, such as road paving and new street lights, and $25,000 for environmental programs in the city schools. (The plant manager and PRE's attorney, Frank Fitzgerald of Springfield, have not responded to interview requests from the Advocate.)
But the ever-widening group of plant opponents say those perks won't begin to offset the harm that would be done to the city's—and, indeed, the entire region's—air quality by the burning. The Valley already suffers from poor air quality, and those effects are felt especially keenly in poorer communities like Springfield. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has named the city an "Environmental Justice Community," a designation that allows it to qualify for grants "to improve environmental conditions in underserved communities." Among the city's major health concerns, according to the EPA, are "poor air quality (point [and] mobile sources), home indoor air quality, lead, hazardous waste, pesticides and drinking, surface and ground water."
One measure of the city's health problems: its strikingly high asthma rates. According to the Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition, 20 percent of the city's schoolchildren suffer from asthma, about double the rate statewide. In a letter opposing the PRE plant, physician Matthew Sadof, chairman of the PVAC, wrote, "Springfield is a designated environmental justice community and its poor air quality has already been linked to these high asthma rates. This plant will place community members at even higher risk."
In 2008, the City Council approved a land-use special permit for the PRE plant. Opponents of the project have urged the Council to revoke that permit, or to require the developers to apply for a new permit, in light of changes made to the first proposal (namely, the change from construction and demolition waste to wood chips as the fuel source).
The city Law Department has repeatedly maintained that the Council does not have the legal authority to revoke the permit or require a new one, and would risk a lawsuit from the developers if it did so. With that route now an apparent dead end, opponents of the project have turned their attention to the Public Health Council.
Markey told the Advocate that under state law the PHC can review the project proposal, hold public hearings, hire experts to give their opinions on its potential health effects—and, ultimately, deny or grant the project a site assignment. He also said he believes the city can charge the developers for the cost of the review. (Markey was a member of the City Council in 2008, and was one of only two members who voted against granting PRE its special permit.)
In a letter to the Public Health Council, Elizabeth Lederman of STIS wrote that the group is "the one, local body that can do what the state has decided not to do—truly assess what a new source of pollution will do to local residents suffering already from unacceptable air. The PHC is not bound, like the state, to use generically applied averages in assessing pollution and can concentrate on our local pollution and how it affects the local population."
In 2008, to the great dismay of plant opponents, state officials waived a requirement that an environmental impact report on the project be conducted. Last year, Ian Bowles, then secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, reiterated that position. STIS has submitted a petition to Richard Sullivan, the former Westfield mayor who has since replaced Bowles in the EOEEA post, asking him to overturn that decision.
*
The Public Health Council is made up of 15 members, including physicians and other health care professionals, members of the public, and the city's director of health and human services, Helen Caulton-Harris.
After last week's PHC meeting, Caulton-Harris told the Advocate that the group will request that an independent counsel be hired to advise it on what it is legally authorized to do. The PHC would like an opinion from outside of the city Law Department, she said, not because its members lack confidence in City Solicitor Ed Pikula or his staff, but rather because there have been conflicting legal interpretations offered, and the PHC would like to have the advice of an independent entity.
While the PHC has been following the matter closely, Caulton-Harris said, because a health impact assessment has not been done, the group cannot say what the effects of the project might be. "The Public Health Council, at this point, does not have all the information it needs to make an informed decision," she said.
The plant proposal did not come before the PHC prior to the 2008 special permit vote. In 2009, health council members, in response to concerns raised by residents and health professionals, held public hearings on the project. Earlier this year, Tim Allen, who chaired the health council at the time (he resigned that post after being elected city councilor for Ward 7), told the Advocate that the feedback from those hearings made it clear that the public wanted the project to undergo health and safety reviews before it moved forward—something, he said, that PHC members were assured would happen.
*
The PRE plant does face at least one more state review: it needs to get an air-quality permit from the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection.
Earlier this month, the DEP issued a draft permit for the project; the agency is now conducting a 30-day public comment period on the permit. That public comment period ends on April 9. On Tuesday, April 5, DEP will hold a hearing on the permit at 6:30 p.m. at Springfield's Duggan Middle School.
