Shall we begin by stating that biomass incinerators are rarely, if ever, factually represented by the many sales pitches we see issued by the Energy Industry sector that promotes them. In fact, the marketing language that has now become de rigueur is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984. “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

To the point, biomass incineration is NOT clean and green, sustainable and renewable, carbon neutral and cost effective, or environmentally friendly and ecologically sound. It is quite the opposite of these beautiful and alluring marketing slogans. Biomass incineration is in reality quite polluting, unsustainable to the extreme and, in some cases, less environmentally friendly than coal burning plants.

Remember the old-fashioned hospital incinerator that nobody ever wanted to live downwind from. Who would want mercury vapors, and the many other highly toxic aerosols, wafting through their neighborhood? Well, then, why would a community want a biomass incinerator sited within winds’ reach of their schools, subdivisions and businesses. The post incineration output of these biomass plants can be much worse than a hospital’s depending on what is being incinerated.

Let’s not forget the golden rule of energy production: “Garbage in; garbage out”. Ultimately the permitting process for these incinerators often allows for the burning of various types of refuse and other feedstocks, which will necessarily degrade air quality. A close look at any state air permit application for these biomass plants will reveal the mix of carcinogens, toxins, pollutants, contaminants and poisons that is really quite alarming.

As we have evaluated the emission estimates of various pollutants, which have been submitted by the very biomass companies themselves, we wonder how they make the leap across the chasm to such environmentally attractive sound bites. Let’s be clear about the assortment and type of contaminants which will inevitably show up in the surrounding air of these biomass plants. As follows:
(1) Dioxins and Furans (2) Particulate Matter – 10.0, 2.5 and 1.0 microns (3) Hydrogen Chloride (4) Nitrogen Dioxide (5) Carbon Monoxide (6) Hydrogen Sulfide (7) Sulfur Dioxide (8) Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) (9) Mercury, Lead and Arsenic (10) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) such as benzene, toluene and naphthalene

One can only imagine the harmful effects to human and animal life that these pollutants will cause in those unfortunate cities and counties that have succumbed to the governmental and energy industry forces, which routinely foist these schemes on an uninformed public. What follows is a quote from the Healthcare Professionals For Clean Environment in their letter to Governor Charlie Crist of Florida regarding a proposed biomass incinerator for Gadsden County, FL.

“As you know full well, biomass incinerators of this type will produce extraordinary amounts of air pollution to include dioxin, one of the most toxic and carcinogenic organic chemicals released into the environment by industry. In addition, this incinerator will be 0.3 tons (according to the ADAGE permit application submitted to DEP) shy of being a major source of a particular hazardous air pollutant (hydrogen chloride) according to the FL DEP’s own regulatory guidance concerning the 10 ton threshold for any single air pollutant. This incinerator will also significantly contribute to the total particulate matter volume which already plagues much of North Florida. We are compelled to point out that particulate matter (PM) concentration directly correlates with a whole host of upper respiratory ailments to include sinusitis, rhinitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, as well as the common cold. More serious respiratory diseases such as lung cancer, emphysema, pneumonia, tuberculosis, pulmonary edema, sarcoidosis, pleurisy and adult respiratory distress syndrome are all greatly aggravated by the various pollutants emitted from biomass plants. Chronic respiratory conditions such as COPD, CREST, asthma, bronchitis, reactive airway disease, as well as numerous inhalant allergies will likewise see an increase wherever these irritants exist above certain thresholds. Likewise, illnesses such as influenza and its many seasonal variants will always be exacerbated when the ambient air is fouled by these particulates and chemical emissions.”

The profound medical repercussions and health impacts of this form of incineration and crude energy production cannot be understated. Medical organizations from around the country have been weighing in on this matter for as long as biomass marketeers have been submitting their sales literature to the many small, economically depressed communities that are vulnerable to such ill-conceived proposals. The twenty to thirty long-term jobs, which are created by these biomass propositions, will be taken by many who will inevitably experience dangerous levels of exposure to the aforementioned chemicals. Therefore, they will suffer adverse health conditions, which will then contribute to the local medical burden, as well as significantly increase the healthcare costs associated with lifelong remediation.

