News coverage and resident voices
News Coverage and Resident Voices
Independent Connecticut newsrooms have reported on the proposed SMART Technology Systems trash plant since March 2025. This page is a dated inventory of that coverage, with on-the-record quotes from residents and town officials, each attributed to the article it appeared in.
Since March 2025 the proposed Plainfield trash plant has been covered by the Norwich Bulletin, The Day, WFSB, the Hartford Courant, CT Mirror, and CT News Junkie; residents and town officials have gone on the record against it at public meetings, and a June 2025 town referendum ran 1,148 to 125 against.12 The proposal itself remains under active review by state agencies; no final permit decision has been issued.4 News is supporting context here; the scientific and official evidence lives on the Evidence & Sources and topic pages.
The record
Coverage, Newest First
Independent reporting on the proposed plant, in reverse-chronological order. Outlet, headline, and date are listed; each links to the original. Two items from The Day sit behind a subscription and are listed for the record.
Several Norwich Bulletin stories are bylined Connor Linskey or Matt Grahn and are read here on the Yahoo News and AOL syndication feeds. The Hartford Courant story by Don Stacom is read via Government Technology.
On the record
What Residents Have Said
Every quote below is attributed to the article it appeared in. These are the words of Plainfield residents, spoken at public meetings and to reporters.
Erland Bragg, a resident who lives about a mile from the site: “Bottom line, we don’t want you here.”10
Patricia Williams: “In my opinion, it could not be in a worst spot for the future growth of our town.”13
Eric Colello: “This is going to put a lot of heavy truck traffic on our roads and the roads will decay at a much faster rate then they already are.”13
Britney Barrett: “Our fire departments are not big enough to handle all of this.”13
David Kettle, a Plainfield beekeeper, on his bees foraging near the site: “They’ll bring it back, put it in the hive, we won’t have clean honey if this gets proposed and passed.”11
The Norwich Bulletin reported that residents opposing the plant cited decreased nearby property values, increased traffic, loss of the town’s rural character, and health concerns including asthma and COPD.10 These are reported resident concerns, not established findings.
On the record
What Town Officials Have Said
Peggy Bourey, then a member of Plainfield’s Board of Selectmen, told WFSB in May 2025: “I’m hoping to learn more about what’s proposed. I think it’s a bad location in a bad place and it needs to be more thought out.”11
On the record
The Joint Town-Committee Letter
Plainfield’s Republican and Democratic town committees issued a joint statement against the proposal. It was quoted by the Hartford Courant in June 2025.
“The reality of over 100 garbage trucks traveling daily between 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. through peaceful neighborhoods would be profoundly disruptive.”12
“This pristine area is home to diverse wildlife, including a bald eagle nesting site, and faces significant risks of pollution to valuable underground water sources.”12
In the same reporting, the Courant recorded Plainfield’s non-binding referendum on the plant as 1,148 to 125 against.12 The referendum does not bind the state, which holds permitting authority under Connecticut’s solid-waste and facility-siting statutes.5
On the record
The Referendum Bill and Its Veto
Plainfield’s proposal was the primary impetus for HB 7004, “An Act Authorizing Municipal Referenda to Challenge Certain Permit Approvals,” which would have let smaller towns challenge certain state environmental-permit approvals by referendum. The Connecticut General Assembly passed it in both chambers, and Governor Lamont vetoed it on July 8, 2025.11516 The bill’s progress and veto date are recorded in the General Assembly’s official bill history.1
For the record
What the Developer Has Said
For balance, the developer’s own statements are recorded here. The project’s quantitative and technical figures — the gasification-of-refuse-derived-fuel technology, the stated throughput of roughly 468,000 tons per year, the claimed Class I renewable-energy qualification, and the “not before 2028” timeline — are the developer’s own figures, stated in SMART Technology Systems’ filings on the Connecticut DEEP regulatory record23 and repeated to reporters.8 They are the applicant’s projections, not independently verified outcomes.
Bill Corvo, a manager at SMART Technology Systems, on the timeline: “We don’t anticipate going operational much before 2028.”82
Rick Audette of O&G Industries: “This is not your grandfather’s mass burn facility in Connecticut, it’s completely different technology.”10
The “completely different technology” characterization is the developer’s own. SMART’s DEEP filing describes proven gasification of refuse-derived fuel in place of mass-burn combustion;2 independent technical reviews of municipal-solid-waste gasification report recurring operational and economic hurdles — feedstock variability, tar formation, and limited commercial viability without subsidy.67
Also tracking this
Advocacy Coverage
Statewide environmental organizations have named the Plainfield proposal in their advocacy.
Questions and answers
Frequently Asked Questions
Which news outlets have covered the Plainfield trash plant?
The proposed plant has been reported by the Norwich Bulletin, The Day, WFSB (CBS 3), the Hartford Courant, CT Mirror, and CT News Junkie, beginning in March 2025.8
What have Plainfield residents said about the plant?
Residents have spoken against it on the record. Erland Bragg told the Norwich Bulletin, “Bottom line, we don’t want you here,” and other residents raised truck traffic, road wear, fire-department capacity, and the town’s future growth.1013
How did Plainfield vote on the trash plant?
In a June 2025 non-binding referendum, Plainfield voted 1,148 to 125 against the plant, as reported by the Hartford Courant. The vote does not bind the state, which decides permitting.12
Did both town committees oppose the plant?
Yes. Plainfield’s Republican and Democratic town committees issued a joint statement opposing the proposal, quoted by the Hartford Courant, citing truck traffic and risks to underground water sources.12
What did the developer say in response?
SMART manager Bill Corvo said the plant would not go operational “much before 2028,” and O&G’s Rick Audette said the facility is “not your grandfather’s mass burn facility.” Those are the developer’s own characterizations, restated from its DEEP filings; both are recorded here from news coverage.8102