Biomass backstabbing-- citizens being sold down the river (but we're still swimming upstream)

To be blunt, this has not been a good week for biomass opponents and the residents of Springfield.   At Monday night's city council meeting, we expected councilors to authorize themselves to appeal the building permits issued to Palmer Renewable Energy for construction of a biomass plant.  Instead,  an obviously choreographed effort   between city solicitor Ed Pikula and Councilors Walsh, Ferrera and Rooke paved the way for Walsh to introduce rule 20, bringing the proceedings to an abrupt halt.   Western Mass. Politics and Insight   has an excellent blow-by-blow description of the evening's farce.

"Don't worry, we'll fix this on Monday," Councilor Mike Fenton told us, and I believe that he and the other nine councilors who also appose this biomass plant will prevail,  but it gives the council less time to file an appeal-- the deadline is December 15.

We've had some members researching campaign contributions from PRE's owners, family members and attorney, but the Valley Advocate summed it up nicely for us before we could finish. From the Callahan family:

• Jimmy Ferrera: $1,400
• Bud Williams: $1,400
• Kateri Walsh: $1,250
• Tim Rooke: $750

 From Callahan's attorney, Frank Fitzgerald:

• Walsh: $500
• Ferrera: $350
• Rooke:  $250
• Williams $250

 Now, do I think a councilor's vote can be bought so cheaply?  Possibly.....but what I actually suspect is that there were far more substantial offers of assistance, financial and otherwise, made to city councilors by PRE this year, which will never appear in a list of campaign contributions.  I suspect that that if city councilors revealed the extent to which they have been lobbied and cajoled, we would be shocked. 

But what I absolutely believe is that no city councilor should accept a financial contribution from any person who has business before the council and who would benefit financially from a council decision.

Second piece of bad news: just today, DEP handed down a "recommended" decision about our air permit appeal, basically saying that citizens have no "standing" to appeal a DEP-issued permit!  On the advice of attorneys, I'm not going to comment on our legal strategies at this point in time (except to say we still have plenty!), especially as the decision is not final until approved by DEP Commissioner Ken Kimmel.  Our press release is below.  

I do, however, want people to think about the ramifications of this decision if it is upheld.  Clearly, DEP would not apply this decision only to PRE opponents, or only to those appealing air permits.   Think about it.  And we'll talk more later.

JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE
MA DEP’S RECOMMENDED FINAL DECISION
ON THE AIR PERMIT APPEAL REGARDING PALMER RENEWABLE ENERGY
BIOMASS PLANT IN SPRINGFIELD, MA

Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution Says
No One Other than Developer Can Raise Administrative Challenges to
Power Plant Air Permits – Not Even Affected Residents

BOSTON, MA  November 30, 2011 – Conservation Law Foundation, Arise for Social Justice, and Toxics Action Center today issued the following joint statement in response to the Massachusetts DEP’s recommended final decision on the air permit appeal for Palmer Renewable Energy’s proposed biomass-fueled Power Plant in Springfield, MA.

“This decision, if adopted, would change the rules so as to prevent affected members of the public from participating in administrative appeals of air permits. It also would undermine the state’s clean energy agenda. The recommended decision, which does not address the substance of the petitioners’ claims, essentially says that no one other than the developer has the right to raise administrative challenges to power plant air permits – not even people already suffering from severe respiratory illness, nor people suffering from disproportionate air pollution burdens. We look to DEP Commissioner Kimmel to reject the recommended decision and preserve the right of Massachusetts residents to have a voice in decisions that affect their health.”

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people. Using the law, science and the market, CLF creates solutions that preserve natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy region-wide. Founded in1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization with offices in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

# # #

Jose Tosado: one more councilor opposed to the biomass incinerator

On Monday night, at Springfield City Council, Palmer Renewable Energy proponents will appear before the council to answer questions about whether or not their plant should go forward.  Those of us who've been working so hard to stop this plant from being built and polluting our air have lots of reasons why the plant is bad for Springfield, but Springfield city councilors will only be able to legally challenge PRE's project based on difference between their original permit, granted by the council in 2008, and their new proposal for what developers want to build now.  The council won't be able to take a vote to revoke the original permit on Monday, because PRE did not receive a full 14 days notice of the hearing.  Still, it's a big step in the right direction.  Whether we currently have a two-thirds majority of councilors in opposition is still not clear-- but hey, we're not done trying. 

