HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Resource Recovery Project +A��-�.'"t..� ... � . . . . . � . � . .
P.O. BOX 5t0
(�Z��'�' Q 2875-145TH ST. W.
�c7ern�un� ROSEMOUN?. MINNESOTA 55068
612-423-4411
T0: Mayor Nagper
Council Members: Klassen
Oxbarough
Willcox
Wippermann
FROM: Stephan Jilk, City Administrat
DAT�E: September 7 , 1990 •
RE: Resource RecoverylU of M/USPCI
You have all received my memo of August 28, 1990, but I have
attached it for additional reference in discussing the issue.
I have also included 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 . Pau1 Pioneer Press" and "Tribune" respective-ly.
These articles preface the purpose of this memo and discussion I
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 proeess:
{a) To permit a site such as Pine Bend as �n 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
� Oklahoma?)
(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 cauld throw up its hands and ts11 the state to do
the whole thing -- that is, take control of the waste
management in Dakota County.
` . .
Resource Recovery/U of M/USPCS
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 allow any ash in the USPCI site?
D. �� Should we use this in some way to move USPCI 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 . T 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 monofili, demolition
landfill, U of M coal ash landfill and non-hazardous waste
Iandfill is purchased (all in Rosemount not Empire Township) .
�ounty pays for cost of USPCI to get sites permitted. USPCI
moves all operations to U of M. USPCI sells 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 MIUSPCI
Page 3 .
ash at Highway 55 site. City is protected from Aighway 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
potential prablems 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 �E2,
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.
!
GivE•�/ � Cov�✓G�L
. _ 8-2 F-�o
.�
, 1 P.O. BOX 5t0
(�ZL Q 2875-taSTH S7.w.
�+ y��� .�t ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55Q68
�J�//'LQ Vl��� 612-423-4411
TOt Mapor Napper
Council Members Klassen, Oxborough, Willcox, Wippermann
FROM: Stephan Jilk, City Administrator
DATE: August 28, 1990
RE: Dakota County Resource Recovery Permit Application
The Metropolitan Council is soliciting comments from the City on
t�e abov'e permit application. The solicitation also notes the
review of the County' s Solid Waste Master Plan Ameadment. The
Metropolitan Council received the Master Plan Amendment on 7/3/'90
and the Permit Application on 7/18/90. The follawing remarks are , -
prepared in the manner in which I feel that the City should ' •
respond to anp development psoposal. 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 mp request, a copp of both the
permit application and the amendment to the Countp' s So3id Waste
Master Plan. The County did not, on their own initiative provide
us with these documents. The Metropolitan Council, the Pollution
Control Agency and obviouslp the Countq should have each provided
them.
,
The Countp has been in contact with the City on this project fbr
at least three years. Requests by the City for information have
usuallp been met; however , the County has not consistentlp
offered without such requests. The Countp has alwaps gromised
cooperation with the City; and yet, there have been repeated gap,s
in the information, changes in plans and innumerable frustrations
experienced by th.e City .
The close involvement of the City in the preparation of the EIS '
does not replace the Countp' s obligation to provide the Citp with
all documentation on this project. In particular, it is
incredible to think that the City can be overlooked in the
distribution of' a permit application. The application is site
specific information related to the deve-lopment of propertp
within the City of Rosemount. We have no idea what is being
specifically proposed- or reviewed. Is it enough that the City -
simply respond that, "Yes, we' re aware that a $100 million
facility is proposed to be located in Rosemount?"
Citp staff has met with staff from the Metropolitan Council and
the County to discuss permit issues. This meeting was initiated
by the Metropolitan Council. In the absence of anp specific
project details , either available or being discussed, our
comments to the Metropolitan Council regarded land use is:sues.
The Metropolitan Council staff implied that land use issues may
not necessarilp be relevant in their review of the County' s
Resource Recoverp Permit Application
August 2$, 1990
Page 2
permit. City staff found that to be absolutelp incredible and
stated as much. We have never heard of a pro�ect of this
magnitude that would not have both local and regional land use
implications.
