Port of Albany tries to heel into crosswinds

Port of Albany officials say misconceptions from a ‘vocal minority’ cloud debate over beleaguered Beacon Island wind turbine project

GLENMONT – Members of Beacon Island Environmental Justice, a local citizen action group, continue to challenge the Port of Albany’s decision to bring a wind turbine manufacturing facility to Beacon Island. Port representatives are moving the project forward despite that opposition. Roddy Yagan, Port Senior Construction Project Manager, said project opposition comes from a “vocal minority.”

Beacon Island, an 82-acre parcel just south of the port of Albany on the Hudson River’s west bank was purchased by the Port three years ago to build components for offshore wind turbines.Yagan said that with its 82-acre site adjacent to a waterway and access to power, Beacon Island is a primary candidate for the off site wind project.

Yagan described the project as a “three-way public and private partnership among the Port, the developer and the operator.” He said the project helps serve the local commitment to a larger offshore wind development and puts money into the local economy. Yagan said private partner Marmen, a wind tower manufacturer, expects up to 600 permanent jobs with about a 30-year commitment.

Viability of wind turbine project questioned

Most recently, at Port District Commission meetings and in a letter to The Spotlight authored by Sylvia Rowlands, a Beacon Island Environmental Justice member, charged the Port’s own expert Raed El-Farhan with expressing doubt over the project at who spoke at the Port’s April 26 District Commision meeting. El-Farhan rejected that characterization.

El-Farhan, who is Vice President of Weston & Sampson, the Port’s outside consultant, said at that meeting he was focusing on potential avenues of growth strategy. He called the port a “gem in its people, vision, mission and as an economic engine for the State of New York.”

He said he voiced his support for the project. At the meeting, El-Farhan described how when he goes to national meetings people ask him why Albany of all places for the wind, and his response is “because it’s got what it takes and they will be here.” He said he was not questioning wind turbine manufacturing coming to Albany, but responding to questions from others outside of Albany at rival ports who, during the meeting, he said are “livid” that Albany is doing offshore wind.

Specifically, Rowlands claimed that El-Farhan said, “the river is neither deep nor wide enough to support such manufacturing activities”; “there is a lack of substantial local labor force”; and “the distance from the NYC offshore Wind site negates any intended reduction in CO2 emissions.” She also claimed he “urged the Board to explore alternative locations and products.” Rowlands, who submitted the letter to The Spotlight, claimed these statements were a quote. Rowlands said she and co-member Joanne Maier also raised these issues to the Commission during the public comment period at its June 26 meeting.

A videotape of the April and June meetings may be viewed on the Port’s website.

El-Farhan said he made none of those statements. Instead, he said he was speaking generally about further diversification as the Port moves into the future. On the videotape, while discussing other river ports such as Norfolk and Savannah, El-Farhan was asked at what point does the port recognize its limitations because it has shallower water? El-Farhan responded that Albany could be a gateway and take the load off of other ports by collaborating with them.

In an interview, El Farhan confirmed that the river’s depth is not at issue for the wind turbine project because bringing in ships the size that go through, for example, the Panama Canal, is not part of the conversation. “The river supports the wind turbine project,” he said. He said the Port had already received approvals from different federal agencies involving how the manufacturing cargo that needs to be shipped can be shipped.

On the labor issue, El-Farhan said he was speaking about the supply chain, disruption caused by COVID, and long term goals. At the meeting, one Port employee raised the difficulty of attracting labor in all sectors and regarding the Albany port, the difficulty of sustaining a regular workforce if work is not consistently available. El-Farhan disagreed that he had said the labor resources were lacking.

He said the labor situation is a question of getting it going and then the momentum will create the jobs.  “If you post the jobs, people will come and we can fill the requests.”  He said training is also envisioned to deepen the labor pool.

As for the alleged comment about CO2 emissions, El-Farhan said that was taken completely out of context.  He said he was talking about how for the first time in history east coast ports in 2020 did more freight movement than west coast ports.  He said if you eliminate having to go from California to the east coast, there is a significant reduction in the carbon footprint.

