TRANSFER STATION - WESTLAS RESULTWestlaw Result
AL
Term
Page 1 of 11
NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are
superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will
be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a
typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court,
John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;
SJCReoorter@sic.state. ma. us
Arthur THEOPHILOPOULOS & others [FN1] vs. BOARD OF HEALTH OF SALEM &
another. [FN2]
No. 13-P-100.
Essex. Oct. 4, 2013. - March 18, 2014.
Department of Environmental Protection. Solid Waste Management. Municipal Corporations, Board of
health. Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Administrative law, Regulations, Agency's
interpretation of regulation, Judicial review. Statute, Construction.
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 18, 2010.
The case was heard by Howard J. Whitehead, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a motion
for reconsideration was also heard by him.
Thomas A. Mackie for the intervener.
Leonard F. Femino for the defendant.
Seth Schofield, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
Carl D. Goodman for the plaintiffs.
Present: Cypher, Katzmann, & Maldonado, JJ.
CYPHER, j.
The question presented for review is whether the Salem board of health (board) properly classified the
joint application of the city of Salem (city) and Northside Carting, Inc. (NCI), as one for a minor
modification of a site assignment. On appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7), a
judge concluded that it had not, and nullified the decision of the board approving the application. [FN3] We
reverse.
History of the site. In June, 1960, the board assigned city -owned land in Salem for use as a refuse
incineration plant (site). [FN4] As was common for the time, the board did not place any capacity or
volume limitations in the site assignment. Once the incinerator was built, the city disposed of the ash on
site in a landfill. By 1968, incineration and landfilling operations had ceased. No governmental entity at any
time thereafter sought to rescind, suspend, or modify the site assignment through the imposition of
conditions.
On September 9, 1975, the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE), the predecessor
agency of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (department), approved the city's
plan to construct a solid waste transfer station at the site. [FN5] DEQE'S plan approval was subject to five
conditions, including a weight -receipt limit of 100 tons of refuse per day. [FN6]
On June 3, 1994, the department approved the city's application, pursuant to 310 Code Mass. Regs. §
http://Weblinks.westlaw.com/resultldefault.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014
Westlaw Result
Page 2 of 11
19.023(3) (1992), for a permit by rule, finding that the existing transfer station met the department's
design and operations standards.
[FN7] See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 19.200 (1992). The city's application was approved
subject to the 100 -ton limit and five additional conditions. The 1975 approval, as amended
by the 1994 approval, constituted a permit and authorization to operate the transfer
station. Since 1994, NCI has operated the transfer station at the site as a tenant of the
city, accepting primarily construction and demolition debris and wood. [FN8]
In April, 2005, following months of negotiations between the department, the city, and NCI
regarding the landfill closure and future modifications to the transfer station, the department
conditionally approved the city's comprehensive corrective action alternatives analysis plan.
In February, 2007, the city issued a request for proposals for the redevelopment of the site. The
city selected NCI's proposal, one of only two received. The high points of NCI's proposal
included the tearing down of the smoke stack and the incinerator building, the construction of a
new, larger modern transfer station, the capping of the landfill, and the improvement of the
internal roads on the site. NCI also sought an increase in the daily average waste receipt limit
from 100 tons to 400 tons per day, with a maximum limit of 500 tons per day (project).
Collateral administrative proceedings. Before submitting their application to the board, the city
and NCI obtained an order of conditions from the Salem Conservation Commission authorizing
the work planned by NCI. As required by Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
regulations, they submitted an environmental notification form (ENF) for review by the
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA). See 301 Code Mass. Regs. §
11.03(9)(b)(1) (2008) (requiring such review where, as here, an increase of fifty or more tons
per day in solid waste storage, treatment, or processing capacity is sought). In connection with
the ENF, the city and NCI submitted a number of expert reports showing that the project would
have no significant adverse impact on air quality, noise, human health, and traffic. After
receiving a number of written comment letters, the EOEEA approved the project, issuing a
certification that the MEPA process was completed and that no environmental impact report was
required. [FN9] See G.L. c. 30, §§ 61-62H; 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.08(5)(d)(1)(c) (2001).
In the July 25, 2008, certificate, the EOEEA noted that the project would require a minor
modification to the site assignment from the board and a solid waste permit from the
department.
Application for a modified site assignment. In response to the city's request for guidance, John
Carrigan, the solid waste management section chief of the department's northeast regional
office (NERO), advised the city in an electronic mail message (e-mail) that the modification
sought (an increase in capacity) was a minor one "under 310 [Code Mass. Regs.] 16.00."
