Springfield advocates and councilors press for clarity after court order on biomass plant permit
Loading...
Summary
Community members and the Health and Human Services Committee met to review whether a long‑disputed biomass plant permit in East Springfield remains valid after recent court and ZBA activity, raising public‑health concerns and asking the building department to confirm permit transfer and remaining time.
The Health and Human Services Committee met to review the legal status and health risks tied to a long‑disputed biomass plant project in East Springfield after recent court activity and a zoning board vote reinstating a building permit. Committee members and community speakers urged the city to confirm whether the original permit issued to Palmer Paving transferred to a successor company and how much time remains on the permit.
Ken Shea of the city law department said the controlling legal question is whether permits issued to Palmer Paving automatically passed to the new owner. "Under Massachusetts laws, under chapter 43d, section 11, permits do not automatically transfer to the new entity," Shea said, adding that a successor can request a transfer from the building department but that he had not yet received a response from the building department about whether such a request had been made. Shea also noted that the permit in question is only valid for five years and he did not know how much time, if any, remains.
Community speakers emphasized health concerns. Serena Hudson of the Public Health Institute of Western Mass said Springfield still has among the state''s highest asthma rates and that any new incinerator‑style emissions would increase burdens on vulnerable residents. "We are no longer the asthma capital of The US, but we were for 2 years running, and we certainly still have some of the highest rates of asthma," Hudson said, urging a health‑impact assessment and noting an ongoing MassDEP air‑permit case.
Vern MacArthur of the Springfield Climate Justice Coalition told the committee that emissions do not respect municipal boundaries and warned of regional impacts. "Biomass plants pollute more than coal plants do," MacArthur said, arguing that the plant''s plume could affect surrounding communities.
Steven Howard cited national and state asthma statistics and local air‑quality readings, saying Springfield has historically ranked very high for asthma prevalence and emergency visits. He urged committee members to review maps and data he said he could share with councilors.
Committee member Zaida Govan and others noted parallel legislative action: members of the state legislature, including Representative Orlando Ramos and Senator Gomez, have pushed language in a clean‑energy bill that would bar subsidies for biomass fuel, a change advocates say would make the project financially infeasible.
Several councilors recalled that the original permit was issued in 2008, that the city council voted to revoke the permit in 2011, and that subsequent litigation has kept the question alive. Committee members said the Supreme Judicial Court recently declined to decide the substantive issue and that the Zoning Board of Appeals acted to issue a building permit a few months ago.
No formal motion or vote was recorded at the meeting. Attendees agreed on two practical next steps: (1) ask the building department to confirm whether any permit transfer request was filed and how much time, if any, remains on the permit; and (2) reach out to neighboring municipalities that could be affected and consider a council resolution if appropriate. Chairman Brian Santanello and other participants said they would continue follow up once the building department provides the relevant records.
The meeting closed with plans to reconvene or report back after staff confirm permit status and remaining timelines.
