2007 CONVERSATIONS REGARDING TRANSFER STATIONMemo To: Christina Harrington, Board of Health Chair
Board of Health Members
CC: Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor
John Carrigan, DEP
Re: Transfer Station
Date: October 3, 2007
Beth Rennard and I had a conversation last week with John Carrigan of the DEP.
As a result of that meeting, as well as John's consultation with another DEP
engineer who regularly interprets the relevant code and an additional
conversation with Beth Rennard, the following has been distilled:
• The Board of Health is being asked to approve a "minor modification" of
an existing site assignment; that is an increase from 100 to 400 tons per
day.
• The BOH is being asked to determine the bounds of the site assignment
since the original document cannot be located. Although I am still looking.
• The Application Process and resultant Technical Fee are meant for New
Site Assignments and Major Modifications, therefore the BOH cannot
require either.
• The required public hearing is not as formal as described in the Code, so
that an outside hearing officer and stenographer are not required.
• The City of Salem is the requesting party, although the City is beginning
the procedures necessary to sell the property and the Site Assignment.
MEPA does require an application. They will conduct a site visit, review a
traffic study and an air quality study, receive comments during a review
period (including from the Board or Board members), and make a
recommendation.
The MEPA process could be regarded as an alternative to having a private
consultant. In addition, although we cannot require a technical fee, we could
request funds from Northside Carting to review the MEPA submittal so that the
Board may submit cogent comments to MEPA during the review period.
I would suggest that we hold the BOH public hearing after the MEPA application
submittal and during the MEPA review period so that public concerns, if any,
could also be directed to MEPA in a timely manner.
The DEP regards the impacts from increased truck traffic as small compared to
the benefits of improving the transfer station and closing the landfill. To mitigate
air pollution and other concerns, the Board could include conditions on an
approval. I have a copy of conditions placed on Thomson Brothers Industries
Site Assignment Application (Bill Thomson is also a principal partner of Northside
Carting) by the Town of North Andover. Many of these conditions are meant to
address air pollution impacts.
Beth and I will work on a timeline for this process.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Page 1 of 1
Joanne Scott
From: Sawyer, Susan [ssawyer@townofnorthandover.comj
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:14 AM
To: Joanne Scott
Subject: trash
Hi
The contact for Camp Dresser and McKee Inc. was Bruce Haskell
617 452-6000
The lawyer we used to organize has left for a state job, but the person lawyer who actually was "the judge' in the
entire site assignment was Art Kreiger of Anderson and Kreiger. He was very knowledgeable about the whole
process I thought he would be good as one of the participants lawyers as well.
AKreiger@AndersonKreiger.com
If I were you I would try to contact Carl Goodman, Goodman Law office in Lynn,MA. He was the Chair of the
Marblehead Board of Health and is a lawyer who represented a party in our site assignment. I am sure he could
help you. Give them a call. At very least he could help you with the hearing for this "minor modification" issue vs. a
site assignment.
Good luck,
Susan
Susan Sawyer, REHS/RS
Public Health Director
978 688-9540
12/11/2007
Page 1 of 1
Joanne Scott
From: Sawyer, Susan[ssawyer@townofnorthandover.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:16 AM
To: Joanne Scott
Subject: found a number for Goodman
(781) 639-8100
Carl Goodman's #
Susan Sawyer, REHS/RS
Public Health Director
978 688-9540
12/11/2007
Susan $a a,cy -er _ /,j,,*h A/7davPi -Boll
cwt — �, �e Mt , �Ge-
/k n d�, %' �
Page 1 of 1
Joanne Scott
From: Joanne Scott
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:13 PM
To: 'Carrigan, John (DEP)'
Subject: RE: Transfer Station
Dear John:
Beth told me that Beta is preparing to submit an application to MEPA with a traffic study and air quality study.
Joanne
From: Carrigan, John (DEP) [mailto:John.Carrigan@state.ma.us]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:11 PM
To: Joanne Scott
Subject: RE: Transfer Station
Joanne:
Did you confirm with MEPA that an application is required and they will review the traffic study etc. ?
JohnC
John A. Carrigan, Chief
Solid Waste Management Section
Bureau of Waste Prevention
Northeast Regional Office Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
205B Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
Phone: (978) 694-3299
Fax: (978) 694-3499
For Intra -Agency Discussion Only
From: Joanne Scott [mailto:JScott@Salem.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:09 PM
To: Barbara Poremba; Carol Rainville; Chris Harrington;
Icorchado@salemstate.edu; Martin Fair; Noreen Casey;
Cc: Beth Rennard; Carrigan, John (DEP)
Subject: Transfer Station
Dear Board Members:
Please see the attached memo.
Thank you,
Joanne
10/3/2007
Christina Harrington; Joanne Scott;
Paulette Puleo; Tracy Giarla
Page 1 of 1
Joanne Scott
From: Beth Rennard
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:29 PM
To: Joanne Scott
Subject: RE: Transfer Station
Looks good thanks
Elizabeth Rennard, Esq.
City Solicitor
City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
978-619-5631
978-744-1279 (fax)
From: Joanne Scott
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:09 PM
To: Barbara Poremba; Carol Rainville; Chris Harrington; Christina Harrington; Joanne Scott;
Icorchado@salemstate.edu; Martin Fair; Noreen Casey; Paulette Puleo; Tracy Giarla
Cc: Beth Rennard; 'Joh n.Carrigan @state. ma. us'
Subject: Transfer Station
Dear Board Members:
Please see the attached memo.
Thank you,
Joanne
10/3/2007
Page 1 of 1
Joanne Scott
From: Joanne Scott
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:49 AM
To: Beth Rennard
Subject: Transfer Station
Dear Beth
In our conversation with John Carrigan, he did say we could request funds (not require a technical fee) from NSC
to review what is submitted to MEPA. This would allow the Board to make cogent comments to MEPA during the
review period.