Relying on that opinion, on June 23, 2009, BETA Group, Inc. (BETA) submitted to the board on
behalf of the city and NCI (applicants) an application for a minor modification to the site
assignment. Following public and deliberative hearings on four separate dates in November and
December, 2009, the board approved the application subject to forty-three conditions. [FN10]
Statutory and regulatory history and framework. In 1955, the Legislature first passed legislation
requiring site assignments for dumping grounds and refuse disposal incinerators. See G.L. c.
111, § 150A, inserted by St.1955, c. 310, § 1. Several amendments followed over the years,
extending the scope of the statute and further regulating solid waste facilities.
Through the Solid Waste Management Act, an emergency act passed in 1987 (act or statute),
the Legislature addressed the severe shortage of environmentally safe and financially sound
solid waste facilities In the State. [FN111 See G.L. c. 111, § 150A, as amended through St.1987,
c. 584, § 16; G.L. c. 21H, § 1(a ) (2), inserted by St.1987, c. 584, § 3; TBI, Inc. v. Board of
Health of N. Andover, 431 Mass. 9, 11 (2000). At this time, the Legislature instituted a two-
tiered site assignment process. [FN12] See Wood Waste of Boston, Inc. v. Board of Health of
http://weblinks.westlaw.coni/result/default.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014
4
Westlaw Result Page 3 of 11
Everett, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 330, 331-332 & n. 1 (2001). As herein relevant, the 1987 legislation
brought expansions of existing site -assigned facilities within the ambit of the statute and
established a statutory permitting process to be followed after the site assignment stage.
[FN13] See G.L. c. 111, § 150A, second, tenth, eleventh pars., as amended or inserted by
St. 1987, c. 584, § 16.
Pursuant to the broad rule-making authority granted by the Legislature, the department
subsequently adopted separate regulations to govern the siting of solid waste facilities and the
permitting of the design, construction, operation, and closure of these facilities. [FN14] Compare
310 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 16.01-16.99, with 310 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 19.001-19.303.
To resolve lingering confusion about the process required to modify existing site assignments, a
subject not covered by the statute or the regulations, the department promulgated 310 Code.
Mass. Regs. § 16.22 in 2001. This regulation established special procedures for proposed major
and minor modifications that do not rise to the level of statutory expansions. [FN15]
The extent of process required turns on the classification of the proposed modification. Any
proposal for a "major" modification to a site assignment requires the submission of a new site
assignment application to the department. Under the truncated process permitted by the
regulation, the department, in its discretion, may limit the review to those statutory criteria
affected by the modification. See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.22(2); Goldberg v. Board of Health
of Granby, 444 Mass. 627, 629-630 (2005). If the applicant obtains a favorable report from the
department, the statutory process for a new site assignment is followed. See note 12, supra,
In contrast, applicants seeking a "minor" modification to the site assignment are not required to
file a new application or to obtain a favorable report from the department. See 310 Code Mass.
Regs. § 16.22(3). A local board of health may approve a minor modification as long as a public
hearing on the matter is held. The board need not consider the site suitability criteria set forth in
G.L. c. 111, § 150A 1/2 , and 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.40. The Supreme Judicial Court has
sanctioned the abbreviated review process for both major and minor modifications to existing
site assignments. See Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. at 634-637; Board of
Health of Sturbridge v. Board of Health of Southbridge, 461 Mass. 548, 562-564 (2012).
Discussion. This appeal turns on a question of law: whether the project is a major or minor
modification to a site assignment within the meaning of 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.22. If the
modification is major, the project did not receive the more vigorous scrutiny required by the
regulation and thus, the decision of the board was a nullity. Our review is de novo. See Rosing
v. Teachers' Retirement Sys., 458 Mass. 283, 290 (2010).
We start with the language of the regulation. The modification regulation, 310 Code Mass. Regs.
§ 16.22, contains five sections, only two of which are relevant here to our analysis: §§ 16.22(2)
and 16.22(3). [FN16]
Under § 16.22(2), four proposed modifications are deemed major: (1) "modifications required to
'[ejxpand a[s]ite' "; [FN17] (2) "vertical expansions beyond the limits of an approved plan"; (3)
modifications for an alternative use of an assigned site; and (4) "any request to waive any site
assignment criterion set forth at 310 [Code Mass. Regs.] § 16.40(3)." If the proposed
modification does not fall into one of these four categories or § 16.22(1) (here inapplicable), it is
deemed minor. See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.22(3).
