Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Resource Recovery Project � a �nV1 P.O. BOX 510 ✓il� � 2875-145TH ST. W. �c7e'i'L�u/�.� ROSEMOUNT. MWNESOTA 55068 612-423-4411 T0: Mayor Napper Council Members : Klassen Oxborough Willcox Wippermann FROM: Stephan Jilk, City Administrat DA�E: September 7, 1990 • RE: Resource Recovery/U of M/USPCI You have all received m memo of Au ust 28 1990 but I have '! Y g � � attached it for additional xeference in discussing the issue. I have also inciuded two newspaper articles regarding potential delays for the permitting of the Dakota County Resource Recovery Project. They are from August 29 and August 30 issues of the "St . Paul Pioneer Press" and "Tribune" respectively. These ,articles preface the purpose of this memo and discussion 3 feel we need to have on Tuesday. And, that is : � (1) The county has been faced with a lengthy delay because of the position the MPCA has taken on siting an ash depository. (2) This delay could cost the county up to 9 million dollars {12,000 x 365 x 2 years) . (3) The county has few alternatives to speed up the process : (a) To permit a site such as Pine Bend as an ash disposal site could take up to two years if successful. (b) May also be true of trying to site one on University property. (c) Seek approval to haul ash out of state to an approved site until a Rosemount site can be permitted. (USPCI -0klahoma?) (d) Utilize a cell at the now proposed USPCI facility in Rosemount with one or more cells designed and dedicated to ash. Revising the EIS and permit for USPCI ' s facility in Rosemount may be completed by adding only six months to USPCI ' s permit process. (4) The county could throw up its hands and tell the state to do the whole thing -- that is, take control of the waste management in Dakota Caunty. . � Resource Recovery/U of M/USPCI Page 2 Without going into great detail, which we can on Tuesday, I believe the question(s) before us now are: A. Is there majority consensus that the city should use this new opportunity to bargain with the county? B. Is there even more of an opportunity to do so because of the MPCAs position on ash disposal? C. Would we be willing to ailow any ash in the USPCI site? D. 1 Should we use this in some way to move UBPCI to the U of M site (can we use it for that)? E. Should we take the lead in trying to put together a package to accommodate the county? The following .would be scenarios . I would recommend that we consider these if we have answered yes to the above questions. , Scenario ��1 USPCI takes ash to their landfill in Oklahoma until new monofill is permitted on the U of M site. County buys land on University and gives it to USPCI. Enough land for ash monofill, demolition landfill, U of M coal ash landfill and non-hazardous waste landfill is purchased (all in Rosemount not Empire Township) . County pays far cost of USPCI to get sites permitted. USPCI moves all operations to U of M. USPCI se11s Highway 55 site and puts money toward their expenses to date, to permit that site (they claim to have spent 2. 75 million to date without land costs) . - Advantage : USPCI project is combined with other "waste management" projects on U of M site. - Disadvantage: City must take lead and may be seen as proponent for incinerator and ash. Scenario ��2 USPCI agrees to take ash at Highway 55 site and gets permit to do so. USPCI agrees to immediately begin process to permit site on U of M site. This allows Dakota County to proceed with incinerator permit without much delay. By the time plant is built, U of M monofill is permitted and constructed, USPCI enters into agreement with city and county to never actually take . , '-: Resource Recovery/U of M/USPCI Page 3 ash at Highway 55 site. City is protected from Highway 55 site being "ash" landfill. County could not proceed with this system without city help. There is a potential savings to the county of several million dollars . - Advantage: Keeping ash in community and eliminating i, potential problems from transfer of ash , to other sites. City gains revenue off ' of dumping fees. � - Disadvantage : Highway 55 site remains for industrial solid waste as proposed now. Again, we should come to consensus on the major issues before us. If we decide on a position to move ahead with scenario ��1 or ��2, we should sit down with the county ASAP and state our position and get their commitments to our list of requests regarding host community benefits. I will be pleased to discuss these issues on Tuesday in an attempt to assist you in reaching consensus on them. � GivL��/ �d CovNG�L , 1P-2 fr--�D ' .. � ' P.O. BOX 510 t�i�'� Q 2875-145TH ST. W. O�Q�A�7 f�� ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068 �r r c. �n. 612-423-aa11 TO: Mayor Napper Council Members Rlassen, Oxborough, Willcox, Wippermann FROM: Stephan Jilk, City Administrator DATE: August 28, 1990 RE: Dakota Countp Resource Recovery Permit Application The Metropolitan Council is soliciting comments from the Citp on tl�e above permit application. ` The solicitation also notes the review of the County' s 'So1id Waste Master Plan Amendment. `The Metropolitan Council received the Master Plan Amendment 'on 7/3/90 and the Permit Application on 7/18/90. The following remarks