In an age when the nation is moving toward more enlightened energy platforms concerning production, dissemination and utilization, it is quite anachronistic that some would have us go back to the Stone Age. Burning trees and the like is, after all, what was done before there was solar, wind, oil and gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power. Why in the world, with a global population approaching 7 billion, would we want to go back to energy sources that are as primitive as they are downright dirty?!

Dr. Tom Termotto, BCIM
National Coordinator – COALITION AGAINST CHEMICAL TRESPASS
Member – Floridians Against Incinerators in Disguise

Citizens Challenge Air Permit for Port St. Joe Biomass Burning Plant

CONTACT: Meg Sheehan, The Biomass Accountability Project, Inc., 800-729-1363

A group of citizens and one conservation group announced that it has asked Florida DEP for a full administrative hearing on the air pollution permit issued January 27, 2010 allowing Biomass Gas & Electric Company to proceed with construction of an incinerator that will burn trees and other materials to generate electricity. In a petition filed with the DEP, the group asserts that the permit allows emissions of toxic chemicals such as dioxin, carbon monoxide, particulates and ozone forming chemicals that cause asthma, heart disease and cancer. The petition states that the company has not “provided reasonable assurance” that air pollution will protect human health and the environment and therefore violates Florida’s air pollution laws. The plant has received pre-approval from the U.S. Department of Energy for a loan guarantee for “clean energy” projects.”

“This plant is not clean – it is a dirty incinerator disguised as a “green” project,” said Bob Fulford, spokesperson for the group. Not only will it spew out some of the most toxic chemicals known to science, but it is a mile from a neighborhood that is sitting on top of a toxic waste dump created by the St. Joe paper mill in the 1950s. This is environmental injustice in the extreme: the people living in this community have enough exposure to toxic chemicals already, we don’t need more.”

The group is calling on Senator Bill Nelson and Governor Crist to intervene and ensure a complete and thorough review of the project’s toxic air emissions. “At a time when our nation is struggling to figure out how to pay health care costs, using our tax dollars to build an incinerator that will cause more deaths, respiratory disease, premature deaths and other preventable diseases is unacceptable public policy,” said Dr. Ron Saff on behalf of a group of medical professionals who are bringing national attention to this issue. “The American Lung Association and medical societies around the nation are raising the alarm about biomass incinerators disguised as clean energy – we believe we can do better than building incinerators when it comes to jobs and energy” said Dr. Saff.

“As the Chief Operating Officer for the American Lung Association in Florida, I would like to clarify a statement made in Frank Holcomb’s recent editorial on the proposed biomass plant in Gadsden County. In his piece, he mentioned a position by the Clean Air Choice group within the American Lung Association that could be viewed as an endorsement of biomass energy. The information Mr. Holcomb cited was pulled from a website in Illinois and is not the position of the American Lung Association in Florida on the subject.

The American Lung Association has significant concerns regarding the proposed biomass plant and the potential effects it could pose for at-risk groups like those suffering from emphysema, asthma, diabetes and heart disease. Burning wood, or burning any substance, releases toxic chemicals and particles into the air which affect both the environment and respiratory health.

Additionally, diesel equipment critical to plant operation, like the trucks delivering wood, will add significant pollution on the roads and throughout nearby communities. A constant supply of fuel is needed requiring these trucks to make multiple, daily trips to and from the plant. The age of these vehicles and idling practices will also have a significant impact on the level of pollution emitted, and increase the potential damage to air quality and the health of Gadsden County citizens.

Furthermore, we have noticed a pattern nationwide of biomass plants being proposed for rural areas away from cities; where less protective pollution control restrictions and weaker permitting requirements apply. Plant proponents will say that they “meet the air pollution requirements” but the requirements themselves tend to be more lax.

