A win for Springfield’s air quality and citizen activists

June 19, 2013.   The Solutia manufacturing facility in Springfield, MA, announced yesterday they would be replacing their coal-fired power plant with a natural gas fired unit by 2016.  The move follows a threat of legal action by the environmental group the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) and Springfield-based Arise for Social Justice. 

Air quality modeling conducted by PFPI determined Solutia’s coal plant is likely violating the EPA health standard for sulfur dioxide, and in February 2013, PFPI and Arise filed a notice of intent to sue with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), stating that the groups would take legal action unless the agency revised Solutia’s outdated air permit to make it comply with current air quality standards. DEP then informed Solutia that the company must demonstrate how it can operate without violating pollution laws. 

“Our modeling indicated that the facility is violating EPA air quality standards by emitting hundreds of tons of sulfur dioxide each year,” said Mary Booth, PFPI’s director.  “Solutia’s quick decision to switch to natural gas following our demand letter to the DEP shows the company realized it couldn’t reduce emissions if it continued to burn coal. The change to gas will reduce the plant’s emissions considerably and improve air quality in Springfield.”  

Solutia was acquired by Eastman Chemical in 2012 for $4.7 billion. The company manufactures layered glass products that make glass safer and more energy efficient. 

“It’s good that Solutia has decided to switch to natural gas and not engage in a protracted fight to continue burning coal” said Michaelann Bewsee, director of Arise.  “However, we still want to see the company take the necessary steps to reduce its emissions from coal-burning prior to 2016 when the switch to gas is complete.”

Bill Gibson, the community activist who initiated the campaign to close or convert the coal-burner, submitted a letter and public petition to Solutia in early June. “We collected hundreds of signatures from community members requesting that Solutia stop burning coal and live up to the  environmental goals Eastman posts on their website . This is an important step toward Solutia being a better neighbor in the Springfield community.”

Springfield is among Massachusetts' poorest cities and has received an “F” rating from the American Lung Association for its air quality. The region has rates of childhood asthma that are significantly higher than the state average.  The switch to natural gas at the Solutia facility will significantly reduce emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, all pollutants that worsen asthma and other lung and heart diseases.

Kelly Bitov, PFPI's attorney, praised the company's decision to make the switch away from coal. "Springfield is an environmental justice community with a disproportionate burden of industrial pollution. We hope Solutia will be an active partner in working to clean up Springfield's industrial legacy and reduce illnesses associated with air pollution."

The groups’ letter to DEP requesting action on Solutia’s polluting coal plant is found here.

####

June 4, 2013

Arise for Social Justice today launched a campaign calling for an end to the burning of coal at Solutia’s Indian Orchard facility.  The group has mailed a letter to Solutia and Eastman Chemical, the owner of Solutia, laying out community expectations that the plant will reduce its pollutant emissions. The letter was signed by over 200 area residents.

 View the letter here. 

"The American Lung Association has given Springfield’s air an “F” for a number of years, and our asthma rate is twice the state average,” said Bill Gibson, the community activist who spearheaded the letter to the company. “The company should not inflict hundreds of tons of air pollution on residents each year — Eastman should live up to the environmental goals they have posted on their own website.”  

 The Solutia factory in Indian Orchard is the largest chemical manufacturing plant in New England.  The factory is powered by one of the last industrial coal-burners in Massachusetts, and is one of the largest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases in Western Massachusetts. The plant does not use a scrubber – a type of air pollution control technology – to control sulfur dioxide. An independent study commissioned by the environmental group the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) determined  that sulfur dioxide emissions from Solutia’s coal plant likely exceed EPA’s health standards.  Emissions of other air pollutants, including hydrochloric acid and the ozone precursor nitrogen dioxide, are also high, and may pose a risk to local residents.  

 Arise and PFPI filed a demand letter with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in February 2013, requesting that the agency revise Solutia’s outdated air permit to reduce allowable emissions limits. The DEP took action, requiring Solutia to conduct its own air quality modeling to demonstrate that it is able to operate without violating air quality standards.  If the company can not make such a demonstration, they will be compelled to install a scrubber or switch to a cleaner fuel at the facility.