are , - prepared in the manner in which I feel that the City should ' � respond to anp development proposal. At this juncture, I would recommend that posture is the one we should take in regards to the County' s plans. We have recently received, at my request, a copy of both the permit application and the amendment_ to the County' s Solid Waste Master Plan. The County did not, on their own initiative provide us with these documents. The Metropolitan Council, the Pollution Control Agency and obviously the County should have each provided them. : r The County 'has been in contact with the City on this project for at least three years, Requests by the City for information have usuallp been met; however, the Countp has not consistentlp offered without such requests. The County has alwaps promised cooperation with the City; and pet, there have been xepeated gaps in the information, changes in plans and innumerable frustrations experienced by the City . The close involvement of the City in the preparation of the EIS does not replace the County' s obligation to provide the City with all documentation on this project. In garticular, it is incredible to think that the Citp can be overlooked in the distribution of a permit application. The application is site specific information related to the development of property within the City of Rosemount. We have no idea what is being specificallp proposed or reviewed. Is it enough that the City simplq respond that, "Yes, we' re aware that a $100 million facility is proposed to be located in Rosemount?" Citp staff has met with staff from the Metropolitan Council and the County to discuss permit issues. This meeting was initiated by the Metropolitan Council. In the absence of anq specific project details, either available or being discussed, our comments to the Metropolitan Council regarded land use issues. The Metropolitan Council staff implied that land use issues may not necessarilq be reZevant in their review of the County' s Resourcg Recovery Permit Application '�' August 28, 1990 '� Page 2 ' permit. City staff found that to be absolutely incredible and stated as much. We have never heard of a project of this magnitude that would not have both local and regional land use implications. We raised questions in that meeting, regarding the Countq' s intentions for other uses on the 30,0 plus acre site. We made it clear in the meeting that the Citp would require a planned unit d�velopment description or Master Plan for the site. Our specific concerns related to the obvious potential for additional uses on the site, such as materials recovery, composting, "rejects" transfer and/or containment, ash processing, ash transfer , ash containment and even bppass waste containment. The EIS references none of the above potential uses. The proposed site is adequate to accommodate them a11. In response to the City' s request for a Master Plan, the County contended that the Resource Recovery Permit could be in jeopardy if any of these potential uses were even brought up at this time. I think this underlies the position that the City has been in throughout the course of this project. The City has spent tens of thousands of dollars on staff and consultant time in responding to this project in the past. The City was forced to learn about and evaluate the potential implications of this project, without even knowing whether the project would be located in the City . That decision has now been made; and, yet, the Citq had received no application bp the County and no guarantees to recover any expenses in the past or future . There have been discussions, prompted by the County , to pursue additional land surrounding this project for spin off development. The County was eager to involve the Citp in a scheme to acquire 1200 acres from the University of Minnesota for such an activity . Numerous meetings and appraisals by the City and University were initiated. The prospects for unique development partnerships were slowly becoming more than mere dreams. As quickly as this process began, it ended. The Countp simplp walke_d away from the initiative because of its personal timing concerns and their new faund ability to condemn the University property . There have been discussions with the County, alwaps prompted by the City, regarding host communitp incentives. The Countp has acknowledged that the City wi.11 receive "benefit" from the project. There have been no meaningful discussions with the County to identifp even the vaguest ranges of what these "benefits" are. The City' s research indicates that thep are quite substantial in many communities with comparable projects. Resource Recovery Permit Application August 2$, 1990 Page 3 Back to the issue at hand — comments to the Metropolitan Council on the County' s Permit Application. Should we comment favorably on this project? How can we? We have no informatian. If we were to make comment on what we obviously do know about the project, with respect to land use issues and the regionai process, the following considerations come to mind: 1. The proposed site is zoned agriculture and designated � Public/Institutional in the Comprehensive Guide P1an. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Guide Plan Amendment are required to accommodate the project. The Metropolitan Council must review and approve the Guide Plan Amendment before the Citp can implement its final approvals. 2. The gotential requirement for public utilities for this pro�ect has not been presented to nor debated with `the Citp. Sanitarp sewer and perhaps public water will require .a major amendment to the guide plan and the Metropolitan Council' s Sewer Policy Plan. 3. The potential spinoff development, on or adjacent to the County' s site, which has been implied by the County, also raises land use issues comparable to those in items No. 1 and No. 2. While the project itself may not require public utilities, the practicalitp of luring additional development without such services may be ill fated. The implications regarding local and regional plans should be identified, if not addressed in pursnit of additional development. 4. The potential for additional waste related activities by the County on its own site is very likelp. Yet the reluctance of the County to prepare a Master Plan or even discuss these uses with the Citp in private has put the Citp at an extraordinarp disadvantage. One can only publicly speculate what land use, .utility and transportation impacts can result from these uses. The City should raise questions identified in items No. 1 and No. 2 above. 5. There appears to be the potential for site demolition prior - to construction. Is there any chance that a demolition landfill is going to be proposed bp the County? 6. The University of Minnesota has a letter on record, identifying its interests in constructing a coal ash containment facilitp on University propertp . Is thexe anq chance that the negotiations between the U of M and the County for the County' s acquisition of the development site and road corridors include the Countp` s construction and/or management of such a facility? Resource Recoverp Permit Application August 28, 1990 Page 4 In summarp, there are extraordinary issues surrounding this extraordinary project. The controversial nature of the project would suggest the need of the County to totally cooperate with the City . You would think the County would do almost anything to gain the City' s support . Unfortunatelp, the Countp has not exhibited such characteristics. The extraordinary nature of this project also suggests the very c�ntroversy that is approaching the City' s doorstep. With the EIS completed and the PCA Permit in pursuit, the opponents of the project maq now converge on the Citq in hopes of killing the project in its last official review process. With the questions enumerated above having no response at this time, how can the City possibly be expected to show support for the County at this time? The City has no guarantees of anpthingl If a respecting resident were to ask a polite question regarding any of the above issues, how could the City Council possibly respond with any credibilitq . Imagine how ugly and embarrassing the situation will be if an antagonist presses any question on the Council. I can find no possible reason for the City to make favorable comments on this project at this time. Further , I think� the Citp should protect itself bp identifying the issues noted in this memo as our official response to the Metropolitan Council. I see no reason to risk the City' s credibilitp and reputation on behalf of the County. The only reason to back down from this position would be based upon an improvement in the relationship with the County. If we are brought into full confidence with the Countp and commitments to the City can be made, perhaps the City could reconsider its position. That confidence and commitment from the Countp would include the following: 1 . Immediate answers to the questions regarding future uses (even if kept "confidential" by the Citp and the County) . 2. Guarantees for the City' s expenses in _the past and costs in the future. 3. A commitment for a range of host incentives as outlined in the memo to qou and discussed at our workshop. 4. A pledge from the County that its commitments for economic developments will be more than hear sap. . Resource Recovery Permit Application August 28, 1990 Page S 5. A commitment by the County that it will spare na expense in assisting the Citq in a public information/public relations campaign during the local permit process. 6. A commitment from the County that it will spare no expense in assuring the public health, safety and welfare during the construction and operation of the project. P�rhaps the Citp would regain its confidence of the County and pledge its cooperation if the above considerations are met. I know the timetable for action is immediate and a responsible decision bp the City at this time map be its most critical ever rendered. Mq fear is that if the City does not get an immediate irrevocable commitment from the County, the City has no alternative but to raise legitimate questions that will obviously delay the project. We shonld have the privilege of knowing what' s going_ on and what' s in it for the City as the "host community" . The City can either protect itself and be responsible in representing the public interest or continue saying qes to the County without commitment or guarantee. In essence , we have a choice in acting professionally or to go down as being irresponsible and ignorant city officials in our City' s historq. a We must realize that bp raising key issues regarding land development to the Metropolitan Council at this time could be the cause far major delays for the County' s Project. We should also realize that this may well be the most sensitive period the County will have to go through prior to getting their permit and it map be the onlp opportunity the City has to raise legitimate issues which the county Wl�.