In addition, City Councilors Tim Allen and Tommy Ashe—chairs, respectively, of the planning and economic development and public health and safety committees—have scheduled a joint meeting on the plant for Thursday, March 24, at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall. On the agenda: an assessment of the developers' plans conducted by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, an engineering and planning firm hired by the city, as well as an update "on [the] entire review process including: city process, state process and Air Quality review process."
Mayor Domenic Sarno has given what he calls "conditional support" to the PRE project. Earlier this year, in response to an inquiry from the Advocate, the mayor issued this statement: "My conditional support has been and continues to be contingent on the proposed facility meeting all stringent federal, state and local environmental, health and safety requirements. My Administration will continue to give conditional support to the proposed biomass plant in the City of Springfield because it will assist with the creation of new jobs and tax revenues for the City. The City will continue to review any and all information regarding the proposed facility as the process moves forward and will evaluate the information accordingly."
City Council President Jose Tosado, who is challenging Sarno in this fall's mayoral race, voted for the 2008 special permit but has since changed his position, in light, he says, of new information that's emerged about the plant's potential effects. "We have so much more information available now that in good conscience, it's not something I can support at this point," Tosado told the Advocate in January.
SPRINGFIELD - A grassroots group that is fighting plans for a wood-burning plant in East Springfield expanded its efforts this week with a petition that urges the city's Public Health Council to intervene and force a new public hearing.
Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, in the petition filed on Wednesday, asked the health council and the Health Department to determine if the biomass energy plant proposed at 1000 Page Blvd. "may result in a nuisance or be harmful to the inhabitants, injurious to their estates, dangerous to the public health, or may be attended by noisome and injurious odors."
In a prepared statement, the group said the health council has the legal authority to require a hearing in such cases of harm to inhabitants and danger to public health under state law, Chap. 111, Sect. 143, and related laws.
The developer, Palmer Renewable Energy, has defended the project as safe and of no risk to public health.
Proponents of biomass plants say they are safe, provide energy, and produce jobs and tax revenue.
Helen R. Caulton-Harris, the city's director of health and human services, will send a request to the Law Department, seeking to hire an independent lawyer or specialist with expertise on public health laws to assist in interpreting the health council's powers and guiding its next steps.
There are conflicting interpretations of the law, she said.
The petition was filed just two days after a coalition opposed to biomass plants announced a statewide petition drive, seeking intervention by three state agencies. The coalition, which includes Stop Toxic Incineration, is asking for a moratorium on state-issued air permits for the projects and a continue freeze on renewable energy credits.
Plants are also proposed in Greenfield and Russell.
The proposed $150 million, 35-megawatt plant in Springfield would burn approximately 1,184 tons of green wood chips per day, according to plans.
The state Department of Environmental Protection has a 30-day public comment period, ending April 9, on a draft conditional plan approval. The public input includes a hearing April 5, at 6:30 p.m., at Duggan Middle School on Wilbraham Road.
Michaelann Bewsee, a representative of Stop Toxic Incineration, said the city "should not cut corners to avoid some consultant fees now in exchange for having more kids with asthma, more heart attacks and more people suffering when the air pollution worsens."
The new petition was signed by approximately 30 people in a very limited effort as only 10 signatures were needed, Bewsee said.
The Public Health Council last fall, raising concerns about air quality and respiratory disease in Springfield, asked that the state Department of Public Health conduct a full health impact study before the biomass project gets a permit to proceed.
This front page feature article in the Valley Advocate outlines how the state has failed in its duty to protect Springfield and the Pioneer Valley with proper environmental review of the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass incinerator. Furthermore, it shows how select courageous Springfield city councilors are trying to right this wrong to protect their residents in the face of a costly lawsuit.
SPRINGFIELD — Two City Councilors feel there is still a way to stop the biomass plant proposed to be built on Page Boulevard by Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE).
Councilors Timothy Allen and Michael Fenton both believe the City Council has the ability, through the city's permitting process, to take action to stop the construction.
"The ball seems to be in our court more than anyone else's," Allen told Reminder Publications.
One state permit for air quality still needs to be issued before the biomass plant can move forward.
Fenton and Allen joined Helen R. Caulton Harris, the director of Springfield's Division of Health and Human Services, at a meeting conducted Dec. 16 with state health officials in Boston.
