The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued a Conditional Air Quality Plan Approval, calling for a list of revisions, but an opponent says it's not enough.
Rendering of proposed biomass facilitySPRINGFIELD – Opponents of the proposed $150 million biomass plant in Springfield are considering filing an appeal of a state agency’s approval for the project.
Meanwhile, a lawyer for the developer said the state approval is welcome news.
On Thursday the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued a Conditional Air Quality Plan Approval to Palmer Renewable Energy for a biomass-fired power generating facility at 1000 Page Blvd.
Susan Reid of the Conservation Law Foundation said Friday the state agency “has profoundly let down the people of Springfield in issuing a permit.”
Frank FitzgeraldFrank P. Fitzgerald, lawyer for the developer, said, “We’re pleased that the state regulators and their experts have reviewed our science and the facts behind our project and reaffirmed that it is a clean and safe source of renewable energy for the community.”
Asked what the firm’s next step will be, he said, “This permit brings us one step closer to breaking ground.” He said developers are reviewing possible actions but have not decided what the next step will be.
On May 23, the 13-member City Council voted 10-2 to revoke the Palmer-based developer’s special permit to build a 35-megawatt biomass plant near the intersection of Page Boulevard and Cadwell Drive. It would be located on property owned by Palmer Paving Corp.
The councilors said the project had changed significantly from the 2008 plans and would have an “adverse impact” on the neighborhood.
In March, City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula issued an opinion to the City Council in which he wrote that under the developer’s revised plans to burn just green wood, the city’s code enforcement commissioner “would be warranted to allow the proposed use on this property located in an area zoned ‘Industrial A’, even without a special permit.”
Pikula said with the state approval, the developers can apply to the city for a building permit.
Whatever that decision is can be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Whoever doesn’t like that decision can appeal to Superior Court, Pikula said.
Timothy RookeCity Councilor Timothy Rooke, who voted against revocation of the special permit, said Friday he had suggested to his council colleagues they delay the vote on revocation until the state agency made its decision on an air quality permit.
He said, “Now that we’ve revoked the permit the City Council has lost all its leverage” regarding conditions, such as demanding a fund for addressing community concerns, it could place on the project."
City Council President Jose F. Tosado, who voted to revoke the city special permit, said of the state air quality permit approval, “Those people do not live in Springfield. If the permit-granting body actually lived here I think it may have been a different story.”
Late last week the project developer filed a lawsuit in Land Court asking that body to overturn the City Council’s permit revocation.
The city Law Department will prepare a response to that filing, Pikula said.
Lee Ann Warner, of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, said the state agency’s action “will not be accepted without a fight.” That group is working with the Conservation Land Foundation.
Reid said the foundation or any other opponent has 21 days after the state agency grants the permit to file an administrative appeal.
In its press release on the approval, the state Department of Environmental Protection said it reviewed and approved the facility under its Air Pollution Control Regulations, which require the facility to meet numerous state and federal air quality control requirements, including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established under the U.S. Clean Air Act.
The state agency determined the air emissions from the facility, when added to background pollutant concentrations, will not exceed any of the health-protective standards required by state and federal law.
The agency said it “imposed numerous limits on the emissions from this facility, and required monitoring on a continuous basis to ensure the facility is operated within the strict limits of the permit.”
The state agency approval only addresses the required state air quality approval for a power generating facility of this nature and does not supersede other state and local permitting requirements, the release said.
The agency release said after publishing a draft plan and conducting an April 5 hearing, it reviewed comments and revised the approval with new protections.
Pikula said he has not had a chance to review the actual state permit approval but from the
revisions listed in the press release he is most interested in the provision calling for a “benefit agreement for the community that includes funding of local health improvements.”
Other revisions include a requirement to cover or enclose all wood delivery trucks and a risk management plan for ammonia storage.
Reid said the revisions “don’t come close to providing the protection that would be needed” for health and safety of the community.
Meg Sheehan, of the Biomass Accountability Project, said “This air pollution permit reflects an egregious failure of the regulatory system.”