�. be forced to address. Since, by the So1id Waste Management Act, the County has the ability to site the facility we may not have anp strength in denping anp land use permits, rezoning, etc. . But, by simply raising issues in public that the County may not wish to discuss could a11ow the City the same "strength" it needs to sit down to discuss anp and all issues including host community benefits. We should decide if that is the bargaining position we want to gain. The very issues we must address, to act responsiblp on behalf of the City, may well be answered in a more discrete but satisfactorp manner bp the County . Please contact me with your thoughts on this in the next couple of daps. , � �k ._.�.._.. ... . . .... � •' � .:.,..°: ."' ....... _ _ . ... _ .� , � .... .. . . . � . .. . . . ..... . . . ': . _• . . . . , . I . � _ _ ��'�'''�� •� /�/f�/�,/Q % —�/L�CD � . � � I . ���� �' , . � . ; � . _. . .. ; . f � ( I .. � , . �: L A N S : - .�.:� � _ . aos. j ; T : 0 � L Y E T H E . '�- f �- . � �: t � i Q' erlin Township, Here,from the front tines of the environmental groups worried about s V New Jersey,is run- toxic pollutants and the :� movement, are some reat answers. Choose the � ning out of cheap places huge priee tag that burn- � to put its trash. Tt,is approach that makes most sense to you ing trash carries. Recy- summer its landfill e Y cling can pick up some t � t - closed, and the county of the slack, but how : � hasn'tbeen able to find a M A R � ¢ D ' A M t t o a N D .t � i►n � u s a K much?The United States site for a new one."Nobody wanted it,"says Mike McGee, currently recycles less than 15 percent of its garbage. � � head of Berlids Department of Public Works. !n 1988,after almost ten years of silence on the subject, ;. � Berlin Township is not alone in facing this dilemrna."We the EPA finally outlined a solution:A package of councils, y � aren'tyet in a garbage crisis,"says William K.Reitly,head of incentive plans, public-education programs and regula- _• t_ { the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), "but one is tions to raise recyciing's share of the garbage pile to 25 per- �`- � ` clearly on the horizon:'Almost 80 percent of the 160 mii- cent by 1992.Stronger regulations on landfiils and inciner- lion tons of garbage Americans generate each year goes ators would reassure communities and make establishing � � into landfills.Most of those landfiils will close within the sites easier.There's also been a cali for a federally ap- ,= t next 20 years,one-third within the next five.And no one pointed Garbage Czar. �_ � wants a new one built if it's going to be next door.One aiter- But during the ten years that the EPA yacillated over its i j native, incineration,is bitterly opposed by neighhorhood program,the garbage problem exploded,making the solu- � tions it finaliy devised seem like so many ;� � Band-Aids. In 1990 the real expertise on r �--- how to solve our garbage crisis doesn't re- � side in Washington. It is to be found with i� the city governments, �,arbage scientists ` j and citizens' groups that have had to ad- dress the problem without federal guide- '; lines.Berlin Township,for example,a small, R i �►�;"�"'�"� suburban community of 5,600,had to take � ( ,i ��.. ;,,�_ ,I� ,; ,.. , . action; today it recycles 58 percent of its � garbage. The town saved more than # ��;; $150,000 on its garbage bill last year by ��r` �j learning to separate its trash. �the : : nc �� ;� To find out how the United States should ' �; �-��'� : sotve its garbage crisis,McCa��s taiked to W �$ I i '_�:aRar �'"i_ V m d " five front-line experts.What would they do � _ � �, = if they were named Garbage Gzar?Read on. y �k� ,, a a � : ; Then rate their solutions by filling out the � �en}�� � � ; ' ballot on page 60. � �Alre� �i' 8 � ;50� ���"{ RAY HOPFMAN p �aN � a �C !14 Seuios Reryding Plamier,Scattle D o I 1 a r s-o n d - C e n t s ,Q pupr „ Recyc � � � g � dem� , �� ' .. �- � �ay Hoffman, a senior recycling plan- � outs: t� ' �"`"`"'` ner for the city ot Seattle, believes N ' Give people aash incentives SFor � � that if you charge people hard cash for be- breee i�j ;, to recycie 60 percent of their trash. ingwasteful,theywillquicklyturnintoavid t�� �,;� gilde ;: a�; 14 f � �'�� � S�L MCCALL'S. AUGUST 1990 . � � � .____.