Yesterday I received an advance copy of the following letter from City Council President Jose Tosado, who has been noncommittal about the plant until this point .  Mark down one more for being on the side of the residents of Springfield.

On Monday December 13 at 8 o'clock in the evenning the Springfield City Council will conduct a special meeting with representatives of  Palmer Renewable Energy.  The meeting will follow a hearings format where proponents and opponents will be allowed a set amount of time to speak.

When I voted for this project over a year ago it was based on the information available at that time which seemed like an environmentally friendly recycleing plant; however as time has passed there is much more information available and we have been provided with a mountain of information from citizens and public health officials about the negative impact that a bio mass plant located in a densely populated neighborhood would have on the health and quality of life for our residents. Springfield residents and our children in particular already live with their fair share of airborn pollutants.  A new biomass plant with ffity five schools within a five mile radius will exacerbate already unacceptable health disparities.

Beyond the public health impacts, research shows that prenatal and early childhood exposure to airborne pollutants has an impact on brain development, student achievement, attendance and other factors that predict the overall success off the next generation of Springfield residents.  Given our current education challenges, can we really afford to further stack the deck against our future generation of students?

I am grateful that our residents, community groups, regional health and environmental organizations as well as our Public Health Commission have mobilized to make sure that we have all the facts.

Over the course of the past several months I have had an opportunity to hear directly from opponents of this plant as well as from officials of Palmer Renewable Energy and based on all the information which I have recieved and reviewed, in good conscious I could not and cannot support this project.

 

Jose F. Tosado, President

Springfield City Council

Photo of Jose Tosado and E. Henry Twiggs, City Council Vice President, from Jose's website. 

Biomass update: Ian Bowles must think we're idiots

Tonight members of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield (STIS) are giving a presentation to Councilor Jimmy Ferrera's Green Cities Initiative Committee.  It may seem like not much is happening on the "biomass" front, but we want to keep spreading the word and keep building opposition to this incinerator.  I think we're in the "calm  before the storm" period.

Last December, at the Department of Environmental Protection's air permit hearing for Palmer Renewable Energy's proposed incinerator,  Springfield residents packed Kennedy Middle School to say "NO!" to the proposal.  I actually thought PRE owners would get their permit, and then we'd have to battle this out in court, but instead, Secretary Ian Bowles of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs announced that permits for C&D burning incinerators-- the Springfield plant and one in Somerset-- would be suspended pending a study on the plants' impact on our communities' health.

I've kept in touch with the state to find out when this study would begin, and although we're getting closer, there's still no firm date.  What I do know is that when DEP and the Department of Public Health finish defining the "scope of work" of the study, they will hold a meeting in Springfield where we can have input into the scope of work plan-- at least we're told we can have input.  We'll have to see what happens, but once we know the date for this meeting, we'll make sure residents of Springfield know about it, also.

But just how legitimate is this study going to be?  I'm certainly hoping for the best, and we're going to do everything we can to make sure the study is thorough and fair, but apparently Secretary Bowles doesn't think our concerns about our community's health are real.  Yesterday he was quoted in a New York Times in "waste-to-energy" plants in Europe.

“Europe has gotten out ahead with this newest technology,” said Ian A. Bowles, a former Clinton administration official who is now the Massachusetts state secretary of energy.

Still, Mr. Bowles said that as America’s current landfills topped out and pressure to reduce heat-trapping gases grew, Massachusetts and some other states were “actively considering” new waste-to-energy proposals; several existing plants are being expanded. He said he expected resistance all the same in a place where even a wind turbine sets off protests. 

 Hey, I'll take a wind turbine anytime over the toxic incinerator that Bowles initially promoted and approved.  But we weren't given that option, were we?

Check out the article.  I don't know much about the technology Europe is using (guess I'll have to find out!) but here's what I do know:  the technology PRE is proposing is light years behind the European plants, and the countries profiled in this article recycle everything that can be recycled before incinerating anything-- very far very far from being the case in this country OR in this city.  Shouldn't we be doing that first before we even think about burning trash?

