The Biomass Divide
by Bill Dusty
Last year when the Springfield City Council approved permitting for a biomass energy plant in East Springfield, the news passed largely unnoticed by residents in the communities surrounding the proposed plant site.
The Council vote was 7 in favor and 2 against, with city councilors Patrick Markey and Rosemarie Mazza-Moriarty tossing in the “no” votes.
Since that time, voices in opposition to the proposed plant have been steadily rising. Similar biomass plants being planned in other parts of Western Massachusetts, such as Russell Biomass and Pioneer Renewable Energy in Greenfield, have also caught flak from concerned citizens. All the biomass plants are being billed as “green” energy-producing alternatives to oil and gas, while their critics say these plants are anything but environmentally friendly.
Nationally, the federal government has been pumping billions of dollars into the biomass industry. In 2008, according to a report issued by the federal government’s Biomass Research and Development Board, the United States funneled over $1 billion in funding to the Department of Agriculture for renewable energy initiatives as part of the 2008 Farm Bill, with nearly $1 billion more being tacked on by the Department of Energy for funding research partnerships between government, academic groups and private industry.
Here in Western Massachusetts, it’s been smooth sailing for the biomass industry. Permitting approvals have cruised through state and local governments eager to see jobs come to the region. Talk of “clean” energy and a reduction on oil dependency have further greased the wheels that keep the biomass engine chugging along.
But a closer, more critical look at the biomass alternative raises questions as to whether or not such plants really do provide effective clean energy solutions to their communities.
Residents in both Russell and Greenfield have voiced concerns about air pollution as well as the large increase in heavy traffic that would come from hundreds of truckloads a day of wood fuel being transported to their respective plants. On their Web site, the activist group Concerned Citizens of Russell has cited increases in air pollution that would include daily emissions of carbon monoxide (1,400 pounds), particulate matter (214 pounds), sulfur dioxide (631 pounds), and nitrous oxide (1,339 pounds), should the proposed biomass plant open in that town.
Meanwhile, the environmental concerns for residents in Springfield and other nearby communities look to be potentially far greater. That’s because although the proposed plants in Russell and Greenfield would be required to burn only fresh forest wood products or clean wood waste (such as wood chips, roadside tree trimming waste, and untreated wood pallets), the Springfield plant, managed by Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE), will be allowed to burn not only natural, clean waste but also construction and demolition waste materials. According to a handout distributed by Palmer Renewable Energy, about 700 tons of recycled, “positively-picked” wood from construction and demolition sites would be burned each day (in addition to 200 tons of residual, “green” wood waste). To help keep track of toxic emissions, the plant would have in place “the most comprehensive and most expensive” air quality control system in the state, according to the handout. The system would continuously monitor levels of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and particulate matter – all of which are of great concern to area residents. The plant would also have to undergo quarterly “stack testing” in its first year of operation.
With all of that continuous tracking and testing going on, one would assume that Palmer Renewable would be a well-monitored plant after it comes on-line. But just who would be in charge of all the monitoring going on at this site?
“The monitoring of fuel will be solely Palmer’s responsibility,” said Mary Booth, co-founder of the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, at a recent meeting of the Springfield Public Health Council. “The sorting [of wood], the testing that will be done at the plant itself, will be pretty much entirely up to the developer,” she said, while acknowledging the Department of Environmental Protection would have “nominal oversight.”
Attendees pack a meeting of the Springfield Public Health Council, held at the Pine Point Community Center.
And if the testing conditions were not already beneficial enough Palmer Renewable, the deck also appears to be stacked in its favor when it comes to the government-approved emission levels themselves.
Booth presented a laundry list of emissions standards set for Palmer Renewable that exceeded accepted levels at other locations. To start, Booth said carbon emissions at Palmer would be nearly 1.5 times as much per unit of energy as levels at Mt. Tom’s 146-megawatt coal burning power plant, and almost 4 times as much as a gas-fired power plant under construction in Westfield. Lead emissions, said Booth, would be higher than levels found at the Bondi’s Island waste incinerator. As for mercury emissions, Booth said the Mt. Tom coal plant just invested over $57 million in upgrades to comply with emissions standards imposed by the state, “and along comes Palmer’s stinky little 38-megawatt plant which gets to emit more mercury than Mt. Tom.”
Booth, among others present at the Public Health Council meeting, which was held at the Pine Point Community Center two weeks ago, argued that the biomass plant was ill-suited for the surrounding community. The plant would be located on Page Boulevard in East Springfield, in what critics say is a largely residential neighborhood. With poor air quality already an issue in the Pioneer Valley due to decades of pollution drifting in from New York and the mid-western industrial states, the proposed biomass plants would only pile on more toxic and particulate air pollution, Booth said.
Michaelann Bewsee, co-founder of the local activist group Arise for Social Justice, attended the Health Council meeting and was the first featured speaker. She said the PRE plant sailed through city hearings last year with little public notification. Read more of her comments on the PRE plant here.
Representatives for Palmer Renewable Energy did not attend the meeting, but a two-page handout outlining their positions was made available to attendees. The handout stated: “The process of wood biomass for the production of power will produce substantial greenhouse gas reduction. The EPA greenhouse gas calculator shows that the Plant will produce an annual reduction of 281,080 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. This reduction is equivalent to taking 51,480 passenger cars off the road every year.”
Also at the Public Health Council meeting, Springfield City Councilor Pat Markey urged the opposition not to give up.
“This really is the first time this issue has been aired publicly,” said Markey. At last year’s City Council hearing, he said, the biomass plant construction plan was sold to the Council as an economic development issue. Markey said that regardless of any controls or standards placed upon PRE power plant, there would still be a net increase in air pollution as a result of its operations.
“Go out, tell your friends, tell your neighbors, show up at the next meeting,” said Markey.
That next meeting is a Department of Environmental Protection air quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, December 2, at 7pm at the Kennedy Middle School, located at 1385 Berkshire Avenue in Springfield.
The preliminary decision to approve construction of the Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant will then be finalized on December 18, 2009, said Markey.
PDF
Comments are closed
ADVERTISE AT THE SI
 |
 |
