Residents: Waste plan should ban burning

Date: 9/15/2010

Sept. 15, 2010

By G. Michael Dobbs

Managing Editor

SPRINGFIELD -- Although the new proposed plan to decrease solid waste in the Commonwealth didn't exactly address the practice of burning construction and demolition waste to generate electricity, many of the 30 or so people who attended a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) hearing at the City Library Monday night shifted the focus of the meeting to that subject.

Two Springfield City Councilors, Tim Allen and Zaida Luna, also attended.

In the fifth in a series of six hearings across the state conducted by the DEP to gather public input on the proposed "Solid Waste Master Plan: Pathway to Zero Waste" the subject that dominated the proceedings was the Palmer Renewable Energy facility that is now on hold pending two state reports on environmental impact. The biomass facility, if built, would burn construction and demolition waste -- as much as a 700 tons a day -- and has raised concerns from local residents, elected officials and health and environmental activists.

Currently the DEP and the Commonwealth's Department of Public Health are undertaking two studies that would, according to the DEP officials at the hearing, take 20 months to complete.

John Fischer, a branch chief in the Waste Planning Division of the DEP, facilitated the meeting and explained the goal of the state was to create a plan that would guide waste management programs for the next 10 years and possibly beyond. Citing statistics on recycling, he noted statewide there hasn't been any real increase in recycling.

He described the situation as "flat."

The goal of the master plan is to develop strategies and programs to reduce waste going into landfills and incinerators -- such as Springfield's Bondi's Island facility -- by 30 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050.

Fischer said the plan recommends at this point the implementation of pay-as-you-throw garbage disposal programs, which greatly increase recycling; an expansion of the bottle bill; creating greater composting of food wastes; improve existing incinerators for greater efficiency; work with industries on recycling; and improve recycling efforts of electronics.

Fischer, under questioningfrom the audience, readily admitted the DEP's authority is limited and many of the plan's points would have be enacted by the Legislature. He also said a change in administration could alter the contents of the plan and how it is implemented.

The only funding source mentioned for the programs was an energy credit that would be issued to the municipal incinerators that generate electricity Springfield's is one of them -- to sell to the national grid from the burning of garbage. The sale of those tax credits could then fund programs.

Some of those attending criticized the DEP for conducting a meeting at 5 p.m. -- when many people were just getting out of work -- in the community room of the library, which they called "too small." The audience did not fill all of the seats set up for the hearing.

Others believed the DEP inadequately publicized the event and questioned if the DEP had reached out to the Latino community.

Allen questioned Fischer on how the DEP announces its findings and asked if there could be better communication between the agency and the public.

Several audience members called for specific language to be included in the plan banning the incineration of construction and demolition waste. Fischer explained this plan is not a policy document to directly address that issue. The plan would advocate for the creation of markets for used construction materials that do not include it being fuel.

One audience member questioned if the DEP was trying to eliminate as much municipal waste going to landfills and incinerators why it would have a tax credit program for the incinerators. Fischer also acknowledged the apparent contradiction in proposed policy.

Bill Gibson of Springfield, who identified himself as a contractor, brought samples of demolition debris to show its inappropriateness as a fuel. He pointed out painted surfaces as well as stains that could have been caused by hazardous chemicals.

Before the meeting, Megan Jenny of the Toxic Action Center conducted a press conference outside of the library and led a group of local opponents to the construction and demolition facility. Carrying their sneakers, they urged the state not just to "talk the talk, but to walk the walk."

During the hearing, Jenny testified the plan should have its incineration "loopholes" closed and ban burning. Jenny also said the timeline is not ambitious enough and the state could reach an 80 percent reduction of waste in within 20 years. She also said the plan needs to better deal with food and yard waste, which make up one-third of the waste stream.

Finally, she thought the plan does not have enough "teeth" and needs stronger enforcement.

Fischer said the DEP is accepting written comments by Oct. 1. They can be mailed to John.Fischer@state.ma.us.

To read the entire plan, go to www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/priorities/dswmpu01.htm.