Opponents of the wood-burning power plant proposed for East Springfield got some unwelcome news recently: state environmental officials have denied their request for a comprehensive study on the plant’s potential effects on public health and the environment in the city.
Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, the grassroots group that’s been leading the charge against the plant, last month filed a petition with the Mass. Environmental Protection Agency asking for the review, citing the poor air quality in the city and its related health consequences. (Twenty percent of Springfield’s schoolchildren have asthma—twice the statewide rate. And the Mass. Department of Public Health calls Springfield a “high-risk community for childhood lead poisoning,” with 2010 statistics showing that the city’s children have elevated levels of lead in their blood at double the statewide rate.) They also note that Springfield is a government-recognized Environmental Justice Community, a designation given to communities that face especially tough challenges to public health.
As originally conceived, the project would have had high enough levels of government-defined “hazardous air pollutants” (nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide) to trigger a required Major Comprehensive Air Plan Approval process by DEP. But last year, the developers, Palmer Renewable Energy, notified the state of changes to the plan that resulted in those emission levels dropping just below the threshold to require that review.
Ian Bowles, secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs at the time, twice ruled that the plant did not require an additional MEPA review. Plant opponents had hoped that Bowles’ replacement, Rick Sullivan—the former Westfield mayor, who took over the state job in January—would use his discretionary powers to overturn those rulings and require the review. But in a March 31 letter to Benjamin Rajotte, the attorney who filed the petition on behalf of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, Sullivan wrote that, after reviewing the situation, “I have concluded that no further MEPA review is warranted.”
In his letter, Sullivan referred to Bowles’ earlier decisions—the last one made in November, when the agency issued a certificate for the new plans for the plant—and said that no changes had been made to the project to warrant overturning those decisions. Sullivan also noted that the PRE project has already “complied with MEPA requirements concerning disclosure of environmental impacts including, but not limited to, air emissions, greenhouse gas impacts and public health impacts.”
Sullivan went on to write that the project has undergone review at the state and local levels (that includes a special permit granted to the developers by the City Council in 2008) and that public input from those processes “has resulted in changes and improvements to the proposed project.” Most notably, PRE dropped its initial plan to burn construction and demolition waste at the plant, and now says it will burn only “green” wood chips.
Sullivan also noted that the project is still in the midst of a review process for an air-quality permit from Mass. Department of Environmental Protection. “MassDEP can, through its air permitting process, ensure that the proponent adequately mitigates the PRE project to avoid Damage to the Environment,” Sullivan wrote. (The public comment period on that permit was recently extended until April 29. Public comments about the permit can be submitted through DEP’s website, where the draft permit is also available for viewing.)
With the state review of the project now apparently limited to the air-quality permit (something STIS expects will be granted), opponents are amplifying their calls for city officials to take up the matter. STIS has repeatedly asked the City Council to revoke the special permit it granted to PRE in 2008. While the city Law Department has said the Council lacks the legal authority to do that, Council President (and mayoral candidate) Jose Tosado recently called for a revocation hearing to be scheduled. (Tosado voted for the permit in 2008 but has since changed his position, saying he can no longer support the project in light of new information about its potential effects. Mayor Domenic Sarno has voiced his “conditional support” for the plant, as long as it meets state health and environmental requirements.) STIS has also requested the city’s Public Health Council—which is charged with advising the mayor on public health issues—use its powers to stop the project.
In a press release in response to Sullivan’s ruling, STIS member Steve Dzubak said, “Given that MEPA has denied any further review of the facility and that DEP will issue its air permit sometime after the close of comments on April 29, 2011, the City Council and Public Health Council are now the last resort to protect the public health of city residents.”
STIS also noted that on Tuesday—the day before it issued its press release—the EPA had issued a hazardous air-quality warning for western Mass. “Yet in spite of the degraded air quality in the state, officials seem determined to issue an air pollution permit to the plant, which will be one of the largest, if not the largest, particle emitters in the four western Massachusetts counties of Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin, and Berkshire,” said member Lee Ann Warner.
Frank Fitzgerald, PRE’s attorney, has not returned calls from the Advocate.