We disagree with the judge's conclusion that NCI's proposal met the regulatory definition of "[e]
xpand a[sjite." [FN18] The record establishes that no move or expansion of the 9.2 -acre site
assignment is contemplated. It is also undisputed that there is no waste receipt limit stated in
the current site assignment. By its plain language, the first category of major modifications was
thus inapplicable. The judge's importation of a weight -receipt limit into the site assignment was
precluded by the regulatory text as well as the Goldberg case. [FN19]
http://weblinks.westlaw.comlresultldefault. aspx?action=Search&cat=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014
Westlaw Result
Page 4 of 11
In Goldberg, the original site assignment issued by the local board "contained no limitation on
the height or volume of the landfill." Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. at 629.
The subsequent permit issued by the department, however, did contain a limit (approximately
1.5 million cubic yards). See id. at 628-629. In its original application to expand the landfill, the
operator made representations about the expected maximum lifetime capacity. In affirming the
judgment of the Superior Court paving the way for the vertical addition of two million yards of
new solid waste on top of the existing landfill, the SIC resisted attempts to incorporate these
"unstated" conditions into the site assignment. See id. at 628-631 & n. 4. The Goldberg case
controls here, prohibiting implied conditions from being read into the board's site assignment.
Furthermore, as discussed previously, see notes 12 and 14, supra, the site assignment and
permitting processes are distinct. The importation of a permit condition into the site assignment
was contrary to the statutory and regulatory scheme.
The judge did not address the other three categories of major modifications. We conclude that
the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the administrative
determination that a minor modification was implicated by the project. See Board of Health of
Sturbridge v. Board of Health of Southbridge, 461 Mass. at 562.
To the extent that the plaintiffs maintain that the project falls into the second category of major
modifications, a "vertical expansion" is a term generally applied to landfills, and not to transfer
stations. See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 19.006 (defining expansion as "in the case of ... handling
facilities, an increase in the waste handling, treatment or processing capacity beyond the
tonnage limits approved in the permit; and, in the case of landfills, a horizontal or vertical
increase in the size of a facility beyond the horizontal or vertical limits specified or approved in
the permit"). More importantly, not only is there no evidence of the existence of any vertical
limitation in an approved plan here, there is no evidence that the proposed project involves a
vertical expansion. [FN20]
Contrary to the plaintiffs' assertions, the applicants did not request an alternative use of an
approved site in their application. [FN21] Pursuant to DEQE's approval of the change of use, the
city began operating a transfer station in 1975 before the adoption of the site assignment
regulations, 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.00 (1988), and more particularly, long before the 1990
regulation prohibiting, without a new site assignment, the conducting of different solid waste
activities at a site assigned, as here, for a specific purpose. [FN22] See 310 Code Mass. Regs. §
16.21(1)-(2) (1990).
We can glean no express or implied intent from the text of the regulations or any other source
to make the alternative use regulation retroactive. [FN23] See Biogen IDEC MA, Inc. v.
Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 454 Mass. 174, 190 (2009). Cf. Goldberg v. Board of Health of
Granby, 444 Mass. at 638-639 (refusing to apply department regulation increasing setback
requirement where operator had reasonable expectation that prior regulation would apply).
Finally, the applicants made no request to waive any site assignment criteria. By operation of
310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.22(3), the proposed project therefore was deemed a minor
modification to a site assignment. [FN241
Our interpretation comports with the two opinions of the department secured by the board. "An
agency's interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to 'considerable deference' and must be
upheld unless it is inconsistent with the plain language of the regulation or otherwise arbitrary
or unreasonable." Mostyn v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 83 Mass.App.Ct. 788, 794 (2013),
quoting from Warcewicz v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 410 Mass. 548, 550 (1991).
Here, the judge improperly refused to give any weight to the advisory opinion of John Carrigan,
the solid waste management chief of NERO, because the basis of the opinion was unclear to the
http://weblinks.westlaw.comlresultldefault.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014
Westlaw Result
Page 5 of 11
judge. [FN25] While Carrigan's brief e-mail did not elaborate on the parties' previous
discussions, the record established that Carrigan, a high ranking department official, had
extensive knowledge of the site and the proposed project. As the solid waste management chief,
not only did he participate in a number of planning meetings regarding the closing of the landfill
and the future of the transfer station, he approved the city's comprehensive corrective action
alternatives analysis with respect to the site. NERO also submitted a comment letter regarding
the proposed project during the MEPA review and received a copy of the certificate of
compliance.