We raised questions in that meeting, regarding the County' s
intentions for other uses on the 300 plus acre site. We made it
clear in the meeting that the City would require a planned unit
d�velopment description or Master Plan for the site. Our
specific concerns related to the obvious potential for additianal
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 all. In response to
the City' s request for a Master Plan, the Countp contended that
the Resaurce Recoverp Permit could be in jeopardp if any of these
potential uses were even brought up at this time, I think thi.s
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 gotential
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 City had received no application by the
County and no guarantees to recover anp 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 City in a
scheme to acquire 1200 acres .-from the University - of Minnesota for
such an activity . Numerous meetings and appraisals by the Citp
- 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 County
simplp walked away from the initiative because of its personal
timing concerns and their new found abilitp to condemn the
University property .
There have been discussions with the County , always prompted bp
the City, regarding host community incentives. The County has
acknowledged that the City will receive "benefit" from the
project. There have been no meaningful discussions with the
County to identify even the vaguest ranges of what these
"benefits" are. The Citp' s research indicates that they are
quite substantial in many communities with comparable grojects.
, , •� ,
Resource Becovery Permit Apglication
, August 28, 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 information, If we
were to make camment on what we obviously do know about the
project, with respect to land use issues and the regional
process, the following considerations come to mind :
1 . The proposed site is zoned agriculture and designated
� Public/Institutional in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 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 potential requirement for public utilities for this
project has not been presented to nor debated with the City.
Sanitary 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 spinaff development, on or adjacent to the
County' s site, which has been implied by the Countp, also
raises land use issues comparable to those in items No . 1
and No. 2. While the project itself map not require public
utilities, the practicality of luring additional development
without such services map be ill fated. The implications
regarding local and regional plans should be identified, if
not addressed in pursuit of additional development .
4. The potential for additional waste related activities by the
County on its own site is verp likely. 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
extraordinary disadvantage. One can anly publicly speculate
what land use, utility and transportation impacts can xesult
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 property . Is there anp ,
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 County ' s construction and/or
management of such a facility?
Resource Recoverp Permit Application
August 28, 1990
Page 4
In summary, there are extraordinarp issues surrounding this
extraordinarp praject. The controversial nature of the project
would suggest the need of the County to totally cooperate with
the City. You would think the Gounty would do almost anqthing to
gain the Citp' s support. Unfortunately, the County has not
exhibited such characteristics.
The extraordinarp nature of this project also suggests the verq
c�ntroversy that is approaching the Gitp' s doorstep. With the
EIS completed and the PCA Permit in pursuit, the opponents of the
project map now converge on the City 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 na guarantees of anpthing!
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 credibility . 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 Citp to make favorable !
comments on this project at this time. Further , I think � the Citp '
should protect itself by 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 onlp 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 seconsider its
position. That confidence and commitment from the Countq would
include the following :
l . Immediate answers to the questions regarding future uses
(even if kept "confidential" by the Citq 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 you and discussed at our workshop.
4 . A pledge from the County that its. commitments for economic
developments will be more than hear say .
Resaurce Recoverp Permit Application
August 28, 1990
Page 5
5. A commitment by the County that it wi11 spare no expense in
assisting the City in a public information/public relations
campaign during tihe local pexmit process.
6. A commitment from the Countp 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 City 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 by the City at this time map be its most critical ever
rendered .
My fear is that if the City does not get an immediate irrevocable
commitment from the Countp, the City has no alternative but to
raise legitimate questions that will obviously delay the project.
We should have the privilege of knowing what' s going on and
what' s in it for the City as the "host communitp" . The City can
either protect itself and be responsible in representing th�
public interest or continue saying pes to the Countp without
commitment or guarantee. In essence , we have a choice in acting
professionallp or to go down as being irresponsible and ignorant
citp officials in our City' s historp. �
We must realize that bp raising key issues regarding land
development to the Metropolitan Council at this time could be the
cause for 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 prios to getting their permit and
it may be the only opportunitp the City has to raise legitimate
issues which the countp will be forced to address. Since, by the
Solid Waste Management Act , the County has the abilitp to site
the facility we may not have any strength in denying any land' use
permits, rezoning , etc . . But, bp simplp raising issues in public
that the County may nat wish to discuss could allow. the Gitp the
same "strength" it needs to sit down to discuss anp and all
issues including host communitp benefits.