Photo from zaskem's photostream at Flickr.

"Biomass" incinerators: where we stand right now in Springfield and Western Mass

I've been flat out the last three weeks organizing against the proposed "biomass" incinerator being planned for Springfield by Palmer Renewable Energy with not even any time to blog.  Fortunately, other bloggers have stepped up and covered recent events, so I'm going to give a quick overview of what's been happening, link to those stories, and try to give an idea of where we opponents of the incinerator, who call ourselves Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield,  need to go now.  For a refresher in why I and so many other oppose this plant, see this post.

On November 18, at our request, the Springfield Public Health Council turned the entirety of its regular meeting over to testimony from opponents as to why PRE's proposal is a threat to our community's health. Even though we'd done a lot of outreach for this meeting, I was still astounded to see more than a hundred people, the majority of whom I didn't recognize, come out to learn more.  The Springfield Institute videotaped much of the hearing, including a power point presentation by Mass. Environmental Energy Alliance's Mary Booth, and has links to much of the written testimony that was submitted both to the Public Health Council and also to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as it was the last day to submit written comment of PRE's Beneficial Use Determination permit.  Springfield Intruder's Bill Dusty also attended this hearing and his post covers some of the history of the forward movement of this plant.

The Public Health Council had already told us that they wanted to hear both sides of the story, and would be hearing from PRE developers on December 1.  Some of our members made that meeting, but most of us were focused on the December 2 air permitting hearing that DEP was having the next day at Kennedy Middle School.  The deadline for submitting comments was, at that time, Friday, December 4.

I met briefly with Vic Gatto, PRE's founder and chief operating officer, on December 1.  I wanted to know if PRE was willing to do a Health Impact Assessment, as called for by the Mass. Department of Public Health, before moving ahead.  Mr. Gatto indicated some willingness to underwrite the study, but suggested Epsilon Associates (the business that did such a poor job of outreach for the plant) and said he was NOT willing to subject himself to the regulations of another state agency, meaning DPH.  I left that meeting feeling that if PRE chose the company to do the health impact assessment, the assessment would be meaningless.

At the December 2 air permitting hearing, I found myself once again astounded by the turnout of area residents.  Some 300 people packed the school's auditorium!  The developers were included among that 300, but oddly, no one from PRE spoke in the plant's defense (no one spoke on behalf of the plant at all).  I must say that that concerned me-- did the developers feel their testimony was unnecessary in order for them to receive their needed permits?  So many people had such excellent comments that I won't even give a sampling, but my ears did perk up when Tim Allen, city councilor-elect and chair of the Springfield Public Health Council, said that the council would be making a decision about the testimony it's taken next week.  Blogger Tony Mateus has covered the hearing very well in his post at In The Valley.

At the hearing,  DEP announced that they had extended the comment period for the air permit until December 18.  This is important.  Anyone who wants to submit comments can still do so by emailing marc.simpson@state.ma.us.(although on DEP's website, the deadline is still listed at the 4th).

The next day, Thursday, December 5, I called Dave Howland at DEP and was told the very good news that permits for Palmer Renewable Energy were on hold!  Apparently enough questions have been raised about the possible health effects of PRE on our community that DEP wants to see them answered, and believes there needs to be a thorough study.  I expressed some concern that PRE would choose a consultant that was already on their side.  Mr. Howland said he thought thet DEP and PRE needed to take their sense of direction from the Mass. Department of Public Health.  Although DPH would not be the ones doing the study, they certainly know who is qualified to do so.  When I asked how long the permits would be on hold, Mr. Howland said several months at least, "unless PRE is a miracle worker"  and finds a way to answer DEP's questions very quickly.

Also on that same day, The Springfield Republican announced that 5 proposed ballot questions were likely to appear on the ballot next November.  One of those questions, by the organization Stop Spewing Carbon, would set the bar for carbon emissions low enough that biomass plants could not be considered renewable and would therefore not be eligible for Renewable Energy Certificates, making it unfeasible for many of these proposed plants to operate.

