Mayor

Domenic J. Sarno
36 Court Street
Springfield, MA 01103

Arise for Social Justice
467 State Street
Springfield, MA 01105

July 13, 2016

RE: Biomass Incinerator Site Assignment

Dear Mayor Sarno:

We are writing today to urge you to formally request that your Commissioner of Health and Human
Services, Helen Caulton-Harris, follow the advisement of the Springfield Public Health Council and move
forward with a public Site Assignment Hearing in regards to the proposed biomass incinerator on Page
Boulevard.

As you may be aware, the Springfield Public Health Council voted on June 15th, 2016 in favor of holding a
Site Assignment Hearing to better understand and determine the possible impact on public health that
could result from the construction of a biomass incinerator at that location. The Springfield City Council
likewise passed a resolution unanimously on June 6th, 2016 to urge that a Site Assignment Hearing be
held.

The Site Assignment Hearing process is established under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 143,
Section 143 and empowers Boards of Public Health to hold such hearings. Local provisions for Site
Assignment Hearings also exist in Springfields regulations.

Under the Springfield City Charter, Commissioner Caulton-Harris serves as the Board of Health, with the
Health Council serving as her advisor.

On February 10th the Staff Attorney for the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards filed a public
comment with Commissioner Caulton-Harris stating in part:

The noisome trade statute, G.L. Chapter 143, Section 143 states in relevant part that No trade or
employment which may result in a nuisance or be harmful to the inhabitants, injurious to their
estates, dangerous to the public health, or may be attended by noisome and injurious odors shall be
established in a city or town except in such location as may be assigned by the board of health thereof
after a public hearing has been held thereon , subject to the provisions of chapter forty A and such board
of health may prohibit the exercise thereof within the limits of the city or town or in places not so
assigned, in any event. (Emphasis added).

I would respectfully suggest that a biomass plant fits within the above-described definition of noisome trade,
and as such is subject to Chapter 111, Section 143. The board of health has the legal authority to hold a site
assignment hearing and, after such hearing, permit, deny or set conditions on said noisome trade. I am
unclear on what rationale basis a board of health or public health council in this case, would not hold such a
hearing.

A copy of that letter is included at the end of this document.

In walking the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the proposed site, we can attest to the deep
concern that residents and homeowners there have expressed regarding the potential impact of this
incinerator on their public health and the health of the area children and seniors. A Site Assignment
Hearing would allow for those concerns to be strictly reviewed.

You have stated at multiple times in past media reports that your support for this incinerator is
reliant on the condition that it meet all local, state, and federal regulations. We would assert that a
Site Assignment Hearing is a local regulatory step of which the proposed incinerator must
participate in order to ensure due diligence in understanding its potential impact.

We strongly believe that not only is Commissioner Caulton-Harris able to hold such a hearing, but is in
fact obligated to by the language of local and state regulations.

As requested, we will be submitting our pertinent documents to the Commissioner by this coming Friday.
We respectfully ask that you take this matter under serious consideration and act in the best interest of
the residents of Springfield, with the full authority and responsibility of your office, and request that
Commissioner Caulton-Harris move forward with the Site Assignment process.

You can reach out to Jesse Lederman on our behalf in response at 413-351-6785 or
JesseLederman2016@gmail.com . We hope that this matter will be addressed promptly.

Respectfully,

Jesse L. Lederman

Michaelann Bewsee

Lisa Torres

Elliot Stratton

Roxanne Langevine

CHERYL SBARRA, J.D.

Senior Staff Attorney
Massachusetts Association of Health Boards
63 Shore Road, Suite 25
Winchester, Massachusetts 01890


Phone: (781) 721-0183
Facsimile: (781) 729-5620
sbarra@mahb.org

February 10, 2016

Public Health Council
City of Springfield
95 State Street, Room 201
Springfield, MA 01103

RE: Public Health Councils legal authority to permit/deny a biomass plant after holding a site
assignment hearing

Dear Public Health Council:

It has come to the attention of the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards (MAHB) that the Public
Health Council (PHC) was notified that Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) would like to site a biomass
plant in the City of Springfield. It has also come to our attention that the PHC has held a hearing in order
to determine whether the PHC must conduct a site assignment to evaluate and possibly permit PREs
proposal.

MAHB is a membership organization that provides technical assistance and legal education to local
boards of health throughout the Commonwealth. MAHB does not and cannot provide legal advice.

The noisome trade statute, G.L. Chapter 143, Section 143 states in relevant part that No trade or
employment which may result in a nuisance or be harmful to the inhabitants, injurious to their
estates, dangerous to the public health, or may be attended by noisome and injurious odors shall
be established in a city or town except in such location as may be assigned by the board of health
thereof after a public hearing has been held thereon , subject to the provisions of chapter forty A and
such board of health may prohibit the exercise thereof within the limits of the city or town or in
places not so assigned, in any event. (Emphasis added).

I would respectfully suggest that a biomass plant fits within the above-described definition of noisome
trade, and as such is subject to Chapter 111, Section 143. The board of health has the legal authority to
hold a site assignment hearing and, after such hearing, permit, deny or set conditions on said noisome
trade. I am unclear on what rationale basis a board of health or public health council in this case, would
not hold such a hearing.

While a site assignment hearing on a proposed biomass plant with potentially enormous public health
impacts is complicated, there are technical and legal experts available to the PHC who have experience in

conducting these types of hearings. It would be prudent for the PHC to consult with such experts and this
is common practice in other municipalities addressing these types of site requests.

Thank you for your attention to this matter; and if you have any questions or need any additional
information, please feel free to contact me.


Very truly yours,

Cheryl Sbarra