In a letter to Mayor Domenic Sarno, Caulton Harris wrote, "The State Department of Public Health (DPH) has no legal standing since the project has been approved by Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. The State Department of Public Health has no authority to overturn a decision made by another state agency. DPH can focus on mitigation of factors that might have an impact. If the project moves forward, DPH will guide the process working with local agencies and organizations (including local public health) to direct the best use of the anticipated two million dollars."
She explained, "Finally, the last permit that is necessary is the air quality permit. The air quality permit will include a public comment period. The air quality permit could involve terms and conditions based on the criteria of the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). If an air quality permit is not issued, the project cannot go forward."
Fenton said, "The state, from an air quality standpoint, has exhausted all options except for [this] air quality permit."
Fenton said that one reason for the meeting with health officials in Boston was to "hold their feet to the fire ... why [these] guys haven't done anything."
Although Fenton admitted the meeting discouraged him and Allen, neither left the meeting thinking they could no nothing to prevent the project from happening.
Fenton noted that state law dictated that any project that was granted a special permit by a municipality that hadn't begun construction within two years would be voided. This law was overturned by a special act approved by the Legislature and Gov. Deval Patrick that extended all special permits by two years.
Allen is working on setting up a meeting with incoming Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Richard Sullivan to discuss the project.
He added he intends to "keep pursuing people at the state level."
Opponents of the PRE project believe the city is within legal boundaries to require a new special permit for the biomass plant because it has changed its fuel source from construction and demotion waste to green wood chips.
Susan Reid, senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, sent a letter on Dec. 27 to City Solicitor Edward Pikula with her interpretation of the argument made by PRE attorneys that a special permit isn't even needed for the project.
In her letter, Reid argued a special permit is needed and, now that changes have been made, a new special permit is needed for the amended plans for the facility. PRE has threatened to sue the city if the special permit is revoked and the project stalled.
"These are differences that even PRE has admitted are material," Reid wrote.
Reid wrote, "The city unquestionably has the right to revoke a special permit for just cause, and Massachusetts law prohibits any claim for damages that is based upon the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of any permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar authorization. G.L. c. 258, 10(e)."
She proposed that the City Council revoke the permit but allow PRE to submit plans for the new project. If the city holds new hearings and begins a new permitting process, that action should prevent a lawsuit.
Michaelann Bewsee of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield (STIS) said, "The members of STIS, the growing number of Springfield residents following this project, area colleges, and numerous health and medical related organizations have expressed their urgent desire for the City Council to start a new permit process. We all will be eagerly awaiting the City Council's response to the legal opinion from the senior attorney with an organization working tirelessly on our behalf."
SPRINGFIELD – The City Council will meet Monday night to discuss its options regarding a proposed wood-burning plant in East Springfield including if there are legal grounds to pursue revocation of a 2008 city permit.
City councilors, joined by representatives of various neighborhood associations in Springfield, announced the meeting plans during a press conference Wednesday afternoon at City Hall. The meeting is expected to follow special permit hearings that night at 7:30 at City Hall.
Councilor John A. Lysak, who represents Ward 8 where the $150 million biomass plant is proposed at 1000 Page Blvd., said he shares the concerns of many residents about future pollutants from the project and how it would affect public health and asthma rates.
“We are elected to fight for our citizens,” Lysak said. “I’ve been against it since before I was elected to my ward. Our children should not be breathing these pollutants in.”
Councilors said the project plans changed in October, giving rise to reconsideration of the special permit.
In related news, the presidents of Western New England College, Springfield College and American International College filed a letter with the council this week, asking the council “to revoke the original permit granted in 2008 and require a new permitting process.”
Residents attending the press conference at City Hall praised councilors for agreeing to take up the permit issue. Councilors said they have received hundreds of postcards, e-mails, and phone calls, urging them to revoke the special permit.
The developer, Palmer Renewable Energy dropped plans to burn construction and demolition debris in October, opting instead to burn green wood chips. A 388-page “Notice of Project Change” spelled out changes including the types of materials to be processed, increased tonnage, increased truck trips, and other factors, which merit the permit review, councilors said.
The state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ruled recently, however, that an Environmental Impact Report and study will not be required. Agency Secretary Ian A. Bowles said in his ruling that he is “confident that the project will meet all applicable air quality standards.”
“The City Council is taking action,” Ward 7 Councilor Timothy C. Allen said. “Someone has to.”