Our organization is dedicated to healthy air and healthy lungs for all Floridians. I encourage the leaders of Gadsden County to consider the potential negative health effects on an already medically vulnerable and underserved community”

Brenda Olsen, RN
Chief Operating Officer
American Lung Association of the Southeast, Inc.
Serving Florida, Georgia and South Carolina
539 Silver Slipper Lane, Ste A
Tallahassee, FL 32303
(850) 241-1002 Direct Line
(850) 443-3017 Cell
www.LungFla.org

Dr. Edward Holifield of Tallahassee, FL poses the question to the Gadsden County Commission during a presentation on the Biomass BioMess proposed for Gretna, Florida by the Concerned Citizens of Gadsden County, Inc. The latest black infant mortality statistics in Gadsden County are 15.6 per 1,000 live births – that’s more than twice the state average. Dr. Holifield presents a study by Kenneth Chay and Michael Greenstone linking air pollution to infant mortality.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RntFPvu1czs]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTVp8oGbpk]

Below is a parliamentary question, with a response from a Minister for Energy and Climate Change.  He cites government estimates of how many people will die from air pollution in the UK as a result of the government’s biomass expansion program (they obviously don’t see this as a reason for a policy-rethink).

Note that PM 2.5 is still not regulated in the UK, the State of Florida or the U.S.

Over 75,000 physicians in the Florida Medical Association, Hampden District Medical Society, American Lung Association, Capital Medical Society agree that particulate matter – PM, PM10 and especially PM2.5 cause significant health problems, diseases and death in our society. Medical professionals across the country are begging our elected officials to listen to their concerns and limit or halt Biomass Incineration projects.

“Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what recent assessment he has made of the effects of the use of biomass boilers installed to meet Renewable Energy Strategy targets on (a) air quality, (b) levels of particulate emissions and (c) levels of (i) morbidity and (ii) mortality.

Jim Fitzpatrick:
(a) The Government have, in support of the development of the Renewable Energy Strategy (RES), carried out modelling of the effect of an increase in the use of biomass for heat and power on the emissions, ambient air concentrations and public health impacts of fine particles (PM2.5), coarser particles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide. The key air quality results of this analysis are given in the Renewable Energy Strategy on page 121.

(b) As part of the analysis the increases in the emissions of particulates were estimated over a number of different scenarios. For PM2.5 these were between 0.75 and 9.1 ktonnes from a baseline in 2007 of 82 ktonnes. For PM10, emissions were estimated as being between 1.3 and 9.5 ktonnes from a 2007 baseline of 135 ktonnes.

(c) (i) The impacts on morbidity resulting from the uptake of biomass as a renewable energy source were not assessed.

(ii) The mortality health impacts of these scenarios were estimated to be between 340,000 and 1,750,000 measured as the number of life years lost in 2020 from the impact on air quality of increased biomass combustion.”

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA’s) enacted in the mid-1970′s marked our nation’s first attempt to regulate levels of air pollution to protect the health of it’s citizens. The CCCA’s established a threshold for pollution concentrations and designates counties as either “attainment” or  “nonattainment” and provides for more strict regulations on polluters in “nonattainment” counties.

Chay and Greenstone used EPA data, and County and City Data Books data file largely based on the 1970 and 1980 censuses which offered them the overall view of housing and county characteristics upon which their study was based.

IX. Conclusion – (page 43-44)

This study has exploited the air pollution reductions induced by the Clean Air Act Amendments to provide new evidence on the capitalization of air quality into housing values. The evidence suggests that TSPs nonattainment status is causally related to both declines in air pollution and increases in housing prices during the 1970s. Using the county-level regulations as an instrument, we estimate that a 1 mg/m3 reduction in TSPs results in a 0.2–0.4 percent increase in mean housing values, which is a –0.20 to –0.35 elasticity. These estimates of the average marginal willingness to pay for clean air are robust to quasiexperimental regression discontinuity and matching specification checks. Further, they are far less sensitive to model specification than cross-sectional and fixed-effects estimates, which occasionally have the “perverse” sign. The estimation of a random coefficients model provides modest evidence that the marginal benefit of reductions in TSPs is lower in communities with relatively high pollution levels, which is consistent with preference-based sorting.