The department's site assignment regulations are technical, complicated, and far from clear. As
expressly permitted by the statute, the city sought guidance from the department concerning
several aspects of the process, including the major versus minor dichotomy. The board was
entitled to rely on the department's expertise and interpretation of its own regulations. See
Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. at 637.
The judge also discounted an opinion from James Doucett, the deputy director of regulatory
standards in the department's business compliance division. Doucett indicated that if the current
site assignment contains a weight -receipt limit, any proposed modification is deemed major;
whereas, if the weight -receipt limit only appears in a permit, as here, the department treats a
request to increase tonnage as a minor modification. [FN26] As further explained by the amicus,
the department treats a waste receipt limit found in a site assignment as a local board
determination that the site is only suitable for a solid waste facility up to the volume of waste
specified. Because of the importance of the limitation, the department classified any proposed
change in the site assignment limit as a major modification, requiring department review and
board reassessment of suitability in light of the criteria deemed relevant by the department. On
the other hand, if no tonnage limitation appears in the site assignment, the department
assumes that the local board did not ascribe the same importance to the issue, and that
therefore, mandatory reassessment by the department and the board of all relevant site
suitability criteria would be unwarranted.
These agency interpretations were neither inconsistent with the plain language of the regulation
nor irrational and should have been accorded considerable deference by the judge. See Ten
Local Citizen Group v. New England Wind, LLC, 457 Mass. 222, 228 (2010).
Admittedly, any plan to increase handling capacity fourfold sounds like a major modification.
The fact that a tonnage limit appears in one piece of paper alone would not seem to justify the
distinction. The historical context illuminates the department's reasons for the difference in
treatment. No one would dispute that the amount of daily tonnage handled at a facility may
impact public health and the environment. Prior to the promulgation of 310 Code Mass. Regs. §
16.22 in 2001, any operator of a facility with a site assignment containing no waste -receipt limit
could increase tonnage without obtaining local board approval. [FN27] See Response to
Comments Summary Revisions to the Site Assignment Regulations 310 Code Mass. Regs. §
16.00, at 12 (issued by the department in June, 2001). Since the statute was silent, the
department could have maintained the status quo requiring no local board review. Instead,
responding to criticism about the loophole, the department added language to the minor
modification provision of § 16.22 at the request of a local environmental group. See Goldberg v.
Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. at 636 n. 12 (noting that "the effect of § 16.22 is to
provide an opportunity for scrutiny by the board of a proposed modification that, under a
different regulatory approach to the statute, might not be required at all").
Unless limited in time, a site assignment is effective in perpetuity. Pursuant to the 1987
legislation, local boards may not reassess prior site suitability determinations unless a potential
threat to the public health, safety, or the environment is involved. See G.L. c. 111, § 150A,
twelfth par. The department recognized that local boards assigning sites decades ago without
limits may not have fully, if at all, contemplated the public health or environmental impact of
increased waste receipt at the site. By bringing the issue of site suitability back before local
http://weblinks.westlaw.com/resultldefault.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014
Westlaw Result
Page 6 of 11
boards for reconsideration in light of the proposed increase in waste, the department furthered
the primary purpose of the site assignment process.
For policy reasons, the department decided to classify these modifications as minor and to
subject them to a more limited review than major modifications.
[FN28] As the case before us demonstrates, while there is less of a process Involved for a
minor modification, the process that is required (board review and public hearing before
concerned citizens) is rigorous and demanding. The judge may not have approved of the
department's classification decision, but it was not open to him to substitute his policy
judgment for that of the department. (FN29] See id. at 639.
Conclusion. Given the thoroughness of the board's proceedings and its thoughtful decision, it is
difficult to imagine how the plaintiffs were actually prejudiced by the use of the minor
modification procedure.
The task of obtaining governmental approval for the new transfer station is far from over. We
have dealt here only with the site assignment process. The applicants face a lengthy permitting
process before the department.
In order to obtain authorizations to construct and to operate the new facility, the city and NCI
must submit their final design plans for extensive environmental and engineering review by the
department. Another round of public comment will follow. If the department approves the plans,
it may impose additional conditions, including changing the location of the building to meet
department standards. Any party aggrieved by the department's permitting decision will have a
full right to judicial review under G.L. c. 30A.