Also, regarding the timeline ... I think it makes sense for the BOH to have its public hearing following submittal of
the MEPA application and during the review period so that questions raised may be forwarded to MEPA. Can we
work out a timeline that would include: the MEPA submittal, MEPA site visit, MEPA review period, BOH hearing,
BOH decision?
I am preparing a memo to the BOH and will copy you and John Carrigan.
Sincerely,
Joanne
10/3/2007
310 CMR 16.00: Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities
Part I: Procedures for Submission & Review of Site Assignment
Part II: Board of Health Public Hearings
Part III: Application Fee
Part IV: Site Suitability Criteria
16.21: Alternative Use of Assigned Site
(3) Specific Use Site Assignment. Where a site is assigned for a specific solid waste
purpose, a different solid waste activity shall not be conducted at the site except in
accordance with a new or modified site assignment, except as allowed at 310 CMR
16.21(3)(a) or (b):
(b) Handling Facility at a Closed or Inactive Landfill or Combustion Facility Site. A site
which has been assigned for use as a landfill or combustion facility which has been
closed or is in the process of imminently closing shall not require a new or modified site
assignment to obtain an approval for the storage, transfer or processing of solid waste
when:
1. the facility does not receive solid waste in excess of the tonnage limits stated in the
site assignment for landfilling, or combustion or processing;
• Because there was no tonnage stated in the original 1960 assignment,
then there is a need for a "new or modified" site assignment?
16.22: Modifications to and Rescissions and Suspensions of Site Assignments
(3) Minor Modifications to Site Assignments at the Request of the Facility Owner or
Operator.
Any request to modify a site assignment that is not subject to 310 CMR 16.22(1) or (2),
including any request to modify conditions established by the Board of Health in the site
assignment, or to increase daily or annual tonnage limits, except as specified at 310 CMR
16.22(4), are deemed to be "Minor Modifications." The Board of Health may modify a
site assignment to address a minor modification, at the request of the facility owner or
operator, without requiring the filing of a new application by the applicant or site
suitability report by the Department, provided the Board of Health provides public
notice and holds a public hearing in accordance with the requirements of 310 CMR 16.00
prior to deciding on the minor modification.
• This is a Minor Modification because it is an increase in daily or annual
tonnage?
The Board of Health may modify site assignment without requiring
application or site suitability report from the Department, at the request
of the applicant, but most provide public notice and hold public hearing.
Does this mean that we could require application fee and department
review?
16.08 (5) (d) Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
1. The application shall include a demonstration that:
a. the MEPA process does not apply; or
b. the MEPA process does apply and the Secretary has determined that an EIR is
required; or
c. the MEPA process has already been completed and the Secretary has issued a
certificate or a determination that no FIR is required.
2. The first Technical Review Period (TRI) as specified under the Timely Action and Fee
Provisions Regulations, 310 CMR 4.00, shall not be completed until the Secretary's final
certificate has been issued.
16.22 (5) MEPA Review.
Any modifications to the site assignment may require the filing of a Notice of
Project Change pursuant to 310 CMR 11. 10, MEPA Regulations. Should a Notice of
Project Change be required the applicant shall comply with 310 CMR 16.08(5)(d) prior to
submitting a new site
assignment application.
• Has MEPA been involved? Is there an EIR?
16.30: Fees
(1) Application Fees
(a) General. The Application Fee is a fee which is paid by an applicant to the board of
health. The board of health may use the fee for eligible costs of reviewing technical data,
obtaining technical assistance and conducting a public hearing. The Application Fee shall
be assessed as two separate fees:
1. Technical Fee (technical review and technical assistance); and
2. Public Hearing Fee (cost of notice, recording, HO's duties, facilities).
• Technical Fee assessed upon receipt of application?
• Used for reviewing application Suitability Report, MDPH's response,
public comments?
• Confusion between (2) (c) 3. c., "determining what other data should
be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance. And
4., Excluded costs, "...otherwise generating new data, or performing
independent analyses of environmental impacts
• Public Hearing Fee assessed upon receipt of Department Report?
16.40: Site Suitability Criteria
• Impacts of closed landfill o nresidential well water will be evaluated by DEP?
• Impacts of Solid Waste Handling Faciltiy on residential well water will be
evaluated by DEP?
(4) General Site Suitability Criteria
(b) Traffic and Access to the Site.
No site shall be determined to be suitable or be assigned as a solid waste management
facility where traffic impacts from the facility operation would constitute a danger to the
public health, safety, or the environment taking into consideration the following factors:
1. traffic congestion;
2. pedestrian and vehicular safety;
3. road configurations;
4. alternate routes; and
5. vehicle emissions
• How is this evaluated? Can new data be generated modeling what is likely to be
the traffic impact from this facility vs. what potentially could be placed on this
property?
b -9-o'7
J or7v� C a� rl q yy'
p 41-eell-�
`�-�-�-� � ,cam - �, �;,Q,�.-� ��,� ��
&}� I'am vew
J c)hn Ca.i; fan
wlwE a Area $ -
s��? hid -
lan
No�� Pu b Hearin 7
?ItoWaw, S4C asS/qHl,t-a,4 _ %:$We v sif
he ou o 4-v et Cov„uI -
catA & req emoie mn&t44W . tSSue,s
Moto -
m�sk-s - - - - -
ev" -
t?�
'� G�au(s1wK h�u.i�-Nod I
Ifiq 36(/►�-w- r)
,3an�G RS ,
-
gd --
Sal _ -
wt of
j e - e �-
G-7a- 7��- >�ss