Welfare calculations suggest that the mid-1970s TSPs nonattainment designation provided a $45 billion aggregate gain for homeowners in nonattainment counties. This gain is large, but the net effect on welfare is unknown since reliable estimates of the social costs of these regulations are not available. Regardless of whether the TSPs nonattainment designations pass or fail a cost-benefit test, this paper’s findings suggest that individuals place a higher value on clean air than has previously been recognized.

2–401.1. 1

Download Massachusetts Senate Bill 228.

The department may not issue a permit to construct an incinerator unless the incinerator:

(1) is or would be located in an area that is zoned for heavy industrial  activity; and

(ii) at least 3 miles from the property boundary line of any residential dwelling, church, school, park, or hospital; and meets the zoning requirements of the local jurisdiction in which the incinerator is or would be located.

A local jurisdiction may not issue a building permit for an incinerator unless the incinerator meets the requirements set forth in subsection (a) of this section.

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall be construed to apply only prospectively and may not be applied or interpreted to have any effect on or application to any incinerator in existence for which all necessary permits for construction, modification, operation, or use have been issued before the effective date of this Act. If the construction, modification, operation, or use of an incinerator is allowed to continue in accordance with this section:
(1) the use may not be expanded; and
(2) if abandoned, the use may not be resumed.
SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That a presently existing obligation or contract right may not be impaired AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect 25 October 1, 2010.

David Gardner, Director of the Gadsden County Chamber of Commerce was recently quoted in the Tallahassee Democrat as saying “Wednesday’s announcement in Gretna was the culmination of three years’ worth of effort, including the determination of an appropriate site and building community support.”

The Gretna Biomass Incinerator will be located on property adjacent to an elementary school with a 100% minority student population, a nearby residential neighborhood and a women’s correctional facility located directly across the street.

Reginald James, Superintendent of the Gadsden County School District stated during the presentation that CCGC was the first to bring the information pertaining to the Gretna Biomass Incinerator to the attention of the School Board.  After 3 years of “building community suport”, no effort had been made by Gadsden County, Chamber of Commerce or City of Gretna Officials to properly inform the school board or the community – we are still waiting.

Part 2 to follow.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2s5nQuh5Vs]

My only child, Jamie is a 3 and a half year old asthmatic. Although the job opportunity that brought me to this area is located in the City of Tallahassee, my wife and I chose to move to Gadsden County six years ago and invest our life savings in a quiet beautiful parcel of land just outside the city limits of Gretna, a place that we have called home for almost 6 years. I share everyone’s concern about our local and national economies, and I understand that an announcement any community about hundreds of jobs and millions in tax revenue is indeed good news.

Since the project was announced, I have been educating myself about the proposed facility to be constructed by ADAGE, LLC that has been labeled as “Clean, Green and Renewable”. What I have learned since that day has left me completely disturbed. The play yard that I built for my asthmatic son is 1.9 miles from the proposed Gretna Biomass Incinerator. His pre-school is 3 miles away. Gretna Elementary is 1 mile away. There are 5 schools within 4 miles of this proposed facility. There is a prison directly across the street that has an inmate population of 1,541 women – over 1,300 of those women are of childbearing age.

I do not believe that any of our elected county, city officials or local leaders would knowingly place these citizens and their children at risk, but the seemingly unanimous political support leads me to believe that a well rounded presentation of the facts have not been presented to them.

Although the application for an air permit to construct for the 50MW Gretna Biomass Incinerator project has not yet been submitted by ADAGE, LLC to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,  I have read both the initial and revised applications for their 50MW Hamilton County Biomass Incinerator currently under evaluation.

I have also read hundreds of pages of information provided to me by groups and individuals who have researched, gathered, and written the documentation that has been instrumental in forming recent regulatory and organizational opposition to Biomass Incinerators. I not only “feel” that this project “may be detrimental to our health”, I am “certain” of it.