--- -,t -___-�- recyciers.ln his vision of the future,cities recycle 60 per- In Seattle today,the amount you pay to have your gar- cent of their trash—enough so that garbage-burning incin- bage picked up depends on how much you recycle."Three erators never have to be built. Right now he's working to trucks come down the street every week,"says Hoffman. make that vision a reatity. Anything that you`ve separated ior recycling they pick up Just four years ago,it looked like giant incinerators were for free.All the rest of the garbage goes into cans provided in Seattle's future.The city faced a$77 million bill for clos- by the city.If you thraw away a 32-galion can of mixed gar- ing its two landfills—which now havesignificant environ- bage a week, it costs you $13.75 a month.A second can mental problems-and it viewed incineration as essential costs you an additional $9. Use onty a 20-gallon minican . to any future disposa]plan.But citizens'groups were con- and it costs$10.70 a month. No mandatory recyciing.No vinced there was another way to go.Instead of fighting the recycling police.And no fines. battle over what to do about the toxic poilutanis and ash Three years after the program started,Seattle was recy- that incinerators produce, they tackied the economic is- cling 34 percent of itstrash,or 64 pounds from each hause- sues.They lobbied town haU for a year and finally con- hold every month.By 1998 the city plans to reach its goal. vinced city economists to calculate how much money Hoffman's plan also removes the obstacles to recycling. could be saved if there was less garbage to get rid of.The Several dozen staffers answer phone-in questions. Bill upshot: If Seattle's citizens would recycle 60 percent of stuffers with recycling information about diapers,plastics t�►eir trash,the city wouldn't have to build an incinerator. and yard waste are sent out regularty in English,Vietnam- But, how to get to 60 percent? By giving people incen- ese and Spanish.Seattle provides homeowners with free tives—hard dollars-and-cents reasons for changing their composting bins and sends staffers out to teach them how behavior,says Hoffman,who headed Washington Citizens to use them."It is labor-intensive because we're changing for Recycling during the battle over the incinerator and is behavior," says Hoffman. "But we are changing behavior, now an official of the city's Solid Waste Utility. and that is a rarity in the 20th century." goes on in the modern sanitary landfili, .,�� Kinman has put together a picture of how }�g`' garbage decays over time.The municipal �` . : solid waste that gets buried in most land- \ � filis is mostly organic,made up of things `�� that were once alive.Paper at 35 to 55 per- � cent by weight makes up the bulk of most � landfills;at certain times of the year,yard � � �'`� waste comes in second at 20 percent. I � , �j Plastics, textiles and wood and food i j � wastes make up most of the rest.Ali this 1 �; `� : decays,though sloWly. � �,? S "Our research shows that 7 percent of i ; the mass converts to carbon dioxide and � , ,�,� : methane,along with some other gases.af- I �� o ter ten years;'says Kinman.Even plastics � ��, � " ; eventually decay, he notes. Di��ing up ` `��� , :;;� � one landfili that had been closed in 1968, � � ,�; ,� '' Kinman tound that polyethylene, which j R l l E Y K 1 N M A N he cails an average plastic,had degraded i � �_ .- C'CfiIO�IJI. Uil1Pc,•sir�•ujCiuri�nin�i by about 50:percent."The de�radation is , _ ' � � slow in the eyes of man. ln terms of the � ';' Buiid safe londfilts and drit! them earth iYs very fast" � , Once processed,'the raw gases pro- ;i to produ�e natvral energy. duced durin�that slow decay become vir- ; � tually identicai to pipeline natural gas. � ':'. P � R► N s Drilling wells into one landfili outside of Cincinnati cost :� : � • G a r b o g e t o G a s $10 million.But it's pumping five million cubic feet of gas a , ' ' :t iley Kinman of the University oi Cincinnati sees a fu- day,enough to heat 10,000 homes.The field,which wil pay � ' �ture where�as weils drilled into landfilis turn decay- back its development costs in three years, is eapected to '': ing garbage into energy.Landfills wili always have a ro}e to produce gas for 15 to 50 years. Kinman estimates that i� play in managing our garbage,says Kinman,a professor of about 100 of the country's more than 6,000 permitted land- ` civil and environmentai engineering."I'm a firm believer in fills are now being used to produce gas-line quality gas. ;! � an integrated solid-waste management system.Reduce the DriUing for methane also reduces the number of landf ills . �; waste stream as much as possible. Recycle. lncinerate that exptode or cause evacuation of surrounding areas, some.Landfill some:'Then,says Kinman,turn the landfiil though Kinman doesn't expect that will necessarily make � � into an ener�y=-producing.recycling machine.It's the only landfilis more popular. "People in many places oppose � ° way to ree��de everything that makes up our garbage. landfilts;'says Kinman."We used to be able to find a site in � By digging up the garbage again to study what actuatly a year to a year and a half.Now it takes five years:' ' � I 56 MCCALL'S, nuGU57 1990 . _ . . ,.. _. .� . ...__ . . .......:. ..... .. . ._....'�..... ..,. . , ... . . ._..•... ,y w�4' . . . -- - � ' . __ � . . . .,�.. . . . . �. . ..,. .. . � .. •.'.`, . . ... .. . ' _ PLAN 3 - ' .:. Ban Excessive Pa�kpging ��. ! u �a, eanne Wirka of the Washington,D.C.- �,+� �� �^ �based Environmental Action Founda- ` � -� tion advocates passing legislation to re- , �� � ' ��'� duce wasteful packaging. "The issue is, • � r � how do we reduce the need for virgin ma- � : ' Np terials?" Wirka asks. Her way is to cut ��- � ' back on the amount of useless packaging -.