We should decide if that is the bargaining position we want to
gain. The very issues we must address, ta act responsiblp on
behalf of the Citp, may well be answered in a more discrete but
satisfactory manner bp the County .
Please contact me with your thoughts on this in the next couple
of days. ,
: . . .. _
_. . -. ... -
, _.. .:• _
� �. € .... . . _ . . . .
_
.� _ . . .
_ .
... ..
� ; : � . _ �e'm� �.` . �i4�e� /LCCo � �� �
� . ��.. . . - _. .. .
� � i � . L A N 5 -
. .�..
. . . �.
- .,�, ;
' T . O 0 � V E T H E _
. .�
_ ,� :;
�. . . � . . � � � i.
. . . . . , . . . � . . . . �i
�
� � erlin Township, Here,from fihe front lines of the environmental groups worried about �
� New Jersey,is run- toxic pollutants and the �
movemen#, are some real answers. Choose the hu e riceta thatburn- �
ning out of cheap places g p g ;,
to put its trash. This approach that makes most sense to you ing trasn car�;es.Recy- , i
summex its landfill e Y cling can pick up some ': �
- closed, and the county of the slack, but how � `
hasn't been able to find a M A a � E o ' A ►�n t c o A N o � � nn � u B 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 Beriln's Department of Public Works. ln 1988,after almost ten years of silence on the subject, � �
Berlin Township is not alone in facing this dilemma."We the EPA finally outlined a solution:A package of councils, � �
aren't yet in a garbage crisis;'says William K Reilly;head of incentive plans, public-education programs and regula• _- �.
; . the Environmental Protection Agency{EPA),"but one is tions to raise recyciing's share of the garbage pile tb 25 per- �. �
' clearly on the horizon:'Almost$0 percent of the 160 mil- cent by 1992.Stronger regulations on landfiils and inciner- ; 3
tion tons of garbage Americans generate each year goes ators would reassure communities and make establishing �- �
into landfills.Most of those landfilis will close within the sites easier.There's atso been a caIl for a federally ap- .y t
next 20 years,one-third within the neact five.And no one pointed Garbage Czar. •� �
; wants a new one built if iYs going to be neat door.One atter- But during the ten years that the EPA yacillated over its _ (
�1 native, incineration,is bitterly opposed by neighborhood program,the garbage problem exploded,making the Solu- �
i tions it fina!!y devised seem like so many .� �
Band-Aids. !n 1990 the real expertise on
how to solve our garbage crisis doesn't re- :
side in Washington. It is to be found with
�� ' the city governments, garbage scientists
; and citizens' groups that have had to ad-
- dress the prob}em without federat guide-
lines.Berlin Township,for example,a small, ;�
� �;��"'" suburban community of 5,600,had to take r �
,�; ,.: . . � aciion; today it recycles 58 percent of its z
, garbage. The town saved more than #
��:; �'t �150,000 on its garbage bill last year by *stor:
! � learning to separate its trash. �the
?`j � , To find out how the United States should ' ��� ��
} � •-�^�"''� ` solve its garbage crisis, McC,�t.��s 4alked to � ��
�this
: . . '�_�M w '�� i . � W �dlld
�'� S tive front-line experts.What would they do � # �
= if they were named Garbage Czar?Read on. N �kE
�,.�a� � ,_, " T hen ra te t h ei r s o l u t i o n s b y f i i l i n g o ut t h e p ien t e
�� � ; ' bailot on page 60. � �Alre�
�;� • .`� 8 � :50�
' 1 � _ PLA !! 1
RAY HOFFMAN ��' ���
� Dof ta rs -a nd -Cents `� �
' Seuior Rtrycling Plartuer,Scattle � pupr
j . Recycling 'U dem<
� ` , �T' � �ay Hoffman, a senior recycling plan- I� outs�
� '��...�. '1.
ner for the city of Seattle, betieves
Give peopie cash incentives � S�x,r
�� that if you charge people hard cash for be- �reec
�� ; fo recyele 60 pereent of their trash. ingwasteful theywillquickiyturnintoavid time
��;.�
a:; ' , gi}de
,. n 14 f
�� � � SZ . MCCALL'S. AUGUST 1990 . .� . � . � . � .. � � �
�� . : . . . . . . .