Here are a few facts that have been left out of the discussion thus far:

“On October 14, 2009, the Hampden County Medical Society (MA) published formal opposition to the construction of the Russell (MA) 50 MW wood burning biomass plant on the grounds that it presents an unacceptable public health risk. Similarly, on July 14, 2006, the American Lung Association of Massachusetts stated “serious concerns” about the “significant impact of this project [Russell Biomass wood burning plant] on air quality”.  The Florida Medical Association issued Resolution 08-21 urging the State of Florida to adopt policies to minimize the approval of new incinerators such as biomass burners. The Oregon Chapter of the American Lung Association has also come out against biomass combustion, as has the Capital Regional Medical Association in Tallahassee, Florida . These are only some of the public statements from professionals around the country documenting biomass burning and renewable energy incinerators as a source of a new and growing public health threat.”

The most vulnerable among us are especially at risk. Our children, the elderly and those with already chronic health conditions will suffer the consequences and there is an overwhelming amount of scientific and medical research that factually supports this assertion and disputes many of the claims made in favor of Biomass Incinerators. I am “certain” that due to my son’s chronic respiratory condition, we will have to make a choice between remaining silent, being forced from our home and community or knowingly and willingly place my son’s life in jeopardy. I am “certain” that we are not the only family in this community who will be forced to make the same difficult decision.

I strongly urge you, our elected officials, local leaders, economic development organizations and every citizen in this county to take the time to educate yourselves before an irreversible error is made.

James E. Maloy, Jr

The policy, proposed by the organization’s Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health, was approved by the Society’s House of Delegates at its interim meeting on December 4.  The MMS House of Delegates, comprised of physician members from across the state, sets policy for the 22,000-member statewide physician organization.

Currently, three large-scale plants are being proposed for western Massachusetts, in Russell (Hampden County), Greenfield (Franklin County), and Springfield (Hampden County).  The plants propose to burn wood from harvested trees and/or construction debris and will be situated near neighborhoods, schools, and homes.

Jefferson Dickey, M.D., an internist at the Community Health Center of Franklin County in Turners Falls and a former chair of the committee, was one of the authors of the resolution adopted as policy.

Dr. Dickey said “Air pollution is a common and noxious mixture of gasses, particles, liquids, the vast majority of which comes from power plants, industrial furnaces and high-temperature industrial processes, and transportation, such as buses, trucks, cars, and small engines.

“Epidemiologists have long recognized that air pollution is associated with an increased risk of a broad range of medical problems,” Dr. Dickey continued, “from asthma attacks and decreased lung growth in children to increased lung disease exacerbations, emergency room use, hospitalization rates, heart attacks, and death rates in adults.”

“Recent research and medical literature reviews provide graphic confirmation of the seriousness of the issue,” he said. “The equation is simple: the more air pollution, the higher the mortality rate. Research has shown that lowering air pollution levels is associated with better health outcomes.”

Current state policy considers biomass fuel renewable, because trees consumed as fuel are assumed to re-grow, and biomass electricity generation is eligible for financial incentives under the state’s Green Communities Act, which mandates that an increasing proportion of the state’s power be generated from renewable sources.

The policy adopted by the Medical Society’s contained four points:

• urging state government to adopt policies to minimize the approval and construction of new biomass plants, and instead promote energy efficiency and conservation and zero-pollutant emissions renewable energy technologies;

• opposing the three currently proposed large-scale biomass power plants in Massachusetts on the grounds that each facility poses an unacceptable public health risk;

• urging state and federal government through appropriate channels  to remove large-scale biomass electricity generation plants from the list of technologies eligible to receive renewable energy credits, federal stimulus funds, and Massachusetts Technology Collaborative loans, and thereby remove these incentives for their existence; and

• urging state government to extend Department of Environmental Protection regulatory authority to small-scale biomass facilities to ensure that the most protective air pollution emissions controls are utilized.

The Massachusetts Medical Society, with more than 20,000 physicians and student members, is dedicated to educating and advocating for the patients and physicians of Massachusetts. The Society publishes the New England Journal of Medicine, a leading global medical journal and web site, and Journal Watch alerts and newsletters covering 13 specialties. The Society is also a leader in continuing medical education for health care professionals throughout Massachusetts, conducting a variety of medical education programs for physicians and health care professionals. Founded in 1781, MMS is the oldest continuously operating medical society in the country. For more information, visit www.massmed.org, www.nejm.org, or www.jwatch.org.

###