� ' ' � produced in the United States.That opin- �' '"'�; ` -t �i��?:�,� ;: � ion has made Wirka,the policy analyst of - f; �a►.� the foundation's Solid Waste Alternatives J `� ; �� I; ng Project,public enemy number one to the �� Bill plastics industry. . � *-. : I � I ucs Wirka has helped draft laws that re u- �`� � � . � 3m- late or tax excessive or nonrecyclable _ � ' g �p►�t� ,�. � I 'ree pafkaging in communities around the ��� `'�Y � ! � low cothntry. She organizes consumer cam- � � � '' ;ing paigns to demand less packaging on eve- �� ''� �'= _ �± ryday products and works with manufaa `� � � E A N N E w 1 R K q o �� �ior, � ;.- 4, _ turers to design simpler,equally effective E�rr�i►rouu�ental tictia�To�nrdntiwt, ltfnrhi,rgro,,. D.C. -- ways to wrap their goods: � :fill, Reducing excessive packaging can go a � � � � iow long way toward shrinking the volume of Ban paekag�ng that �s useless or I� ipat trash (packaging and containers repre- �an't be made from rec cled materials. i' �nd- : sent 31 percent of garbage by weight).But y I, ings �; for Wirka the primary issue is the profli- per- gate use of nonrenewable natural resources.'9f the entire stores for recycling.But,Wirka points out,we don't need nost � Northeast region, which is running out of landfiU space, those clamshells since th yard �� wanted to spend$300 a ton to ship its garbage to New Mex- keep food warm while people walk tortheir tablessary to ent. �� ico,it probably could.But why use these va)uable materi- �ood als just once and then bury them?" Clamshells can be recycled,but only into differentprod- ""' . ucts, such as plastic trays and logs.And producing new this i � Tt►e recent spate of pilot projects to recycle plastic prod- ones requires drilling for and pumping more oil,a nonre- �. ucts, like fast-food "damshells;' miss the point too, ac- newable,virgin material,and it's an energy-intensive,pol- �t of . cording to Wirka. luting process.Why spend time and energy figuring out a and �:: Polystyrene hamburger clamshetls cannot be recyded way to turn existing plastic packaging into products like s,af- f..� into new ones."The plastics industry is not thinking about plastic lumber?Wirka asks.And how iarge is the demand stics :-Q what makes sense but about preserving the status quo," for plastic logs,anyway?"It hardly seems justifiable to load ; up =e she says.McDonald's,the largest user of polystyrene in the the earth with hazardous wastes for a single-use product � 1968, ;� world, has a pilot project to collect clamshells in their which has no real social need;'she says. .•hich .� r �aaea Create no waste nt all by � on is �. ,f c�e vsing only prodvcts � Pro- that ean be recycled. � ��� �� � :evir- � ,p�s _ i � I gas. � : cost `'.�� ,..;•: . ;�a PLAN 4 ��� '.Ilpa}' If It Can 't Be Recycled , _edto Ban It : that ; � arry Commoner, director of the Cen- w land- ter for the Biolo,ny of Natural Systems � as. (CBNS)at Queens College in New York City, 3 :dfills ' dreams of a society that doesn't create any g .reas, � nondegradable garbage in the first place, � make ,� and theretore doesn't have to use incinera- ' 3 �. ' r �pose `'� tors or landfills to get rid of it.The way we - .. o site in 'k treat garbage violates all that the natural ` ;� world teaches us, he says. In the natural B A R R Y C O M M O N E R � DitttYnr njtb�-Cc•s�er jnr tl�r Biuh;�p of Nntiirul S�xic•�ur, A'ru•�iu�F �i �v i i t�: ' 57 i world,which he caiis the ecosphere,systems are cyclical. in garbage, leaving behind a residue of highly toxic ash. � ' ,_ There is no such thing as waste because everythingthaYs The ash is exempt from federa! laws covering hazardous produced in one part of the cycle is used in a later step.But waste. !t can be legaliy disposed ot in municipal landfilis, i� our modern worid, which Commoner has dubbed the where the toxins can leach into groundwater. "To take a '' technosphere in his new book,Making Peace With the poilutant and try to ameliorate its eEfect on the environ- Planet,"Crops[are converted) into sewage; uranium into ment is futile;'says Commoner."Incineration and landfill- �' radioactive residues;petroleum and chlorine into dioxin; ing are contro!strategies. (ntensive recycling is a preven- ' fossil fuels into carbon dioxide," he points out.The only tion strategy,and only prevention works" i' way to solve our garbage problem is to stop producing in a test of intensive recycling conducted by the CBNS[or �� • waste that can't be recycled,he says,and remake our world the town of East Hampton,New York,100 volunteer tamilies j, "� on the ecological modeL achieved a recycling rate of 84 percent over three months. +�; The EPA's push for what it calls integrated garbage man- The remaining 16 percent,mostly plastic and(ood packag- ,, ' � agement-25 percent recycling,55 percent landfilling and ing, he says, "ideally woutd be banned:' Commoner be- �� 20 percent incineration—is fatally inconsistent, Com- lieves that with a pro�ram ot citizen education most mu- ; ; moner adds. "Eighty percent ot the garbage we produce nicipalities could achieve recycling rates in the 50 to 75 can be incinerated or recycled,but not both:'in order to be percent range,far ahead of the 25 percent the EPA is aiming I�j � 'cost-efficient, the new generation of waste-to-energ�� in- for. In Commoner's ptan, the federal role is limited. One �, � ciner�ators,which burn trash to produce energy,must have ste the overnment could take to hel P g p is to mandate the �; a guaranteed supply of waste to burn. purchase of recycled materials by federal agencies."That � Commoner has lon o ' g pposed incinerators on other would create a market,"he says."And thaYs all thegovern- �` grounds.The burning process concentrates the chemicals ment can do,because garbage is always a local issue:' �; + '' �� �,� : �� : PLAM 5 ' � 1„ Turn Trash Into Jobs .