.��__. "______�� _ ___._-'__. - . . r-
recyclers.In his vision of the future,cities recycle 60 per- tn Seattle today,the amount you pay to have your gar-
cent oi their trash—enough so that garbage-burning incin- bage picked up depends on how muehyou recycle."Three
erators never have to be built.Right now he's working to trucks come down the streef every week;'says Hoffman.
make that vision a reality. Anything.that you've separated for recycling they pick up
Just four years ago,it laoked like giant incinerators were for free.All the rest of the garbage goes into cans prouided
in Seattle's future.The city faced a�77 million bill for clos- by the city.it you throw away a 32-gallon can of mixed gar-
ing its two landfiils—which noH�have significant 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 only a 20-gallon rninican .
to any future disposal plan.Bue citizens'groups were con- and it costs$10.70 a month,No mandatory xecycling. No
vinced there was another way to go.lnstead of fighting the recycling police.And no fines.
battle over what to do about the toxic pollutants and ash Three years after the program started,Seattle was recy-
that incinerators produce, they tackled the economic is- cling 34 percent oi its trash,or 69 pounds from each house-
sues.They lobbied town hall 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 tobuild an incinerator. and yard waste are sent out regularly 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 tor 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 Recyding during the battle over the incinerator and is behavior;' says Hoffrnan. '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]andfitl,
� ;Cinman has put together a picture of how
�;: � �� M garbage decays over time.The municipal
�, solid waste that gets buried in most land-
� � fills is mostly organic,made up of things
;' ��, � that were onee alive.Paper at 35 to 55 pe*-
� cent by weight makes up the bulk of most i
` �_ landfilis;at certain times ot the year,qard �
; � �� waste comes in second at 20 percent. I
; . ,�� Plastics, textiles and wood and food �
`� " �` wastes make up most of the rest.Ali this !
�; `
' decays,though slot��Jy. �
,? S "Our research shows that 7 percent of
_ ; the mass converts to carbon dioxide and i
� ��� u methane,along with some otiher�,ases,ai- �
! ..^ ,�;, o ter ten years;'says Kinman.Even plastics �
� �� . ,
�. �. eventually decay, he notes. Di�ging up
l ' ���, � , �:;� � one landfill that had been closed in 1968,
,r� � ' � Kinman tound that polyethylene, �+�hich ;
�� ' _ r � RILEY KINMAN
� - L-«�Ingirr. Unirrr.�h�•�/Cin,in,�nr; he calls an average plastic.had de�raded !
v_..__ . � by about 50 percent. "The degradation is
sloti� in the eyes of man. In terms of the
�� Build safe landfilts and dritl them eartt,it's.�ery tast"
�,:, Once processed, the raw gases pro-
;� to produce natural energ�. duced during that sloti�decay become vir-
� ! tually identical to pipeline natural gas.
P t e� N Z Drilling wells into one landfill outside of Cincinnati'cost
" ' � Ga rbage to Ga s
i,'� �l0 miliion.But it'spumping five miilion cubic feet of gas a
M i
� : j iley Kinman ot the Universit��of Gincinnati sees a fu- day,enaugh to heat]0,000 homes.The field,which will pay
�; �ture��here�as wells drilled into landfills turn decay- baek its development costs in three years, is expected to
�'� ing garba�e into ener��.Landfills will always have a role to produce gas fvr 15 to 50 years. �:inman estimates that
' play in managing our garbage,says Kinman,a protessor of about 100 of the country's more than 6,000 permitted tand-
� civil and em�ironmental engineering."('m a firm believer in filis are now being used to produce gas-line qualit}�gas.