The judgment of the Superior Court is vacated. The case is remanded for the entry of a new
judgment affirming the decision of the board.
So ordered.
FN1. Eighteen property owners and businesses of Salem.
FN2. Northside Carting, Inc., intervener.
FN3. We acknowledge the amicus brief and oral argument of the Attorney General,
FN4, The site approved was that section located on Swampscott Road off Highland
Avenue, known as Area 8, in the report of the J.L. Hayden Associates, Inc., dated February
1960." The site is more recently described in the record as a 9.2 acre parcel of land
located at 12 Swampscott Road in a mixed commercial, industrial, and residential area.
FNS. The approval was based on a set of plans consisting of twelve sheets submitted by
the city's engineers, C.E. Maguire, Inc. The plans called for the conversion of a portion of
the 6,052 -square -foot incinerator building into a transfer station. A transfer station is a
"handling facility where solid waste is brought, stored, and transferred from one vehicle or
container to another vehicle or container for transport off-site to a solid waste treatment,
processing or disposal facility." 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.02 (2001). (Unless otherwise
noted, the definitions we quote from the applicable regulations have remained unchanged
http://weblinks.westlaw.comlresultldefault.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014
Westlaw Result
Page 7 of 11
since their original promulgation.) Since 1975, all waste has been shipped to sanitary
landfills in other communities.
FN6. At this time, the city was ordered to cover the landfill. In 2000, the city retained
professional engineering consultants, BETA Group, Inc. (BETA), to assist it with the alleged
violations of department standards at the landfill and, transfer station. In July, 2001, the
city, NCI, and the department entered into an administrative consent order with penalty.
To date, the city has not complied with the closure order. The cost of capping the landfill is
projected to exceed $2 million.
FN7. Unlike a site assignment, a solid waste facility permit issued by the department must
contain a limit on the amount of waste that can be accepted.
See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 19.043(2).
FNS. The transfer station has accepted various types of waste over the years, including
municipal solid waste from the Salem public schools and the local housing authority as well
as commercial waste. On May 14, 2001, the department approved an application for
"modification of large handling facility." No further details about that modification were
provided in the record.
FN9. The current transfer station building has 5,500 square feet. NCI's preliminary plan in
the ENF called for an increase in the size of the transfer station building to 7,500 square
feet and a horizontal expansion of the footprint of the existing transfer station building
from .126 acres to .172 acres. According to BETA's calculations, the proposed new building
footprint would exceed the footprint of the existing incinerator building by less than ten
percent, including the smokestack. Responding to the concerns of the department, the
board, and citizens about the allegedly inadequate size of the tipping floor and the overall
building, NCI increased the dimensions of the building from 7,500 square feet (75 x 100)
to approximately 9,800 square feet (98 x 100).
FN10. The board had before it an extensive documentary record, and the testimony from
dozens of witnesses. Professional consultants hired by the board conducted independent
peer reviews of the expert reports, finding the supplemental. studies properly documented
and the analysis consistent with industry standards. The consultants also required
additional information and explanations from the applicants at the public hearing, and
made recommendations about appropriate conditions to be placed on the board approval.
FN11. The Solid Waste Management Act also established seventeen mandatory site
suitability criteria and standards, see G. L. c. 111, § 150A 1/2 , inserted by St. 1987, c.
584, § 17, and amended the Zoning Act, see last par. of G.L. c. 40A, § 9, inserted by
St.1987, c. 584, § 10.
FN12. Prior to the 1987 legislation, the department served as an appellate tribunal for
persons aggrieved by local board of health site assignments. The statutory site assignment
process implemented as part of the act now starts at the department. If the department
fails to issue a favorable report, the application is denied. If the department issues a
http://weblinks.westlaw.comlresultldefault.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014
Westlaw Result
Page 8 of I 1
favorable report, the local board holds a public hearing in front of a designated hearing
officer and determines site suitability. Local boards of health remain the final arbiters
of site assignments and may deny an application for a facility site assignment found
suitable by the department. See TBI, Inc. v. Board of Health of N. Andover, 431 Mass. at
11-12. With one exception inapplicable here (a facility owned or operated by an agency of
the Commonwealth), the department has no authority under the statute to grant site
assignments.
FN13. The Legislature delegated to the DEQE the task of defining the term "expansion."
See Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. 627, 629 (2005).
