The DEP issued a letter to Springfield’s director of health and human services in response to questions regarding local Public Health Council oversight and "site assignment" powers.
An artist's rendering of the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant off Page Boulevard in East Springfield.SPRINGFIELD – A state agency has advised local health officials that questions raised about a proposed wood-burning plant in East Springfield, such as nuisance concerns and emissions, are being addressed in a state review and by federal regulation.
The state Department of Environmental Protection issued a two-page letter to Helen R. Caulton-Harris, the city’s director of health and human services, in response to her questions regarding if the local Public Health Council has oversight and “site assignment” powers over the 35-megawatt biomass plant planned for 1000 Page Boulevard.
The City Council, in separate action, will consider amending or revoking the plant’s 2008 special permit at a meeting on Monday. The meeting begins at 7 p.m., at City Hall, and follows a four-hour public hearing last week.
The Public Health Council met Wednesday with City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula to further discuss the issues raised in Caulton-Harris’ letter, and the state’s response. No decision has been made if the health council should conduct a site assignment hearing for the plant under a state law regulating a “noisome trade.”
The law pertains to trades that may be a nuisance or be harmful to the inhabitants.
Michael Gorski, regional director for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said the state’s draft plan approval for the proposed biomass project, contains conditions that address “these types of ‘noisome’ or nuisance conditions, including odor, noise and fugitive emissions.”
Regarding local health council questions about plant emissions, Gorski said the emissions are covered under the national ambient air quality standard under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, designed to protect sensitive populations.
The predicted impact of the plant is within those guidelines, he said.
Gorski said that any approval of a new source of pollution “includes an array of systems to assure conformance with any emission limitation,” including continuous emission monitors.
Opponents of the plant have argued that it will worsen pollution and harm public health.
Palmer Renewable Energy, the developer, says the plant is safe and not a health hazard.
Frank P. Fitzgerald, lawyer for Palmer Renewable Energy, said the letter from Gorski “takes its place in a long line of well-documented government affirmations of the science and safety behind our project.”
Michaelann Bewsee, a representative of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, said her group hopes the health council will proceed with a site assignment hearing.
“We have to do everything we can to protect the health of Springfield residents,” Bewsee said. “The overall tone of the (state) letter is ‘don’t worry, we got it covered.’ Of course, if we really thought that, we would not be doing the kind of organizing we are.”
DEP Letter to Springfield Health Services Director RE Palmer Renewable Energy Project