El-Farhan also denied that he urged the Commission to explore alternative locations for the wind turbine facility.  He said he urged the Commission – in addition to wind turbine manufacturing – to investigate how to be part of the supply chain for renewable energy.  “Offshore wind will be one part of renewable energy,” he said.  He said he was recommending diversification,  not shutting down the wind turbine project.

The bigger obstacle to completing wind turbine manufacturing to the Port may be funding. “Funding is an issue,” said Penelope Vavura, the Port’s Director of External Affairs. “We are exploring different avenues.” However, Vavura was optimistic that funding can be secured. She said the Port maintains strong private and public partnerships and continues to apply for funding. She said that there is a lot of funding for infrastructure available, but that’s the challenge of being one of the firsts.” Vavura said the port is “mindful of the longer time line and still working to find solutions.” “I sometimes can be optimistic but I think this is something the port is committed to until it is told for some definite reason it can’t be done. We are learning as we go.”

Sufficiency of site remediation questioned

Rowlands also continues to challenge the sufficiency of the site’s remediation. During the June 26 commission meeting’s public comment section, Rowlands told the Commission that it may think it has a permit from the state DEC to cover the coal ash with two feet of soil, but the DEC rule, which she claimed to be less stringent, no longer applies in light of a new EPA rule.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency recently issued a final rule amending 2015 regulations governing the disposal of coal combustion residuals in landfills and surface impoundments. The final rule becomes effective November 8.

Vavura said that “from the get-go” and before the federal EPA final rule was adopted, the Port had already implemented a four foot cap. “That is more than compliant with the new EPA rule,” Vavura said. She said the permitting the Port had was for a two foot cap, but it was voluntarily doubled to four feet. “I trust my engineers who have decades of experience. We are compliant with all permitting.”

Rowlands also claimed the last groundwater testing was conducted in 2021 and there is insufficient time to do new testing before an assessment as to whether the site is covered by the EPA final rule is due on November 8. Yagan said the Port developed a groundwater monitoring plan in November 2022 and has conducted monthly sampling ever since then. He said groundwater testing will continue even after construction is finished until the DEC directs it can be discontinued.

Yagan stated that five groundwater monitoring wells that are 35-40 feet deep were installed on the site to determine whether contaminants were being driven to the ground water. Larkin said, “We have had 18 months of ground water test results. We have seen a reduction in petroleum based results because we removed that and are no longer washing it down the river.” Yagan said, “We don’t celebrate these things enough because that’s an environmental benefit to the site.”

Edward Larkin, Regional Manager Buildings Engineering and Code Services for LaBella, an outside engineering firm employed by the Port on the project, noted that until the site was cleaned, the fly ash had been exposed and ‘kids were riding their bikes through it, but now it is a clean site.”

Rowlands said based on her reading of the EPA final rule coal ash must be removed from the site. “The site has to be clean-cleared,” she said. Rowlands did not rule out litigation. Citizens may bring enforcement actions under a citizen suit. However, according to EPA Acting Director of Office of Media Relations and Risk Communications Angela Hackel, the EPA does not deputize citizens to act on the EPA’s behalf, which Rowlands suggested.

Yagan said that removing the coal ash is not the best practice. He said removing it “will cause exposure to communities, construction workers and more.” Instead, he said the coal ash has been buried under a four foot impermeable cap. He added that the regulations are not about removing the coal ash from the site. Instead, they look at monitoring site coal ash levels and how to treat them.

Beacon Island Environmental Justice group members have already tried to stymie the project in court challenges because of alleged environmental impacts caused by coal ash. One Article 78 proceeding against the Town of Bethlehem’s Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board, currently on appeal, was dismissed in a 49 page decision in New York State Supreme Court. Rowlands said two other Article 78 cases are pending, one of which is awaiting decision on the respondents’ motion to dismiss the case.

“There are misconceptions. People let their fear take over and don’t realize all the background done to mitigate issues.” Yagan said. “We were taking a site and letting it serve an environmentally friendly end use on a site that was contaminated.”

The post Port of Albany tries to heel into crosswinds first appeared on Spotlight News .