�!� ' lid-waste mana ement svstem.Reduce the Drilling for methane also reduces the number ot iandfills
an�ntegrated so �
�; �ti•aste stream as much as possible. Recycle. i�cinerate that explode or cause evacuation of surrounding areas.
some.Landiill some:'Then,says Kinman,turn the landfill though Kinman doesn't expect that will necessarily make
� .: into an ener��-producing. recyclin�machine.ti's:he only landfills more popular. "People in man}� places oppose
' wa�•to rec��cle e��er}�thing that makes up our garbage. landfilis;'says t�inman.''VJe used to be abie to tind a site in
By digging up the garba�e again to stud��Nhat actually a}�ear to a year and a haii.No��it takes five years."
;
� � �j6 M�[CI.LL'S. AUGU57 1990 � � �
� ' �i_ ... -«... . . .�� �
_ ._. .
. s: . . . _: .. ___ .. . -_. ..:.. _.
. . .. ..._ .
. _. . _ . . :.:.�: ,�-._ .. .
_. �,.. __._. . . . ,
� . • - _ . .. . . � . •
. . .�. .::_. . :
' �._ � PLAN 3 . ... . .
' 8an Excssstva Packagtng
�;� � . i
u -. �`.�. eanne Wirka of the Washington,D.C.— . � � �
�dg. x•-� �based£nvironmental Action Founda- ~ `
�� '- tion advocates passing legislation to re- , �� � [ . �
i
.� duce wastefui packaging. "The issue is, ' � r �
.�� how do we reduce the need for virgin ma- � � ; '
No-, terials?" Wirka asks. Her way is to cut ���-- �
� back on the amount of useless packaging � _ � _ ' :
� produced in the United States.That opin- ,: �k ;!
ion has made Wirka,the policy analyst of � 1���
-'i'�i ��/ �. �,
�, the foundation's Solid Waste Alternatives f�� i
� _ �
P
ng.. ro�ect,pubIic enemy number one to the � � �. ��
3ilI � piastics industry. , � -�= � � i
:ics _ Wirka has helped draft laws that regu- ���h +' S �
�n- late or tax excessive or nonrecyclable ��� ,, , t � ''
���� .Y.. . y
ree pa�kaging in communities around the ; ;
:orv � co�ntry. She organizes consumer cam- •. _ ;
;ing paigns to demand less packaging on eve- s"� �=' _ �
,--,-�� � �'
�ior, ryday products and works with manufac- ` � E A N N E w � R K q
turers to design simpler,equally effective � E�nirn,r„rr�,ral�lrrio�,Fo��u�/ar;of,, tt%nchi,rgro,,. D.C.
_.- � w a y s t o w r a p t heir goo ds:
i
�ii, �, Reducing excessive packaging can go a � i
�ow �: long way toward shrinking the volume of Ban pa�kaging that is vseless or I'
� trash
ipai � (p ckagingg nd c�ontyiner�s r)pre- Can'tbe made from recycled materiais. �,
:nd- �: sent 31 ercent of arba e b wei ht .But �;
:ngs �. for Wirka the primary issue is the profli-
per- �� gate use of nonrenewable natural resources. "If the entire stores for recycling.But,Wirka points out,we don't need
:�ost Northeast region, which is running out of landfilt space, those clamshells,since they are not realJy necessary to
�ard �` wanted to spend$300 a ton to ship its garbage to New Mex- keep food warm while people walk to their tables.