�� - '� I� �eil Seldman, cofounder of the Insti- �P - , ! tute for Local Selt Reliance in Wash- �,.. - ' �,�"�, = ing ton, D.C.,would use garbage as a way �Q�� ,..;_ ~ � - to rebuild local economies, especially in _. our cities. He sees an economic need far - � - - � _ � recycling. It's the source o(the raw mat- - ' �;: •' � . erials for the hundreds of local manufac- /�' �'� ` :.;;�� �r . turers he expects to spring up in U.S.cit- r`% " � - , , a '• ies. Instead of drilling in Saudi Arabia for , ' •�� �—� ��k .;�,. �• � � oil or mining Jamaica for aluminum ore, t��� - "�"�` ,.-t.. "" t ` ' �' � .. , '' ;_ ���. ,: � � :Q � he envisions these companies mining the � a "f trash of our biggest cities and turning it - �Y � ` �' into trash bags, glass bottles, tricycle _ ` ' a �� wheels and furniture. "tt's the pot o(gold ��;;;.. _ �� " < � .: at the end of recycling;'Seldman says. -�; -' � . _ t ,_k "We are the world's largest supplier of � - � � '� scrap;'says Seldman.The two leading ex- M� � �� : NEIL SELDMAN �� , :.� ports out of the port o(New York are used lu.rrir��rc jir•l,ocnl Sclf Rrlinui•r. tl%asbingtnt�. D.C. 1' ' � newsprint and scrap metal. We sell our , �' � trash overseas for $5 a ton and buy it • � � back,recycled,at$500 a ton.It makes no (�SE gc�rbage recJrcfing to create jobs � � sense to buyback our own raw materials at 100 times the price.Better to recycle it and rebvild locat economies. � .' here, says Seldman. And if we make paper from scrap instead of from trees. we consume a third less energy and create jobs to boot. vania.In 19i7,the company started rorecycle PET botties " ' The recycling programs that Seldman has designed for (used mostly for soft drinks)into materials used in indus- ', �` � cities such as Philadelphia:Newark,New Jerse��:and King try.The company has expanded three times and now em- i' County,VVashington,have created a lot of local jobs.He cal- ploys i0 people,up nine times from the original eight. � r culates that tor ever}�million people who recycle, there's Seldman's plan doesn't require much action fram Wash- the potential for adding �260 million a year to the local ington. "The federal government needs to do just two business environment. "The only question is where those things: make recycled standards mandatory for federal � jobs are going to be and who is going to create them:'he purchasing and add a tax credit tor the use ot recycled ma- �-' says. Seldman works H�ith community groups, churches terials;'he says.This would balance the breaks that cities i,�' ' and city agencies to set up joint ventures. now get to build incinerators and the depletion deductions � � Take the story of St.Jude Polymer in Frackville,Pennsyl- corporations get for using raw materials such as trees. ■ ; T O C A 5 T Y O U R V O T E , T U R N T H E P A G E . �;� .+ 59 ,.,w r , .. � . . . . .. ... . . .. . � - . . , . ., . . . . . . ,. .... . .. .. . , . . � . . , . .. . � : . '..... . ' . . . �'., ,,.' . ".. ;• . .,. �. � � . . � .�.. ,.�.,. . . . . �.,y .,.. : �.. � . . . . :,. .'.. . . . . .. . . ;.WEDNESDAY:AUGUST29,.199Q � � � _ _ ".. . � . ,. � � > ,', ,. :,;- : � : �. Inclnerator� fac� � � �� lble `dela : 1�� Y ' .�tICHARD CHIN sTa�wa��R burning garbage. . "They want to change the rules of the�: � , . -" ball game,which throws our whole project' ��innesota Pollution Control Agency up in the air,"said county board chairman' pfficials'are considering adding restric- . Jce Harris. ' �ion,s to a permit for Dakota;County's pro- County officials said every day� the :` �ed garbage incinerator that would de- project is delayed cos�.s the county an esti- �lay the;prnject by as much as two years.; mated '$12,000 because of inflation: The : ; County:afficials Monday denounced the Propased requirement will also mean • �roposed restrictions, saying it is unfair more unprocessed county garbage will end d}r the PCA to impose the new'require- up in landfills,according to Barry Schade, � county resource recovery program man- anents this late in the planning and permit �rocess for the incinerator. ager. � PCA officiaLs said the requirement may PCA engineer James Idzorek said the �help the county avoid a costly mistake.. proposed requirement is intended to gre- � The PCA is considering a requirement vent Dakota County from experiencing the ;that would make Dakota County have per- . �e kinds of problems Hennepin Countq ;mits in hand for a facilitq to dispose of ash �d trying to find a home for its incinera- �from the incinerator before the county is tor