The City Council closed the hearing after 4 hours, halting any further testimony or evidence.
View full sizeProtesters for and against a proposed wood-burning biomass plant in East Springfield rally on the steps of Springfield City Hall prior to a Springfield City Council public hearing considering revocation of a special permit the council granted to allow construction of the plant.SPRINGFIELD – The City Council, in considering if there are grounds to revoke a permit for a wood-burning biomass plant in East Springfield, heard nearly four hours of sharply differing testimony on Tuesday from an overflow crowd of proponents and opponents.
The council, by a 10-3 vote, closed the hearing and decided not to accept additional testimony, but will wait until at least its next meeting Monday night to decide if the special permit for the plant granted in 2008 should be revoked or amended.
Council President Jose F. Tosado said he wants the council to act soon, saying it has received ample testimony on multiple occasions.
Plant opponents said the project will worsen air pollution and harm public health. In addition, some speakers said that changes in the plant’s fuel source and a significant increase in the daily tonnage of green wood chips being brought to the plant justify revoking the permit.
The developer, Palmer Renewable Energy, and its consultants and lawyers, said there is no “just cause” for revoking the permit for the proposed plant at 1000 Page Blvd., contending the permit has not been violated and changes in wood fuel are improvements.
Council members will rely on City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula to provide them with a “finding of facts” on the issue of revocation, in advance of the possible vote on Monday, including any guidelines and justifications for revocation.
Councilors Timothy J. Rooke, Michael A. Fenton, and James J. Ferrera III, were the sole councilors seeking to keep the hearing open past Tuesday, with Rooke saying that perhaps the council could wait for a state ruling on an air quality permit.
Thomas A. Mackie and Frank P. Fitzgerald, lawyers representing Palmer Renewable Energy, said the developer met all conditions in getting the 2008 permit, and there are no adverse changes since that permit was granted. The owners have constitutionally protected property use rights, Mackie said.
“What they (opponents) really want is a do-over,” Mackie said. “There are no do-overs in zoning.”
Patrick Markey, a Springfield resident and lawyer, and also a former city solicitor and city councilor, said there are multiple reasons to revoke the permit, including an increase in wood tonnage, increase in truck traffic, and an increase in the size of trucks from 20-ton to 25-ton, as well as increased concerns about emissions from biomass plants.
He urged councilors not to be swayed by the threat of legal action if the special permit is revoked.
Proponents said the emissions are well within state and federal guidelines.
Since 2008, the developer changed from its initial plans to use an average of 700 tons of recycled wood per day and 200 tons of green wood chips per day, to an average of 1,184 tons per day of green wood chips.
Proponents and opponents sharply disagreed if there is enough waste wood available for the project without harming forestry. Developers said the supply is there.
While supporters said the plant will not harm public health, opponents raised concerns about particulate pollution and its impact on health.
Those raising concerns about health and pollution included Mary Booth of the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance; Susan Reid of the Conservation Law Foundation; and Dr. Jefferson H. Dickey, who lives in Northampton and practices in Springfield.
The developer’s engineers and consultants, including Dale T. Raczynski of Epsilon Associates Inc. of Maynard; and Peter A. Valberg, of Gradient, said the plant is equipped with state-of-the-art pollution control equipment.
In addition, a traffic consultant said traffic impacts would be minimal.