When Rick Sullivan, the former mayor of Westfield, became the new secretary of the Mass. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, opponents of a power plant proposed in Springfield hoped the new hire might be good news for their cause.
Critics of the plant—a $150 million, 35-megawatt wood-burning facility to be sited on Page Boulevard in East Springfield—had been deeply unhappy with decisions by Sullivan’s predecessor, Ian Bowles, that the project would not be subject to a comprehensive environmental impact review. Initially, the plant, proposed by Palmer Renewable Energy, would have emitted high enough levels of government-defined “hazardous air pollutants” (specifically, nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide) to trigger a required Major Comprehensive Air Plan Approval process by the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection.
But last year, the developers amended the plan, resulting in those emission levels dropping just below the threshold to require that review.
Opponents of the project, citing concerns about its effects on public health and the environment, called for Bowles to use his discretion to require a comprehensive review by the Mass. Environmental Protection Agency. Bowles, however, rejected those calls, most recently last November, when the agency issued a certificate for newly amended plans for the project. At the time, Bowles said he was “confident that the project will meet all applicable air quality standards,” noting that emissions would be reduced by an improved air pollution control system and changes in fuel sources for the plant.
When Sullivan took over the job, residents concerned about the plant hoped that a new secretary—one from western Mass., no less—would take a new look at the project. Last month, Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, the grassroots group leading the fight against the plant, filed a petition with MEPA asking for the review.
Recently, they received disappointing news. In a letter announcing his decision, Sullivan wrote that, after reviewing the situation, “I have concluded that no further MEPA review is warranted.” So, with no relief apparently coming from that part of the state government, STIS is amplifying its call for Springfield city officials to step up and kill the project.
STIS, a coalition of medical, neighborhood and social justice groups, contends that the Palmer Renewable Energy plant would exacerbate the already poor air quality—and attendant public health problems—in the region. (See “Power Play,” Jan. 27, 2011)
While they warn that the plant will affect the entire region, much of their focus has been on the potential damage to its would-be host community. Springfield has been recognized by both the state and federal governments as an “Environmental Justice Community,” a designation given to communities that face especially tough public health challenges. In Springfield, that includes high rates of both asthma—20 percent of the city’s schoolchildren have asthma, twice the statewide rate—and lead poisoning.
The Mass. Department of Public Health calls Springfield a “high-risk community for childhood lead poisoning,” with 2010 statistics showing that the city’s children have levels of lead in their blood at double the statewide rate. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Some of the environmental health concerns that the Springfield community faces are poor air quality (point [and] mobile sources), home indoor air quality, lead, hazardous waste, pesticides and drinking, surface and ground water.”
These circumstances, STIS argues, warrant an additional review of the project by the state. But in his response, dated March 31, Sullivan referred to Bowles’ earlier decisions not to require the review, and said that no changes had been made to the project to warrant overturning those decisions. Sullivan also noted that the project has already “complied with MEPA requirements concerning disclosure of environmental impacts including, but not limited to, air emissions, greenhouse gas impacts and public health impacts.”
The project, Sullivan continued, has undergone review at the state and local levels (the latter a special permit granted to the developers by the City Council in 2008) and that public input from those processes “has resulted in changes and improvements to the proposed project.” Most notably, PRE dropped its initial plan to burn construction and demolition waste at the plant, and now says it will burn only “green” wood chips.
Sullivan also noted that the project is still in the midst of a review process for an air quality permit from the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection. “MassDEP can, through its air permitting process, ensure that the proponent adequately mitigates the PRE project to avoid damage to the environment,” Sullivan wrote.
The public comment period on that permit was recently extended until April 29. Public comments about the permit can be submitted through DEP’s website, where the draft permit is also available for viewing. (Go to www.mass.gov/dep and search for “Palmer Renewable Energy.”)
With the state review of the project now apparently limited to the air quality permit (something STIS and others expect will be granted), opponents say it’s even more crucial that city officials take up the matter.
STIS has repeatedly asked the City Council to revoke the special permit it granted to PRE in 2008. While the city Law Department has said the Council lacks the legal authority to do that, Council President (and mayoral candidate) Jose Tosado recently called for a revocation hearing to be scheduled. Tosado voted for the permit in 2008 but has since changed his position, saying he can no longer support the project in light of new information about its potential effects.
Of the other councilors who voted for the permit in 2008, three—Tim Rooke, Kateri Walsh and Jimmy Ferrera—remain in the Council. Several councilors who’ve joined the body since then are opposed to the plant. Mayor Domenic Sarno has voiced his “conditional support” for the plant as long as it meets state health and environmental requirements.
STIS has also asked the city’s Public Health Council, which is charged with advising the mayor on public health issues, to use its powers to stop the project. Helen Caulton-Harris, the city’s director of health and human services and a member of the PHC, recently told the Advocate that the group is seeking an independent legal opinion on what authority it has in the matter.
In a press release issued last week in response to Sullivan’s ruling, STIS member Steve Dzubak said, “Given that MEPA has denied any further review of the facility and that DEP will issue its air permit sometime after the close of comments on April 29, 2011, the City Council and Public Health Council are now the last resort to protect the public health of city residents.”
Just last week, the STIS noted, the EPA issued a hazardous air quality warning for western Mass. “Yet in spite of the degraded air quality in the state, officials seem determined to issue an air pollution permit to the plant, which will be one of the largest, if not the largest, particle emitters in the four western Massachusetts counties of Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin, and Berkshire,” said member Lee Ann Warner.
Frank Fitzgerald, PRE’s attorney, has not returned calls from the Advocate.