ash. � �allowed to start construction of the incin- Hennepin County completed its down-� ,erator. _ - town Minneapolis incinerator before it , was able to locate a landfill in Illinois that The county was hoping to-get a permit �and start building the ;147 million incin- would take its ash. �e r a t o r n e g t y e a r a n d b e r e a d y f o r o p e r a- Idzorek said finding a place to dispase ;tion by 1993. The county has contracted of ash has been the most difficult part of �with the Pine Bend Landfill in Inver garbage incineration, so an ash disposal ;Grove Heights to build a'special landfill method should be guaranteed as much as �for the incinerator ash. possible before the incinerator is builk � Idzorek said the PCA doesn't want to al- , County officials said the process to get a low Dakota County to spend $147 million �permit for the landfill may take up to two on an incinerator,then not be able to oper- �years, but they hoped to apply for the ate it because it couldn't get a permit for ;landfill permit at the same time the incin- ��h landfill. ;erator is being built. The landfill only "It prevents them frnm committing any ;takes a few months to build once the per- additional resources which may be lost," �mits are approved, so the landfill and the i�orek said. �incinerator should be finished at about the Harris, however,; said Dakota County ;same time,according to the county plan. should not be punished for problems � County officials said if the landfill per- Hennepin County had anth its incinerator. ;mit must be obtained before construction He said Dakota County has done more ad- ;on the garbage incineratar can begin, it vanced planning on ash disposal than �may be 1995 before the county can start Hennepin County did. � r.. s�..:y+m.r � ', r� � . . . . . .� . . . . r� w_� �W.�#.r-3�45' w � c �'.;,. r � � . _ . .� . = incinerator mn� � � i ;c. � ,',: C ; .?> " ry ; ¢�; � coul e.� ��x.w� � { ; , _� ; ,. ; ���.��- ��� �.� _ � delayed�by :� � ; Incin . _ � �.. .�. . ; erator�-Continaed from page ' Y ... . - , >.- , :. :> , . .��'_..,�..: .��, ; , . ,., ; 4 take several months to two years ;� :� they are�being'penaliied for mistakes restrictions �. '`` �- � made by"Hennepin County, which _ .. . . ' , . ; � Dakota.County is being hit pretty =°;finished tts mcinerator in Mmneapo- ' ` : hard,"., said Board �Chairman Joe ��lis before it found an Illinois landfill By Jiin Adams � .. . � - Staf�'Writei. Harns. We are disheartened that all to take its ash � , ` � ; -_of a sudden the rules are changing for , .�:� _.; ,, ,:�z"�:��� � � Dakota County's proposed garbage �-•-�If they have been contemplat- "All the'cbunties felt_they were daing incinerator could be delayed by up to in8 this for months, why did they ,,;the right thing'and�plannmg properly, two years at a cost of millions of ' �'�'ait uniil the last minute?" but sometimes things don't go as ` doliars under new restrictions being ' " ' " P�n��,"Va�entine said"ThaYs the He said that if the delays "continue problem`we;are trying.to address conside�by a state agency. for a number of years, the landfills here.:We would hate to see a sitna- ' wiil all be filled-up,and then they can ;tiod where` Dakota County,has a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency � - dump it up there on the lawn at the_..$147 million white�elephant bn its (MPCA) officials expect to recom- � ,PCA building." hands. . � mend to their citizens board that the � ' " I county be required to obtain a permit ; . ' . s ' for a special landfill for incinerator The county had hoped to obtam the Valentine said the agency is sympa- ash before it is allowed to start con- incinerator permrt, which needs thetic to ihe increased _costs of a struction on the$147 million inciner- � MPCA approvai on air quality and possible twayear.delay, but;"given sofid waste impacts,in time to begin all'. the �problems we h�ve had in ator,said Mike Valentine,agency air construction next year,said Schade. dealin <with ash ;we think it`is im- quality division manager. g . _: , ' � ` ' � ' 'He said �the county had set aside �f�t�tloehave a'safe home for ash Dakota officials had hoped to begin � y get too. far down the work on the burner while appiying � 'about two years to obtain the ash road.". for the ash disposal permit and ex- � Pe�►it before the incinerator was to� : � ' , : - ; 'be completed in 1993. The caunty He said he expects ttie new ash per- plained their concems Tuesday to ; has.a contract with {he owners of mit restriction.will be part of a per- ' MPCA Commissioner Ge;ald Willet, ' Pine Bend Landfill in Inver Grove . mit mailed<out soon to interested who offered no relief, said County • � Heights to provide an ash landfill,he parties who can comment during a J Administrator Lyle Wray. Construo- ; �1� 30-da � tion costs will increaseabout$12,000 • y period before the MPCA for every day of.delay, given current board decides whether to�approve the inflation rates,said Barry Schade,re- ' County of�icials said it is unfair that permit. source recovery program manager for � . � the county.r , � • :_... ■ . . . ' _ -; �' The county started planning the in- ' cinerator about three years ago,Wray • said,and getting an ash permit could . Incinerator continued on page 9Y