enC. �� ico,it probably could.But why use these valuable materi-
ClamshelIs can be recycled,but only into different prod-
ood ` als just once and then bury them?" . ucts,such as plastir trays and logs.And producing new
this = The recent spate of pilot projects to recycle plastic prod- ones requires drilling!or and pumping more oil,a nonre-
} : ucts,like fast-food "clamshells," miss the point too, ac- newable,virgin materiai,and it's an energy-intensive,po}-
�t of ; : cording to Wirka. luting process.Why spend time and ener fi
and = _� Polystyrene hamburger clamshells cannot be recycled way to turn existin tastic acka in � �ring'aut a
;,af- �L, into new ones."The plastics industry is not thinking about piastic lumber?Wi ka asks.And how a ge isthe d rnand
stics Y what makes sense but about preserving ihe status quo," For plastic logs,'anyway?"!t hardly seems justifiable to Ioad
g up she says.McDonald's,the largest user ot polystyrene in the the earth with hazardous wastes for a single-use product �
'958, � world, has a pilot project to collect clamshelis in their w '•
�hich ~ hich has no rea!social need;'she says. y
aded � i
on is � C�'eate no waste at alt by �
;g
��1e � using anly products
. ��: •.,y �
pTo- � fhat canbe recycled. � ���
�vir- � p�� - �
gas. � �.." � , i
.cost � .>' �•�' �
��g P L�A�N 4 � � �� �
�I pa)' i f t t G a e 't B e R e c y c l e d , ti
edto �' Ban 1t
that �arry Commoner, directar of the Cen- � • `
land- ier tor the Biology ot Natural Systems �
zs. {CBNS)at Queens College in New Yark City, S
dfills . • dreams ot a society that doesn't create any o
:reas, =` nondegradable garbage in the tirst place, ;
rnake � and therefore doesn't have to use incinera- ;
�: �
�pose ` tors or landfitls ro get rid of it.The way we - '�- �
>ite in ;; treat garbage violates all that the natural `
.� world teaches us, he says. In the natural e A R R Y t o M M o N E R
Dirr�/nr nfrr��•cr�„��,�Jnr tl.�r Binln�) �f l�n�rn��l S�•air�v.r. l�rr�•)b:•,E
� .� F . . . � . �. . . . � . .. . � . � � .. . . . �. ��
57
�.� �
� ,
world,which he calis the ecosphere,systems are cyclical. in garbage, leaving behind a residue of highly toxic ash. '
' 'f'here is no such thing as waste because everything thaYs The ash is exempt from federat Iaws covering haz�ardous
' ; � produced in one part ot the cycle is used in a iater step.But waste.It can be legatly disposed ot in municipai landfitts, �
in our modern world, which Commoner has dubbed the where the toxins can leach into groundwater. "To take a I '
technosphere in his new book,Mokrng Peoce Wilh the pollutant and try to ameliorate its effect on the environ-
Planet,"Crops[are converted] into sewage; uranium into ment is futile;'says Commoner."lncineration and landfill- +; ,
' _ radioactive residues;petroleum and chlorine into dioxin; in�are controt strategies.Intensive recycling is a preven- f
(ossil fueis into carbon dioxide;' he points out. The only tion strate�}�,and only prevention worl:s" ii
- way to solve our �arbage problem is to stop producing In a test of intensive recyciing conducted by the CBNS(or !�
•',.* waste that can't be recycied,he says,and remake our world the tou�n of East Hampton,New York,]00 volunteer families ��
Y on the ecological modeL achieved a recycling rate of 89 percent over three months. '�
The EPAs push tor what it calis integrated garbage man- The rerr►ainin�16 percent,mostly plastic and tood packag- ��
agement-25 percent recycling,55 percent landfiliing and ing, he says, "ideally would be banned:' Commoner be- I•
20 percent incineration—is fatally inconsistent, Com- 1'+eves that with a prograrn of citizen education most mu- �;
moner adds. "Eighty percent ot the garbage we produce nicipalities could achieve recycling rates in the 50 to 75 �i
can be incinerated or recycled,but not both"In order to be percent range,far ahead ot the 25 percent the EPA is aiming +j
'cost-efticient, the new generation of waste-to-energ�� in- for. In Commoner's plan, the federal role is limited. One '•
;; �' � ciner�ators,which burn trash to produce energy,must have step the government could take to help is to mandate the �;
n a guaranteed supply of waste to burn. purchase of recycled materials by iederal a�encies."That ;
Commoner has long opposed incinerators on other would create a market;'he says."And thaYs all the govern- `
. i.
�..
grounds.The burning process concentrates the chemicals ment can do,because garbage is always a focal issue:' f:
= r,
., ��� 4►
� _
. � �;
�.
- P L A M S � .
is
' T u r n T r a s h I n t o J o b s :
;, �� :�:�
i� ' � .,s ^� n
� e l Seldman, coiounder of the Insti- ��
tute for Local Self Reliance in Wash- w'�,,►�� '
- ington, D.C., would use garbage as a way ,�.,-w�- ,�.,•' � � `
to rebuild local economies, especially in ' �,. ' -- -.
