Saugus Deserves a Real Landfill Closure Update
By the time the Saugus Board of Health met on May 11th, the ash landfill closure issue had already moved well beyond a passing concern.
Two months earlier, the Landfill Closure Committee came before the Board with a detailed presentation and a direct request. The committee asked that ash landfill closure remain on future monthly agendas, that related discussions and documents be reflected in the minutes, and that the Board receive regular updates on the closure process. After discussion, the Board voted to include those suggestions in future agendas.
That vote gave the issue a public home and created a reasonable expectation. If landfill closure was going to appear regularly before the Board, then the updates needed to be more than incidental comments during a broader operations report.
The agendas that followed reflected that shift. In March, “Landfill Closure Committee Update” appeared as its own agenda item. In April, the issue appeared under “WinWaste Innovations” as “Landfill Closure Inquiry.” In May, it appeared again as a sub-item under WinWaste’s operational update.
By then, no one should have been caught off guard.
A familiar operations report, then a thin landfill answer
At the May 11th meeting, WinWaste provided the kind of operational update the Board has heard many times before. The company reported boiler availability, tons processed, megawatt hours generated, unscheduled downtime, false alarm responses, and a planned boiler outage. Those details have their place. They help the Board track the day-to-day operation of the facility.
But the posted agenda also included “Landfill Closure Inquiry.”
When the Board turned to that subject, the update quickly narrowed. A Board member reminded WinWaste that the Board had asked for “some type of landfill report at each of these meetings.” The company’s representative responded that he did not really have any changes or updates. He then clarified that he runs the facility, not the monofill, and suggested that the monofill director would be the better person to answer those questions.
That response may have been candid, but it left the Board without the landfill information it had asked to receive.
If the person appearing before the Board is not the person who can speak to the landfill, then the company should send the person who can. If there is no one available, then the Board should receive a written update. If nothing has changed, the update should still explain what has not changed: closure status, remaining capacity, ash placement, cover material activity, MassDEP filings, and expected next steps.
A recurring agenda item should not depend on whether the right company representative happens to be in the room.
April made the need clearer
May was not the first time this had come up.
At the April 6th meeting, WinWaste had already addressed the landfill in general terms. The company said it would continue shipping the majority of ash offsite and that it was conducting due diligence on long-term options for the ash monofill. A Board member responded that, reading between the lines, it sounded like WinWaste was moving toward a path that could keep the landfill open longer. WinWaste did not provide a definitive answer and instead suggested that the Board generate written questions so the company could come prepared.
That same April discussion raised detailed questions about dredge material proposed for use as landfill cover. Board members asked about the amount of material, the effect on remaining landfill capacity, contamination testing, dewatering, transport, and best management practices. WinWaste said that information was part of a MassDEP permit application and that the Board had received the regulatory notification required by regulation.
Those exchanges showed exactly why a standing closure update is needed. The Board was not asking about a vague future concern. It was asking about capacity, cover material, permitting, regulatory filings, and the company’s long-term intentions for the monofill.
Those questions didn’t disappear.
What a real update should include
A monthly landfill closure update does not need to be lengthy. It does not need to resolve every technical or regulatory issue at once, but it should be structured enough for the Board and the public to follow the process over time.
At minimum, a useful update should include:
Current closure status.
Remaining capacity or projected site-life changes.
Ash placed in the monofill versus ash shipped offsite.
Any closure-related engineering, survey, inspection, or construction activity.
Any proposed or approved cover material activity, including dredge material.
Any MassDEP filings, approvals, correspondence, or pending reviews.
Expected activity before the next Board meeting.
That kind of update would not be burdensome. It would simply give the Board a consistent record and give the public a clearer view of a process that has been difficult to follow.
The standard should be simple
The Saugus Board of Health has already taken an important step by keeping ash landfill closure in public view. The next step is making sure the agenda item produces a meaningful update each month.
If “Landfill Closure Inquiry” appears under WinWaste on the posted agenda, WinWaste should arrive prepared to discuss landfill closure. If the operations representative is not the right person, the monofill representative should attend. If there are no changes, the company should say so in writing and explain the status of the major items the Board has already raised.
The ash landfill closure process is too important to be handled through fragments, assumptions, or occasional follow-up questions. The Board has asked for the issue to remain on the agenda. The public has reason to expect a clear update when it appears there.
A standing agenda item should produce a standing record: what has changed, what has not changed, what is pending, and what the Board should expect before the next meeting.
