The proposed trash facility in Plainfield is not welcome: How the town is fighting it
The Town of Plainfield is fighting against the trash to
energy plant that’s proposed there.
Plainfield First Selectman Kevin Cunningham said residents
continue to sign petitions for two public hearings with Commissioner of
Connecticut’s Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (CT DEEP)
Katie Dykes regarding the plant.
Residents overwhelmingly opposed the facility at the June 2 budget election. There, a non-binding advisory
question appeared on the ballot, which asked voters if they were in favor of
having a proposed solid waste to energy plant from SMART Technology Systems in
Plainfield. Residents decisively rejected the plant, with 125 votes in favor of
it and 1,148 votes against it.
Plainfield residents also spoke out against the proposed
plant at an informational meeting May 7.
Now, the town is doing its part to prevent the facility from
coming to town.
“I have written a letter to the siting council and the town
attorney is drafting one coming from the BOS (Board of Selectmen),” Cunningham
said in an email Aug. 20. “We believe that the environmental impact outweighs
the offset for tax revenue. There are many issues for safety that are still
concerns – water at this site borders the largest aquifer in the town, air
quality concerns, truck traffic that includes bringing in MSW (municipal solid
waste) into town.”
Town’s efforts to prevent plant from coming to
Plainfield
Cunningham said the town has partnered with the Connecticut Coalition for
Economic and Environmental Justice to utilize their experts and
attorneys to try to stop the facility’s application at the siting council
level.
In addition, the town has partnered with the Northeastern Connecticut Council of
Governments (NECCOG) to write a resolution against the proposed plant.
Cunningham said the reason for the partnership is that the plant poses
environmental problems for the towns surrounding Plainfield, which NECCOG
represents.
At town hall, there are petitions that residents can sign to
allow the town’s hired specialists to speak at two of the siting council
meetings. The town is also engaging with an environmental attorney to support
the fight against the facility.
“At some point, it will be a matter for the residents to
vote to approve the use of fund balance monies in order to pay for the legal
team to work on fighting this plant,” Cunningham said in an email. “So far,
it’s minimal costs, but if the plant decides not to put in the application,
then we won’t need to request funding. If they do, then we’ll get an estimate
from [the siting] council and set up a meeting for that discussion.”
Thoughts on the project from SMART Technology
Bill Corvo, manager at SMART Technology Systems, said the
plant will reduce the negative environmental impacts of processing municipal
solid waste.
“We believe it is the best available current technology,”
Corvo said.
The proposed facility is designed to process 468,000 tons of
trash per year – 9,000 tons per week. It is needed, as Connecticut’s existing
landfills have limited capacity. In addition, the Materials Innovation and
Recycling Authority in Hartford closed in 2022, removing 2,000 tons of trash
processing capacity per day.
SMART Technology claims that the plant would convert organic
material to a clean renewable gas while having a lower impact on the
environment than an incinerator. They also say that the facility would divert
millions of tons of waste from landfills and produce clean electricity
year-round.
SMART Technology moving ahead with permitting
Corvo said SMART Technology submitted an air permit request
and solid waste permit request to CT DEEP. He said the developers became aware
of the concerns regarding the project after attending the informational meeting
back in May.
“We’re aware of the concerns that exist, not only in the
community, but elsewhere in the state,” Corvo said. “By the same token, there
were a number of people that were thinking that what we were bringing forward
was an old-fashioned burn facility like the one that was in Hartford. This
facility is a hundred years ahead of that in terms of environmental benefits
and also, it’s quieter, it’s designed to have the lowest possible negative
impact of any MSW processing plant in the United States today.”
Demolition of Bridgeport's 'candy cane' smokestack pushed back but rest of facility to be torn down
BRIDGEPORT — Fans of the city's landmark
red-and-white power plant smokestack will have a few more months to
admire the South End industrial edifice before it is blasted from the skyline.
Chad Parks, a partner with Bridgeport Station Development,
said the business has altered its
demolition timeline for the entire property. While the bulk of the aged
coal-fired facility is still scheduled to come down at the end of September,
"We're going to do the stacks next year," more specifically, in
April.