` our cities. He sees an economic need for - • - � __
;� � recycling. It's the source o( the raw mat- - '
i " � erials for the hundreds of local manufao- /ei7,�,1 � � ' � '- , ... �
� ..�.�
:, ';� ' turers he expects to spring up in U.S. cit- �� "" ;,, �
. rr/ � I.��'4 f� � .. � J.� :.
_i,; ies. lnstead of drilling in Saudi Arabia for ;;' "%;� � p �?, r � ��.
oil or mining Jarnaica for aluminum ore, i'.' �"�'�-"">'�= � - ! r.�� t. �- 4' � �c "�
�, :6 he envisions these companies mining the " F ' '�
:,� ; " trash o( our bi;gest cities and turning it � '
�"s
:;;, :��,-� into trash bags, glass bottles, tricycle -- •� �, r
�"� ; '. wheeis and furnitnre. "lt's the pot ot gold _ _�"� `��� .�- ,. �' J; �
at the end otxecyclin�;'Seldman says. =�;. "' . I =
�. �` -.� "We are the world's largest supplier of � _� _ o a�
� scrap,"says Seldman.The two leading ex- N E i � s E t o nn A N �
,�, • :� � ports uut o(the port of Neti�York are used `
..... IRIII!!/lrfr�rLo�n/Sc%�Relini��•r, ll'��.c%iugrn�t. D.C�. �' ���
' � § newsprint and scrap metal. We sell our
F'� a� �
; .� trash overseas for �S a ton and buy it
� = back,recycled,at�500 a ton lt makes no Use garbage recycling to create jobs �
� ,� sense to buy back our own ra��materials ,
at I00 times the price.Better to rec��cie it anei rebvitd loeat eeonortiies.
�• ,•j here, sat�s 5eldman. And it we make
paper from scrap instead of from trees.
� "� ��e consume a third less energ}� and create jobs to boot. ��ania.In 19i7,the company started to recycle PET bottles
�:+ i The recycling programs that Seldman has designed for (used mostl��ior soft drinks)into materials used in indus-
�` '� � cities such as Ahiladelphia�Newark,New Jerse��:and King tn�.The company has expanded three times and no��em- i�
vCoun Vdashin ton,have created a lot of local'obs.He cal- loys�0 eo le,u nine times trom the ori �nal ei ht. �
,, �'. � 1 P P P P $� $
, culates that (or ever��million people who recycle, there's Seldman's plan doesn't require much action from V1ash•
� the potential tor addin� �260 million a vear to the locaf ington. "The federa! governrnent needs to do just t��o
��;;� . , business environmen,. "The only question is��here those thin�s: make recyded standards mandatory for federal
jobs are going to be and who is going ta create them."he purchasing and add a tax credit for the use of recvcled ma-
`:KT}%�
;;� • » says. Seldman works ��ith communit}� grouns, churches terials,"he says.This would balance the breaks that cities
•�� . � = and city agencies to set up ioint ventures. now get to build incinerators and the depletion deductions
<?"Y • Take the stor��of St.lude Polymer in Frackville.Pennsyl- corporations get for using raw�materials such as trees. ■
���%� � TO GAST YOUR VOTE , YURN TN E PQGE .
�>,,d
_'%`�%,,s:.�� 59
� _� _. _..
''� .::_...:� �_,.:�.�..� _. .,�:_ �..,_.. ,:_.,. . ._< -::, .
__ _ _ _ __ __ _ _
. �
-_ .�.- . ,
"�' as:;.' ;s. �.::�."",,. %� x.'' ��.Is�:
_. tn�inerator_Y;� - ;
�, - - � �*' � ;z;., �
� . , � _ �
„�_ � �
�-�O�' e ` �
d��be�� �-- .- �
����: . ,
�., . .A .. _ . :
. .: . . ..: .`:.: ..... �k . . .. 1 . .. �: ��:
-
. __ . : �._. ,� �.;s •
dela ed-.b � �ncinQ ` } j � _.� . .
y y .. . _ � �-
• �+�`D�YContinoed from page'IY '�,�
' take several months to two years R= '� :they are�bemg penaLzed foi mistakes
�restrictions � �� . t z7 made by�-Iennepin County, �which
. __ , : "balcota Gounty is being lut pretty -finished its incinerator in Mianeapo-
By Jim Adams � �. . ; ; hard," �said Baard �Chairman� Joe lis liefoi•e it found an I1liaois landfill '
_ . _
'' � Hairis. We are disheartened that all :to take its ash. _
Staff Writer. _ . � ; of a sudden the rules are changing for . �-. r•: -�^�=r: .