City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula, however, warned the council in September, prior to the developer’s change in plans, that the council cannot revoke the special permit without “just cause.” Council President Jose F. Tosado said the council will be asking Pikula for additional guidance now.
Most of the current councilors were not on the council in 2008, as the council was expanded to include ward seats in January.
“This is an issue second to none on my agenda,” said Ward 2 Councilor Michael A. Fenton, who the new councilors.
Ward 3 Councilor Melvin A. Edwards said he sees “no redeeming value for this plant,” and joined in raising concerns about public health and asthma rates.
Jesse L. Lederman, youth chairman of the McKnight Neighborhood Council, said various neighborhood councils oppose the plant.
“It has become apparent that the fate of our city now lies in the hands of the Springfield City Council,” he said.
SPRINGFIELD -- Opponents of a proposed biomass plant have charged that Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) is attempting to push its new application through the state system before federal emissions regulations change in July 2011.
They are calling on residents in greater Springfield to write state officials on their opposition to the plant. The state will accept comments through Nov. 9.
"It's the same old incinerator just with a new hair-do," Lee Ann Warner of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield (STIS) told Reminder Publications.
Numerous health organizations joined with environmental groups to protest the previous plan to burn construction and demolition waste.
PRE had been applying to the state for a permit to construct an electrical generation plan off Page Boulevard in Springfield that would use construction and demolition waste as fuel. On Oct. 6, PRE notified the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) that it was changing its fuel to green wood chips.
The move came after local opposition to the biomass plant resulted in two on-going state investigations on the harmful health and environmental impacts of burning construction and demolition waste.
In its application change form to the EOEEA, PRE wrote the switch of fuels will decrease the amount of electricity generated from 38 to 35 megawatts and will also reduce the amount of nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide.
The application also indicated a new site plan for the facility has been developed with an improved traffic plan to direct the trucks delivering the wood chips.
The application noted the plant would:
"• supply enough reliable, base-load energy to power the equivalent of 30,000 homes.
"• increase the industrial tax base of the city of Springfield.
"• create substantial new employment opportunities in the construction, operation, and procurement of fuel for the facility.
"• increase the diversity of the Commonwealth's energy supply.
"• productively use green wood chips.
"• substantially lower levels of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides emissions relative to oil and coal-fired power plants.
"• help combat global climate change as a low net carbon energy source."
The amended facility would use 1,184 tons of wood daily trucked into the plant. According to its filing, PRE would use wood supplied by Northern Tree Service Inc. of Palmer and "be limited to clean (uncontaminated) non-forest woody material, such as, tree stems, branches, stumps and brush derived from the following sources:
" commercial tree care service and landscaping firms;
" state and municipal tree and brush removal storage areas which many include clean pallets;
"• state and municipal park and recreation departments and tree care divisions;
"• utility line construction and maintenance firms;
"• development, land clearing and excavating firms;
"• Orchards"
The state's definition of "clean wood" that could be burnt at the PRE plant includes "whole trees, tree trimmings, cord wood, logs, lumber, stump grindings, saw dust, wood pellets, slabs, bark, chips, waste pallets, and/or wooden boxes."
Warner said considering the small amount of electricity that will be generated by the plant -- about one third of 1 percent of the state's energy needs -- "it's hard to understand why this [project] is going forward."
Warner said the amount of particulate pollution would be the same from the new plant as the old. The size of the particulates that would be produced here is of real concern for those with lung ailments, she explained, as they would be small enough to enter the "deepest part of your lung."
STIS estimates there will be now 140 truck trips a day along Page Boulevard to supply wood chips to the PRE plant.
Mary Booth, who holds a PhD. in ecology and is part of the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, disputes many of the statements made by PRE in its new application.
Booth said, "There are a lot of gimmicks in the new application."
For instance, she does not believe that Northern Tree Service will be able to supply enough green wood chips for the project. Massachusetts foresters already use wood chips in a variety of applications from mulch to fuel trucked to biomass plants in Maine, she noted. While PRE maintains the new plant would lower emissions from trucks transporting wood chips out of state, Booth said those plants would simply buy chips from other out-of-state sources and there would be no reductions in emissions.
She strongly disputed that emission of nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide would be decreased with the new fuel as claimed in the new application.
Ludlow Register article on the changes in the proposed waste wood incinerator. Click the link to load the electronic edition of the paper, the article is on pages 1 and 2.
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.”
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
