Opponents of a proposed wood-burning power plant in Springfield—which developers call a “biomass” plant, and detractors refer to by the decidedly less benign term “toxic incinerator”—are continuing to apply political pressure to try to kill the project.
In 2008, Palmer Renewable Energy was granted a special permit from the Springfield City Council for the $150 million project, to be built on Page Boulevard. According to a plan submitted by Palmer Renewable to the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection, “The stoker boiler will burn a maximum of 432,226 tons per year of wood fuel, which will include green (virgin) wood chips and a monthly average of 700 tons per day or 255,500 tons per year of construction and demolition (C&D) derived wood fuel as its primary fuel.”
Backers describe the plant as an environmentally sound renewable energy project that would keep waste out of landfills.
But opponents—organized under the group Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield—contend the burning of construction and demolition waste would release dangerous toxins, including mercury, arsenic and lead, into the air, posing a public health risk that would reach beyond Springfield and across the entire Valley.
Joining STIS in opposing the plant are several Springfield neighborhood groups as well as regional and national environmental and public health organizations, including the American Lung Association, the Mass. Medical Society, the Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition and Physicians for Social Responsibility of the Pioneer Valley.
Over the summer, STIS says, it delivered more than 900 postcards to Springfield city councilors asking them to revoke the 2008 permit. Of the 13 sitting councilors, only four were in office for that vote; all four—at-large Councilors Jimmy Ferrera, Tim Rooke, Jose Tosado and Kateri Walsh—voted in favor of the permit. Among the Council newcomers, STIS counts Zaida Luna (Ward 1), Mel Edwards (Ward 3), Henry Twiggs (Ward 4), Keith Wright (Ward 6), Tim Allen (Ward 7), and John Lysak (Ward 8) on its side.
While opponents of the project hope to persuade the rest of the councilors to revoke the permit, it’s still unclear if the Council has, in fact, the power to do so. Last month, the city Law Department said it was looking into that question. At deadline, the department had not yet released an opinion.