FN14. Site assignment and permitting are distinct processes that perform different
functions. See G.L. c. 111, § 150A; TBI, Inc. v. Board of Health of N. Andover, 431 Mass.
at 15. The purpose of the site assignment process was originally described as "whether a
parcel of land is suitable to serve as a site for a solid waste management facility." 310
Code Mass. Regs. § 16.01(1) (1988). The current description of the site assignment
process "is to protect public health, safety and the environment by comprehensively
regulating: (a) the siting of solid waste facilities...." 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.01(1)
(2012). The solid waste management permitting regulations focus on facility design and
operation. See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 19.002. While the department and local boards
have roles in the site assignment
process, the department alone decides whether to issue construction and operating
permits. The site assignment proceedings are just one step along a continuum of a
"carefully designed," lengthy, and comprehensive statutory and regulatory process. See
Wood Waste of Boston, Inc. v. Board of Health of Everett, 52 Mass.App.Ct. at 337-338.
FN15, The department could not pass regulations that conflicted with the statutory
procedure for new site assignments or statutory expansions. See TBI, Inc. v. Board of
Health of N. Andover, 431 Mass. at 19; Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass.
at 634-635. No claim is made here that the application In this case was subject to the
plenary review process set forth in the statute. We note that the language of 310 Code
Mass. Regs. § 16.22 has remained unchanged..
FN16. Section 16.22(1) governs modifications due to a threat to the public health, safety,
or the environment; § 16.22(4) governs requests for temporary increases in the daily or
annual tonnage limits; and § 16.22(5) governs notices of project changes for MEPA
review.
FN17. Under the department's definition, to "[e]xpand a[s]ite" means "to move or expand
a solid waste facility's operation to a previously unassigned
site that is contiguous to the original site or to modify a solid waste facility's operations
causing it to exceed any capacity or total volume limit stated in its current site assignment
" (emphasis added). 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.02. These regulations clarify the
department's view that an increase in the capacity of a solid waste facility is not
necessarily a statutory "expansion." See Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass.
at 629- 630.
http://weblinks.westlaw.comlresultldefault.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014
Westlaw Result
Page 10 of 11.
standards. As part of that process, in 1994 the department verified with .the board that the
city held, among other things, a valid site assignment for an incinerator. At this time, the
department did not apply the alternative use regulation to the city's case, which would
have required the city to obtain a new site assignment. -.
FN24. Section 16.22(3) also provides two specific examples of minor modifications: "any
request to modify conditions established by the Board of Health in the site assignment, or
to Increase daily or annual tonnage limits." Read in the context of the surrounding
language, the tonnage limits referred to in the second example is that stated in the
department permit. See Maslab Liquidation Trust v. Commonwealth, 61 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 11
(2004).
FN25. In his April 28, 2008, e-mail to City Solicitor Beth Rennaud, Carrigan stated, "As we
discussed previously the. change is a minor modification not a major modification under
310 [Code Mass. Regs.] § 16.00."
FN26. The plaintiffs would be hard pressed to assail Doucett's qualifications and basis of
knowledge. Between 1999 and 2001, Doucett managed
the drafting of the revised site assignment regulations, served as the hearing officer at all
public hearings on them, and managed the development of the Response to Comment
document and final regulations.
FN27. Under the "Expand of Site" definition adopted in 1988, no expansion of the facility's
operations occurred unless the tonnage limit appeared in the site assignment. 310 Code
Mass. Regs. § 16.02, As of 1992, however, an operator seeking to increase the tonnage
limit would still have to apply to the department for a revised solid waste facility permit.
See 310 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 19.006 and 19;032(1).
FN28. The department could have decided, in the exercise of its expertise and authority,
that this process was the best way "to avoid duplicative or nonproductive reviews."
Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. at 63S.
FN29. Based on our independent review of the administrative record, we conclude that the
plaintiffs have failed to establish that the board's decision should be reversed for one of
the reasons set forth in G, L. c. 30A, § 14(7). See Board of Health of Sturbridge v. Board of
Health of Southbridge, 461 Mass. at 562.
END OF DOCUMENT
Term 10
Adobe Reader is requiredto view PDF images.
sa
AOtlaPp[Af1EICa
in -
http://weblinks.westlaw.comliesultldefault.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014
Westlaw Result Page 11 of I 1
Dot 1 of 8 1
Cie List
http://weblinks.westlaw.com/resultldefault.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA%2D... 3/18/2014