What I find very interesting is that on the day before the ballot question announcement, the Mass. Department of Energy Resources let biomass energy stakeholders and the general public know that all applications for these Renewable Energy Certificates were on hold until  a study being done by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, which was commissioned by DOER to study the sustainability of biomass incinerators in Massachusetts, could be completed and evaluated.  Now, we can put this into the "Let's head them off at the pass and defuse the opposition" category or the "great minds think alike" category, but it doesn't really matter, because it's a good thing that the state is asking itself these questions.

BUT HERE'S WHAT'S ABSOLUTELY INFURIATING: When the Springfield Republican's reporter Stan Freeman covered this story, he said that it was a moratorium on biomass!  That is completely incorrect!  His first paragraph:  "The state has formally suspended consideration of any applications to build new biomass plants, including proposals for Springfield, Russell and Greenfield, pending a study of whether energy from the power plants is truly renewable." is wrong, wrong, wrong!  Only the Renewable Energy Certificates have been suspended, and only for the length of time needed to complete and evaluate Manomet's study.  Biomass incinerators are free to continue seeking and obtaining local and state permits for their projects, and if they don't need Renewable Energy Certificates (which are financial incentives) to operate, then this suspension of RECs won't affect them at all.  Palmer hasn't even applied for them.  Mary Serreze at Northampton Media gives a good overview of DOER's announcement.

I'm hoping Stan Freeman will see fit to correct this story.  Meanwhile, I have to give a shout-out here for the local weeklies, the Springfield Reminder, Chicopee Register and Ludlow Register.   These papers have really helped get the word out to area residents about PRE's incinerator.  (The Valley Advocate has been completely missing in action and hasn't returned my phone call about why.) 

Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield is meeting again this Tuesday to figure out our next steps.  I'm hoping we'll feel as if we can proceed at a somewhat less hectic pace through December, but we'll see.

Photos from the Springfield Institute and In The Valley. 

Seven reasons to oppose a toxic incinerator in Springfield.

Palmer Renewable Energy’s proposal to build an electricity-generating biomass plant in Springfield, Massachusetts is moving very quickly, now—the developers need two more permits and then they get the green light.

I myself refuse to call PRE’s proposal a biomass plant: it’s a construction and demolition wood-burning incinerator that will provide a few jobs, create a little electricity, and degrade and pollute our community.  What a trade-off!

Some of us, in a new group called Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, have been working very hard to stop PRE from going ahead.  We need a lot more help because time is so short.  But I will say that I haven’t talked to a single person who, once he or she knows about the plant, is in favor of it, although I’m sure there are some, especially where potential financial benefits may exist—a job, for example, or a neighborhood improvement project.  Well, times are tough and I can’t blame them.  They’re not the one who will be making the big bucks from this project.

The Springfield Public Health Council is concerned enough about the health threats of this incinerator to dedicate their next meeting, this Wednesday, November 18, to hearing concerns. The meeting will start at 6 pm. at the Pine Point Citizens Council, 335 Berkshire Ave.  It’s an open meeting and I hope that people will take this opportunity to learn more .

Then, on Wednesday, December 2^nd, the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection will be holding a public hearing on whether to grant PRE an air permit.  This is folks’ chance to hear what PRE has to say, to hear the concerns of Springfield’s residents, and to ask questions.  The meeting starts at 7 pm. at  Kennedy Middle School, 1385 Berkshire Ave.

Air is no respecter of town and county borders.  Here are seven reasons residents of the Pioneer Valley should be against PRE’s proposal.

1. WE’RE HEALTH-STRESSED ENOUGH ALREADY.  We live in the Pioneer Valley, where air is often trapped like an inverted bowl-- and PRE’s proposed incinerator is only one of five being planned for Western Mass.

 Almost half the population of Hampden County is already considered at risk from the effects of air pollution. Our childhood asthma rate is 50% higher than the state average.  The American Lung Association gives our county an F based on smog and short and year round levels of fine particulate matter (FPM), of which there are no “safe” levels.  Why would we want to make things worse than they already are?