Located along the harbor at 1 Atlantic St., the former plant
has three such emissions towers. But really, just the colorful one, the
"candy cane," is thought of with any sentimentality, so much so that
City Lights gallery downtown opens a three-week art show inspired by that
red-and-white smokestack on Saturday.
"We have over 50 pieces," said the venue's
executive director, Suzanne Kachmar. "It's Bridgeport's icon of its grit,
grime and glory. ... It's a character on the landscape we're going to
miss."
Formerly operated by PSEG, the coal-powered electric
generation facility was shut down a few years ago as part of an arrangement to
allow a new, natural gas-fired one to be built next door. Bridgeport
Station Development bought the former last fall, and with the aid
of $22.5 million from the state, is dismantling and leveling the
structure for an as-yet-to-be-revealed redevelopment centered around housing.
In
the spring, Parks revealed at a meeting of downtown business owners that
the coal plant, the candy cane included, would come down Sept. 28. The
demolition was then moved to the following day to not
coincide with the fourth annual Soundside Music Festival at
nearby Seaside Park.
But last month, Soundside
was abruptly canceled. So, Parks said, the main plant, which workers are
already picking apart to remove hazardous materials, will be completely
imploded on the originally chosen date of Sept. 28.
"After this, you're really going to see (just) stacks
in the air and a hunk of metal getting processed," Parks said.
The decision to split up the September teardown event and
raze the three smoke stacks next April was due to "cleanup and
logistics," he said.
"We were pushing to get it all done in one fell swoop,
and there's no real need to," Parks said, claiming Bridgeport Station
Development will still be ahead of schedule.
Bridgeport's Building Department confirmed this week that it
received the request for the plant demolition permit Wednesday. The application
fee to the city is $32,190.
The candy cane's fate has
been an ongoing source of debate since the entire facility was sold, with
some arguing it is an ugly symbol of pollution that needs to go, while others,
including Mayor Joe Ganim, are urging the owner to preserve it as a
landmark seen throughout the city and from Long Island Sound.
"I'm in favor of it staying," Ganim said last
fall. "I think you'll get a lot of Bridgeport people saying, 'Leave
it."
Parks has previously stated that the striped tower must come
down because it would otherwise require significant maintenance and be much
more difficult to remove in the future when surrounded by new construction.
"There's obviously no reuse for the stack. The only
reason it would stay is if people wanted it to stay, (and) I'd say close to 80
percent want it down. The other 20 percent just kind of like it as an
icon," Parks said in May.
Count City Lights' Kachmar among that alleged 20 percent,
"I've seen it on the horizon my entire life, as have
many other people," she said. "It provided power. Even though it used
coal and also created pollution, it's also a memory, a symbol of the
industrialism of Bridgeport."
Parks reiterated that the developer acknowledges those
feelings, and the plan is to have a community event "where people can come
in, sign the stack" before it is no more.
But Kachmar still hopes her gallery's current exhibit and
other efforts can change minds over the coming seven or so months.
"It's never done until it's done," she said.
Fairfield's rebuild of Commerce Drive bridge to be completed by fall 2027
FAIRFIELD — Fairfield is
rebuilding the 47-foot Commerce Drive bridge over Ash Creek.
Jonathan Mullen, Fairfield’s assistant planning
director, said traffic detours have been set up and traffic will be restricted
to one-way in the eastbound direction for the project's duration. He said
demolition will begin over the coming weeks.
Troy Deering, construction project manager, advises drivers
to be cautious of the detour for their safety. "We're sorry for the
inconvenience, but it's for everyone's personal safety to obey the detour
plans," he said.
The project was fully funded with a nearly $4.5 million
grant from the state's Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program under
the Department of Transportation.
Deering said other bridge reconstruction projects in town
will take place over the next few years.
"A lot of these bridges were built around the same
time, in the earlier 1900s, even 50s or 60s, possibly," Deering said.
"And just like anything else, they can expire, from a safety standpoint
and just a structural reliability
The Commerce Drive bridge has been standing since 1929,
according to the
town website. Town Engineering Manager Bill Hurley said all bridges
have an estimated 75-year service life. The one on Commerce Drive is in poor,
though not yet serious, condition, he said.