 “Solutia burned more coal in 2011 than the Holyoke Mt. Tom Power Plant, with fewer pollution control technologies installed” says Michaelann Bewsee, director of Arise. “Switching away from dirty coal will immediately reduce air pollution. While the clear fuel alternative, natural gas, is less dirty than coal, it isn't better from a greenhouse gas perspective.  Therefore we want the company to take steps to reduce facility-wide greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than entering into protracted negotiations with DEP about its air emissions, the company should be a good neighbor and switch away from coal immediately.”

 The former Monsanto plant covers 180 acres and employs 500 people. The groups do not advocate for plant closure or downsizing. Eastman Chemical, which purchased Solutia in 2012 for $4.7 billion, is a member of "Responsible Care" ( a chemical industry sustainability initiative) and the community groups expect the company to live up to its promises.

 A community meeting to discuss the Solutia facility is scheduled for Monday, June 24th  at 6 pm at the Indian Orchard Citizens Council building, 117 Main St., Indian Orchard. Residents of Indian Orchard, East Springfield and other city neighborhoods are invited to attend.

Permitted pollution levels exceed federal guidelines for taxpayer-backed clean energy loan guarantee program;

Facility rated “ccc” by Standard & Poor’s – “a significant credit risk”

Download the full report here. 

May 22, 2013.   Pelham MA – A detailed review of more than 3,000 pages of previously undisclosed documents from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reveals that the highly touted “green” Taylor Biomass waste gasification project in the town of Montgomery in Orange County, New York will have air pollution limits no better than a heavily polluting garbage incinerator.   

 The report, “Burning Money: Biomass Gasification and the DOE Loan Guarantee Program,” was prepared by the nonprofit Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) and is available here.

 The owners of Taylor claim that the plant is so clean that it should qualify for $100 million in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees from DOE typically reserved for cutting edge renewable energy projects, and $33 million in federal cash grants.  But the documents, many of which were submitted to the Department of Energy by Taylor or its contractors, and were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by PFPI,  fundamentally undermine this claim.

 “We identified significant discrepancies between how much pollution Taylor told DOE they would emit, and what Taylor’s state air permit allows,” said Mary S. Booth, PhD, Director of PFPI and author of the report.  “Taylor repeatedly describes the facility as ‘clean’ in their loan guarantee application, but their emissions under the air permit are no better than a conventional garbage incinerator.”

 Taylor’s permitted air pollution levels for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and mercury all exceed the DOE limits to qualify for renewable energy loan guarantees.  In addition, the facility will be allowed to emit 10 times more lead, 7 times more cadmium, and 12 times more mercury than it would if it were permitted as an industrial waste burner, and will be a source of dioxins and volatile organics like benzene.  Its CO₂ emissions will exceed those of modern fossil-fueled power plants.

 In addition, Taylor Biomass has taken aggressive action to block public access to data on fuel contamination and pollution emitted by the facility.  In documents provided to PFPI by DOE, emissions estimates were completely redacted at the request of Taylor Biomass, on the grounds that disclosing the data would cause “substantial harm to the applicant’s competitive position.”  DOE could have overridden this argument, but did not.

 "Taylor claims its emissions will be comparable to burning natural gas but it has blocked the Department of Energy from releasing information on hazardous materials contained in its fuel mix and projected air and water emissions,” said Laura Haight, Senior Environmental Associate at the New York Public Interest Research Group, who commented extensively on the plant during the state’s permitting process. “Since Taylor Biomass cannot move forward without taxpayer-funded loan guarantees, the public has a right to know about the pollution this plant will generate,” Ms. Haight added.

 Citizens and environmental groups have voiced concerns about pollution from the Taylor plant for years. 

 “Our group extensively reviewed the Taylor project and we found the project to be hyped far beyond its actual ability to perform as clean energy technology,” said Barbara Warren, Executive Director of Citizens’ Environmental Coalition.  “We are concerned that emissions from this facility will impact the health of nearby residents and school children. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to support dirty energy technology.”

 Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D., President of Orange Environment, joined the other groups in calling for DOE to apply due diligence to the Taylor project.  “Orange Environment, Inc. has opposed the Taylor facility since its inception,” he said.  “This project is a back-door garbage incinerator dressed up as green and an impediment to implementing a sustainable zero-solid waste master plan in Orange County.”

 In its review of the DOE documents, PFPI also learned that the Taylor plant received a “ccc” credit rating from the prestigious Standard and Poor’s, which characterizes the project as “a significant credit risk,” “currently vulnerable to nonpayment, and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet its obligations.” 

 PFPI sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy today detailing the inconsistencies in Taylor’s application and urging the DOE to reject Taylor’s request for a $100 million federal loan guarantee.

 “We strongly support the DOE renewable energy initiatives, including loan guarantees, but the Taylor plant has the pollution profile of a highly polluting incinerator, is based on unproven technology, and comes with an sub-par ‘ccc’ credit rating,” said Booth.  “Taxpayers should not be on the hook for this facility.” 

 Download the full report here.  

Click here to see PFPI’s presentation on why the Tennessee Valley Authority should take biomass off its list for renewables, and concentrate on true zero-emissions technologies like wind and solar.  

A bill being considered in the Connecticut legislature is designed, among other things, to reduce the state’s import of dirty biomass power from Maine and New Hampshire, and promote bioenergy development in Connecticut itself. The problem with tampering with the state’s renewable portfolio standard is, it’s easy to get it wrong when the job is rushed. PFPI and our partner organization, the Project for Energy Accountability, submitted these comments on why the Connecticut legislature needs to go back to the drawing board on biomass, and why it’s especially important for the state to recognize that burning biomass emits greenhouse gases.

Comments on the bill can be submitted to  et.testimony@cga.ct.gov

See all comments on the bill here

• As a means of waste disposal, gasifiers emit large amounts of air pollution. Gasification does not destroy air toxics – when contaminated materials are used as fuel, toxic emissions increase.  Emissions from incinerators burning municipal waste include particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, dioxins, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and mercury. 

• As energy generators, gasification plants emit more greenhouse gases than fossil fuel plants, and as such, are incompatible with the greenhouse gas reduction goals of Massachusetts’ 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act.

• While waste incinerators collect millions of dollars in disposal fees each year for their operators, the facilities are nonetheless still dependent on publicly funded renewable energy subsidies and tax incentives to be financially viable.

• Evergreen Community Power, a 33 MW biomass power plant in Reading, received a $39 million federal grant along with $250,000 in state money. Berks County, where the plant is located, exceeds EPA health standards for ozone and airborne lead, and has some of the highest asthma levels in the state.  The Evergreen facility burns off construction and demolition waste, containing glues, resins and other treated wood, as well as plastic and other foreign debris.  When burned, these contaminated materials can emit toxic substances such as arsenic and lead, as well as dioxins – widely considered to be among the most toxic chemicals known.
• Tri-State Biofuels in Fayette County received $1,076,500 in grants and loans from the state to convert Pennsylvania hardwoods to pellet fuel. The facility burns biomass for energy on site, but Fayette County, where it is located, is in non-attainment with the EPA ozone health standard and is in the top third of counties for asthma incidence.
• The Piney Creek industrial biomass and waste coal facility in Clarion County has received over$400,000 in state and federal funding. The plant burns railroad ties and utility poles, which contain creosote and the toxic wood preservative pentachlorophenol.

• Requiring state-of-the-art emissions controls for institutional biomass burners, especially those in schools.
• Air quality monitoring in the vicinity of biomass burners built or planned at schools and other institutions.
• A moratorium on siting biomass burners in environmental justice areas and areas where air pollution already exceeds health standards.
• Stricter policies to ensure that materials that materials such as construction and demolition debris, which emit elevated levels of heavy metals and other hazardous air pollutants, are kept out of the biomass fuel stream.