proposedbiomass.JPG

Proposed biomass plant in East Springfield

(THE REPUBLICAN FILE)

The Springfield Public Health Council did not vote on whether to initiate site assignment proceedings for the proposed East Springfield biomass plant, following a lengthy public hearing Wednesday night.

"We will not be closing this hearing tonight," Health and Human Services Commissioner Helen Caulton-Harris said. "This is still an open hearing."

The council will continue to accept written testimony on the plant through next Wednesday, Caulton-Harris said.

The hearing featured detailed presentations from both developer Palmer Renewable Energy and opponents of the project. Critics highlighted alleged pollution and health risks while the company's attorney told the council that efforts to block the project are unlawful -- and could trigger a $200 million lawsuit against the city.

"I urge the city not to take this measure at this time, to reject this position on the basis that there is an undue exposure to liability," PRE attorney Thomas Mackie said.

Palmer Renewable Energy's engineering and health consultants delivered testimony defending the project, telling the council it was safe and efforts to block it unlawful.

"It is in fact probably the cleanest biomass project anywhere in the world, based on its air pollution controls," project engineer Dale Raczynski said, adding that the plant is designed with stronger measures to limit emissions than required by state regulators.

Michaelann Bewsee, a long-time critic of the project and an activist with Arise for Social Justice, argued that the emissions limits set by the Department of Environmental Protection are not sufficient to protect public health.

"We're not in good shape in Springfield. We have a number of very vulnerable communities," Bewsee said. "It's not good enough."

Sarita Hudson of the Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition said that rates of respiratory illness in Springfield are well above state averages, placing residents at particular risk from air pollution. Hudson called for a detailed health impact analysis for the project.

"We're looking at a community that has health disparities already, compared to the rest of the state," Hudson said.

The hearing sought to address competing claims by the project's attorneys and local opponents of the plant. It was punctuated with applause for the project's opponents from the crowd of approximately 75 residents who attended the two-hour hearing at Central High School and overwhelmingly opposed the project.

The developer argued that a series of rulings from state courts have established its right to build the plant, and that the city's Public Health Council lacks legal authority to prohibit PRE from building on the site. Opponents said that the plant could cause harmful air pollution, potentially causing health problems for local residents.

PRE could sue for up to $200 million in damages if its project is blocked by the board, its attorney warned in a letter to the council.

In the letter, PRE attorney Thomas Mackie wrote that air pollution regulations are the responsibility of the state DEP, not local authorities. The project has received needed approvals from the DEP.

Mackie cited a 2011 letter from the DEP to city health commissioner Helen Caulton-Harris, which said that the plant is expected to meet emissions standards, and a DEP appeals decision that found that existing permits sufficiently limit release of pollutants to avoid a public health risk.

Another letter from Dr. Peter Valberg, an environmental health consultant for PRE, argued that exposure to particulate matter from the plant would be less than common activities like occasional freeway driving or cooking in the home.

PRE's planned $150 million plant at the corner of Cadwell Drive and Page Boulevard would generate power by burning green wood chips. In 2014 the Massachusetts Land Court authorized building permits for the project, in Sept. 2015 a state appeals court upheld the permits and in November the Supreme Judicial Court also ruled in favor of PRE.

But the plant has drawn strong opposition from a laundry list of community, health and environmental groups, including Arise for Social Justice; Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield; the Springfield Climate Justice Coalition; Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition, Gardening Our Community; Mason Square Health Task Force; Keep Springfield Beautiful; Out Now; and Partnership for Policy Integrity.

Those advocates warn that the plant would worsen air pollution and harm public health, claims disputed by the project's developer. The East Springfield neighborhood includes many residents who have asthma or have to cope with age-related disabilities would be disproportionately affected by emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter, critics say.

Critics of the plant have said that the Public Health Council has the authority to veto the site of the plan under a state law which gives health boards regulatory authority over projects that are "noisome" or "dangerous to the public health."

City Solictor Ed Pikula, however, said in an email that an attempt to override the DEP's authority over the project, after the agency already approved the plant, could expose the city to legal liability.

Pikula cited a 2005 case where the town of Freetown was ordered to pay over $3 million after a court found that it wrongly issued a site assignment for a coal-ash storage facility. That case was also litigated by Mackie's firm, Mackie said at the hearing.

"Monetary damages or costs are a risk," Pikula wrote.