"I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the bridge
span is in need of replacement," said Director of Community and Economic
Development Mark Barnhart.
Barnhart said the town will do what it can to help residents
navigate the difficulty the detour could cause.
"Everyone understands that in order to accomplish that
and to get a new bridge in place, it's going to be somewhat inconvenient for
folks that do have to travel that section of roadway, or have in the past, or
have businesses in the area. And so we're doing our best to minimize that and
to provide continued business access."
Last week, the Plan and Zoning Commission approved the
project's coastal site plan application. Mullen said the coastal site plan
included conditions for the proper erosion and sediment control measures to be
installed and maintained during the project.
The project is expected to be completed by fall 2027, but
Deering hopes it can be completed sooner.
"For most people, even when this is going to be open,
they're just going to drive over it and kind of forget that we even built a new
one," he said. "But it's really important for us to do, and it's
great to see that the state was helping the town out on something that's so
vital for the residents, whether they realize it or not. We're ensuring their
safety so they can continue commuting and crossing over town lines at all of
our watercourses safely."
Amid rumor of EB's further interest, Crystal Mall soldiers on
Brian Hallenbeck
Waterford — Richard Coe, Crystal Mall’s general manager, has
heard the rumor that’s been making the rounds for weeks now.
Electric Boat wants the whole mall, the rumor goes.
“Yes, I hear people saying that,” Coe, a Namdar Realty Group
employee, said Wednesday. “I hear the same things that everybody else hears.
But I don’t know anything about it. EB doesn’t talk to me.”
EB, the Groton shipbuilding behemoth that early last month
acquired the part of the mall that used to be Macy’s, declined Wednesday to
comment on the rumor it’s negotiating the purchase of the rest of the
Namdar-owned mall or at least the separately owned portion that was once a
Sears store.
“No comment,” an EB spokeswoman wrote in an immediate
response to an email query.
Amid the speculation about the mall’s fate, Coe said he’s
striving to keep up the mostly vacant property while fielding interest from a
steady stream of prospective tenants of far lesser magnitude than EB.
“I’m showing at least two or three spaces a week,” he said.
“There’s lots of interest in the food court and there’s some in-line interest
(elsewhere in the mall interior), too. Lots of locals.”
On Wednesday, all of the mall’s four escalators and one
passenger elevator were in working order, which hasn’t always been the case.
“We’re putting the work in, trying to make everything
functional,” Coe said. “What the long-term plans are I don’t know.
Unfortunately, I’m sometimes the last person to find out.”
Even as Coe spoke Wednesday, one of Crystal Mall’s few
remaining stores was conducting a closing sale.
Claire’s, a global brand that specializes in jewelry,
cosmetics, accessories and ear-piercing for tweens, teens and young girls, was
selling merchandise for up to 70% off.
Addie Gallardo, a store manager, said the store’s last
scheduled day of operation was Aug. 27.
“Given the situation, we’re doing pretty good,” she said,
referring to the empty spaces lining the mall’s corridors. “Definitely, the
sale has boosted business. A lot of customers, especially the little girls, are
sad to see us go.”
Gallardo noted the state’s annual sales tax-free week, which
began Sunday and continues through Saturday, allows retailers to suspend the
collection of sales tax on clothing and footwear purchases up to $100.
Also Wednesday, Claire’s corporate headquarters in Hoffman
Estates, Ill., announced a major development in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings it launched Aug. 6. In an email, a company spokeswoman said
Claire’s has reached an agreement with an affiliate of Ames Watson, a private
holding company, to acquire up to 950 stores in North America, “while all other
stores will continue liquidation sales.”
The list of stores being acquired was not yet available, so
it wasn’t immediately clear whether the deal would affect the Crystal Mall
store, one of eight Claire’s locations in Connecticut.
At another Crystal Mall store, Sigourney Herndon, assistant
manager of Kay Jewelers, said Wednesday that her store was staying put, at
least through the end of its current one-year lease, which took effect Jan. 1.
She said the store’s 2025 numbers are up over the previous year’s.
Kay Jewelers’ parent company, Signet Jewelers, also owned
the Zales store at Crystal Mall that closed last fall.