Our children have blood lead levels about twice the state average; PRE’s incinerator will send another ton of lead into the air. Chromium, mercury, dioxin, arsenic, nickel, cadmium, manganese, antimony, beryllium, cobalt, selenium will also be emitted by this plant, all within “safe” levels.  Exposure to pollutants is linked not only to poor health and sometimes fatalities but also to a decline in I.Q.

2. THE REGULATIONS DON’T PROTECT US.  Somehow the projected emission levels came in just below the threshold that would have required a full environmental impact review by the state Department of Environmental Protection.  Even assuming that the state regulations that apply to this plant can be met, each of the five wood-burning plants proposed for Western Mass. is judged separately—combined impacts are not taken into account.  Emissions from the machines that will run the plant and emissions from the 160 trucks delivering 900 tons of fuel each day aren’t counted in emission totals, either.

 We’re guinea pigs for the rest of the state.

3. THE PLANT EMISSIONS MONITORING SYSTEM IS FULL OF HOLES. PRE’s fuel will come from third parties that want to sell their fuel and have every incentive to bend the rules.  No one will know on any given day what is being burned; there’s no stack monitoring of toxins and no real-time third-party testing of what comes out of the smokestack.
   

4. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT BEEN PLAYING FAIR WITH US.  Springfield’s Planning Dept. presented PRE’s proposal to City Council as a “recycling plant” when PRE sought a zone change.  The state defined Springfield as an “Environmental Justice Community” and then didn’t follow its own guidelines for informing the public so we could have real and timely input. 

5. PROPERTY VALUES AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WILL DECLINE.  More trucks, more traffic, more pollution, more noise and a smokestack as high as the city’s landmark Campanile, will, as in other communities lead to a decline in property values estimated by some realtors as up to 20%.          
   

6. THE PLANT IS A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY.  Without huge state and federal subsidies, this plant would not have been feasible.  All five proposed plants will meet only 1% of the state’s energy needs.  If we subsidized weatherization and conservation instead, we could reduce our need for energy by far more than 1%.
   

7. BURNING WOOD FOR FUEL TAKES US BACK TO THE CAVEMAN DAYS.  We banned new incinerators in Massachusetts 20 years ago and with good reason.  Burning wood creates pollution! Trees don’t grow as fast as we can burn them, so they can’t be carbon-neutral. The planet is in trouble and wood-burning incinerators will only make things worse.

 It’s not too late to make a difference.  You can join our group.  (Check out our website at Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield.) You can pass out flyers.  You can let our elected officials know how you feel.  Start by calling your new ward councilors; some are already opposed.  Call your state senators and representative.  Then make three more calls: to Gov. Deval Patrick at 888-870-7770, DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt at 617-292-5500, and Secretary Ian Bowles of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs at 617-626-1000.  Tell them: no toxic incinerators in Springfield—or anywhere else in Massachusetts!

Textile art from Bascom Hogue's photostream at Flickr.  

Impact zone: how much of our communities will be affected by a new incineration plant?

This is a map of the schools within a five mile area of the wood-burning incineration plant proposed by Palmer Renewable Energy. The plant will be placed just off Page Blvd. on Cadwell Dr. in Springfield.

I need community input to help fill in the other "sensitive receptors" in that five mile area. Hospitals, health clinics, nursing homes, day care centers, senior centers, elder housing, public and private recreational facilities, reservoirs-- anything that might be affected by a decrease in air quality or by pollutants such as lead and mercury that will fall to the ground or on the water.

Our area is already out of compliance with EPA ozone rules; our asthma rates are significantly higher than the state average; the plant will add a ton of lead plus other contaminants to our environment. You can find out a LOT more by going to Say No to Construction and Demolition Debris Incineration. You can help us flesh out this map by leaving a comment here or sending an email to stoptoxic@gmail.com.

There will be an air permit hearing sometime within the next several months, where the public can tell the Department of Environmental Protection that we don't feel "protected" by their regulations! Stay tuned.

How high is 275 feet? (PRE's smokestack)

Took me a bit of time, but the following picture of a Giant Sequoia tree is exactly the same height as the smokestack of Palmer Renewable Energy's proposed biomass plant, to be sited on Cadwell Dr. in Springfield, MA. Look closely-- that speck near the bottom is a person. (I believe the tree is named "General Sherman."