Area residents gather to protest Springfield biomass plant

Date: 11/25/2009

By G. Michael Dobbs

Managing Editor



SPRINGFIELD -- Opponents from Springfield, Holyoke, Chicopee, Westfield, Southwick and East Longmeadow to the proposed biomass plant that would burn construction and demolition waste as fuel urged the city's Public Health Advisory Council to help stop the plant at the Nov. 18 meeting conducted at the Pine Point Senior Center.

Chairman Timothy Allen explained that no representatives of Palmer Renewable Energy were present at the meeting and that a separate meeting for the developers to respond to the criticism will be arranged sometime before the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducts a Dec. 2 hearing to determine the final stage of the approval process.

In their place, the developers delivered a fact sheet about the plant to the council, which was distributed to the attendees at the close of the meeting.

Allen said only after the meeting with the developers would the council vote on the issue. He added the city's law department was currently reviewing what, if any, authority the council has.

Mayor Domenic Sarno, through his aide Thomas Walsh, told Reminder Publications prior to the meeting that he approves of the plant and the jobs and tax benefits it would bring as long as the stringent standards set for the plant by the state are met.

There was standing room only at the meeting, which was also attended by current City Councilor Patrick Markey, one of two members of the council -- the other being Rosemary Mazza-Moriarty -- who voted against permitting the biomass plant. Several city councilors-elect also attended the meeting.

Michaelann Bewsee of ARISE reminded the Public Health Advisory Council the plant has not been well publicized, there was no site plan review and no full environmental impact review was undertaken.

Bewsee acknowledged the plant has received the support of state subsidies, as well as endorsements by various unions and approval by the East Forest Park Neighborhood Council.

Mary Booth, with the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, said the emissions the plant would add to the air in Western Massachusetts would only make a bad situation worse. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2009 National Air Toxins Assessment notes that Massachusetts as a whole is currently out of compliance with ground level ozone levels. The proposed plant, Booth asserted, would release more nitrous oxide, the precursor of ozone.

She explained the EPA has stated current air quality standards are "not protective." She believes that facilities such as this one are attempting to establish themselves before the agency can strengthen the standards.

The plant would also release more particulate matter and heavy metals that could affect levels of cancer and asthma, she added. There are very high rates of asthma in the neighborhoods close to the Page Boulevard location of the plant, she said.

She noted the state had re-classified materials from construction and demolition from "waste" to "fuel" to allow the facility to accept materials to burn other than wood waste products like other proposed biomass plants in Greenfield and Russell. She said that 45 tractor-trailers of waste would be delivered six days a week. She added that 75 percent of this material would come in from out of state.

Booth also questioned the need for the plant that will generate 38 megawatts of electricity when a larger more energy efficient plant using natural gas is being developed locally as well.

Dr. James Wong of the Hampden District Medical Society also told the council that his organization has extended its opposition to the Russell Biomass Plant to the Palmer Renewable Energy Project.

In light that the area already is failing in air quality, "the Palmer Biomass Plant appears to be particularly heinous," Wong said.

The project is also opposed by the Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition, the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition and the American Lung Association.

Markey explained to the audience the biomass plant was presented to the City Council as an economic development issue "as so many ideas are sold in Springfield."

He said this meeting was really the first time the public had an opportunity for public comment.

"We can not afford an additional ounce of pollution," he added.

Jim Staples of the city's Traffic Commission, said there have been $3 to $4 million in repairs to Carew Street and Page Boulevard and he feared the additional truck traffic generated by the plant could "make mush of that highway."

The fact sheet supplied by Palmer Renewable Energy maintained the plant will meet all state standards for air pollution and would feature "a scrubber, a fabric filter and a control system for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds."

"This important system for air control is the most comprehensive and most expensive to be deployed in Massachusetts," was also presented in the fact sheet. Additional statements in the fact sheet maintain that traffic on Page Boulevard would only increase less than one percent with the additional trucks and noise from the plant will also be controlled "so that impacts in the immediate neighborhood will be negligible."

The DEP air quality permitting hearing will be Dec. 2 at 7 p.m. at the Kennedy Middle School, 1385 Berkshire Ave.

Markey told the audience "this passes if we don't make enough noise."