Saugus Town Election 2025 – The candidates running for the Board of Selectmen share their environmental vision at a forum sponsored by SAVE

By Mark E. Vogler

The operations of WIN Waste Management’s trash-to-energy plant will continue to be a major cause of concern and discussion for the next Board of Selectmen, which will convene after the Nov. 4 Town Election. Four of the nine candidates running for the Board of Selectmen – including three incumbent selectmen – cited their opposition to expansion of WIN’s ash landfill in their environmental vision statements submitted last week to Saugus Action Volunteers for the Environment (SAVE).

Two of the candidates wrote in their statements that they would advocate for the state to end the policy of allowing WIN to purchase pollution credits so the plant on Route 107 could meet emission standards. That issue was the subject of additional discussion at SAVE’s candidates’ forum held in the second floor auditorium at Town Hall last week (Oct. 8). The forum was broadcast by SaugusTV and can be viewed on YouTube.

SAVE, which has been in existence since 1973, is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting a better quality of life in Saugus through environmental concern and action. Its selectmen’s candidates forum on environmental issues has been held during town elections for many years, in addition to the group soliciting environmental vision statements from each candidate. During the forum, candidates have an opportunity to give opening and closing statements. They also field questions drawn randomly from a fishbowl on a wide range of environmental topics like recycling and composting, preserving and protecting open space, conservation, land use, pollution and protection of the town’s natural resources.

All nine candidates for the Board of Selectmen have agreed to participate in another forum on townwide issues set for 7 p.m. on Oct. 29 in the second floor auditorium at Saugus Town Hall. (Please see this week’s “The Sounds of Saugus” for more details.)

“No” to expansion of ash landfill

Board of Selectmen Chair Debra Panetta, a longtime critic of WIN, was among the four candidates declaring their opposition to any expansion of the ash landfill, which is expected to close when it reaches capacity within the next few years. “I will not support any expansion of the WIN Waste facility,” Panetta said in her statement.

“I’ve attended several neighborhood meetings to discuss the various issues (e.g., noise, odor, fires) surrounding WIN Waste, Saugus. I helped coordinate various education forums on incineration, landfills, and waste alternatives,” she wrote.

Selectman Michael Serino cited several WIN-related issues in his Environmental Vision statement. He cited as a top priority “The closing of the toxic ash landfill located on the Rumney Marsh and abutting the Saugus River.”

Serino also vowed he would “continue to advocate for the Mass D.E.P. not allow the WIN trash plant to buy emission credits, but to meet State-wide emission standards as other facilities in Massachusetts are required to do.”

Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member Stacey M. Herman-Dorant said in her statement that she would “Hold WIN Waste to Emissions Standards—No Landfill Expansion.”

“If WIN Waste continues to operate, they should be required to meet all existing emissions standards without purchasing pollution credits,” Herman-Dorant said. “It’s time to set a firm date to cap and close the ash landfill and discontinue the disposal of toxic ash in Saugus. We must also prepare to implement the recommendations from the Town Meeting Landfill Committee, including economic development plans that could generate up to $5 million in new tax revenue and create quality jobs.”

Board of Selectmen Vice Chair Jeffrey V. Cicolini noted in his statement that he’s been opposed to any farther expansion of the ash landfill since he was first elected in 2015. At that time, he said, he made the motion at a Board of Selectmen’s meeting to reaffirm that board’s position statement preventing any expansion. “My position has not changed, I do not support expansion of the landfill by any means,” Cicolini wrote.

“The HCA (Host Community Agreement) that I supported was ONLY an insurance policy for the town in the event that Mass DEP reverses course once again and allows for further expansion,” he wrote, referring to an unofficial 3-2 vote by selectmen to support a HCA more than two years ago. It’s the town manager’s job to negotiate any HCA. But existing state environmental regulations won’t allow expansion.

“I made my position of no expansion clear throughout the entire public meeting. Unfortunately I have little confidence in the state’s ability to hold firm on their stance,” Cicolini wrote.

Cogliano supports Host agreement

SAVE said Selectman Anthony W. Cogliano did not provide a written statement addressing his environmental vision for the town. In a statement he provided to The Saugus Advocate, which he said he initially wrote for SAVE, Cogliano explained his position on possible expansion of the ash landfill and other WIN-related matters. “I watched this town fight with Resco, Wheelabrator and now WIN waste for years and come up empty, losing lawsuit after lawsuit,” Cogliano wrote.

“My philosophy is always to try and work with people instead of against them and the results have been excellent. WIN now attends all meetings of the Saugus Board of Health and deals with problems they face or issues that go wrong immediately,” Cogliano continued.

“I also created the WIN waste landfill committee to address issues if the DEP should allow them to extend the height of the ash pile. Should they be granted permission by the State, they will also require a site assignment from our Board of Health and if that should pass, Saugus now has a mechanism in place with our Host Community Agreement,” Cogliano said.

“This agreement will allow Saugus to have no tipping fees for the next 30 years which saves the town over 40 million dollars. In addition to that, we will have major upgrades to the facilities exterior, NOX monitors put in place at various points in town, lowering the emission of NOX to 170 and hopefully soon thereafter to 150 parts per million which is down from 205 parts per million when I was elected in 2019,” he continued.

“It’s been 50 years since the opening of Resco and no one has been able to deliver something like this to Saugus and the surrounding communities, sure I’ve taken my lumps for it and a lot of flack from the naysayers, but I can handle it. My family lives in precinct 10 and we will always be there. If anyone thinks I would do anything to harm my family and friends, you’re crazy.”

Candidates Jennifer D’Eon, Frank Federico and Vincent Serino did not cite specific concerns about WIN Waste in their Environmental Vision statements. Candidate Sandro P. Souza did not submit a written statement, according to SAVE.

A question about buying carbon credits

During the SAVE forum, only one WIN-related question was drawn from the fishbowl: WIN Waste can currently meet emission standards by purchasing carbon credits rather than reducing pollution at the source. How do you think this approach affects public health, environmental justice and long-term climate goals?

Three of the candidates got the opportunity to answer the question. Here are highlights of their comments.

  Cogliano: He said he worked hard to address concerns about air emissions through the committee he set up to work with WIN. If the state were to allow expansion of the ash landfill, “Saugus would have the mechanism in place to lower our air emissions, bring money into the town.”

“Right now, we’re shipping 70 percent of our ash out to Shrewsbury and they’re making a million dollars a year on it. And that million dollars could stay here. My philosophy again is not what goes into the ground; it’s what comes out of that stack. And lowering the NOX level is most important. Especially to the residents of East Saugus,” he said.

  Cicolini: “I think the option of purchasing credits should be abolished. I don’t think it should exist. And I’ve made that clear publicly several times. I think because they are the oldest incinerator, because they are not at the latest and greatest technological standards, they have no choice but to purchase credits in order to continue to operate.” Cicolini said he wishes the state would take a hard line in eliminating the carbon credits and forcing the plant owners to invest in modern day standards, so the plant meets today’s air quality standards.

Herman-Dorant: “If the incinerator continues to operate, they should be required to meet all existing emission standards without buying credits. That should not be allowed. The facility is over 50 years old and the lifespan of those facilities is 25 years.”