- . s> :;.' .. . : . � us..:':If they have been contem lat- �_••All the�counties feIt they were doing
Dakota Caunty s. proposed garbage � i�g �s for months, why did pthe
incinerator could be delayed by up to � Y . �e right thing and•planniag properly,
two years at a cost of millions of ` �'�t untii the last minute?" but sometimes things don't go as
' dollars under'new restrictions being - ' ' � `� ' planned,"Vaientine said."That's the
consider�by a state agency. ._ He said that if the delays "continue problem'we are trying to address
for a number of years, the landfills here. We would hate to see a sitiia-
Minnesota Pollution Conuol Agency "''ll�all be filled-up,aad then they can tion where Dakota County,has a
- dump it up there on the lawn at the $I47 million'white�elephant on its
(MPCA) of�'icials expect to recom- pCA building." hands." � �
mend to their citizeas boazd that the � �
i county be required to obtain a permit ` . • "' � , `"
for a special landfill for incinerator . ' The county had hoped to obtain the Valentine said the agency is sympa-
, incinerator permit, w h i c h n e e d s t h e ti c to t he increase d cosu of a
as h be fore it is a l lowe d to start con- • MPCA a
struction on the$147 million inciner- � PProval on air quality and possible twayear,delay, but "given
ator, said Mike Valentine, agency air -sofid waste impacts,in time to begin all.the 'problems we h�ve had in
quality division manager. • :_. ;
coastruction next year,said Schade. dealing with ash,_we think it is im-
�� � � � He said the county had set aside � before t the have a safe home for ash
Dakota officials had hoped to begin � 'about two years to �btain the ash �d,�� , y get too:far.down the
work on she bumer while applying ; permit before the incinerator was to
for the ash disposal permit and ex- � be completed in 1993. The county He said"he expects tlie new ash per-
plained their concerns Tuesday to � has a contract with the owners of mit restriction.will be part of a per- '
MPCA Commissioner Gerald Willet, ` Pine Bend Landfill in Inver Grove : mit mailed oat soon<to interested
who offered no relief, said County � + ' Heights to provide an ash landfill he
;: , Administrator Lyle Wray. Construo- ; �i� � Parties who can comment during a.
tion costs will increase about$12,000 � 30-day period before= the MPCA
for every day of delay,given current : � board decides whether toaapprove the
inflation rates,said Barry Schade, re- �unty officials said it is unfair that permit
source recovery program manager for , • '
the county�' " ' ■___ .. ■ _ . . ' ,
The county started pianning the in- '
cinerator about three years ago,Wray •
said,and getting an ash permit could .
Incinerator continued on page 9Y
`�...,...,_...,..._...__ .
f
A
P.O. BOX 510
+ _ ��i� Q 2875-145TH ST. W.
� ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068
�Se'�/f/L�'u'�,� 69 2-423-441�
September 10, 1990
Mr . Dave Perry
MPCA
520 Lafayette Road
St . Paul, MN 55155 -
Dear Mr. Perry:
Regarding the proposal by the University of Minnesota to
construct a temporary incinerator to burn PCB laden soil, the ,
City of Rosemount has several concern and wishes to have the MPCA '
address them.
These concerns are :
l . Why is there no EIS required for this project?
2. It is proposed that to create a more stable supply of PCBs
to the incinerator, the soils with rates of anywhere
from 25 ppm up to 25000 ppm will be blended. The question
is what type of process and monitoring will be undertaken to
insure this blending?
3. A certain amount of the PCBs may be taken up in the stack
and re-distributed from the stack emission. You've
indicated that initially a "controlled test batch" will be
used to do a stack emissions test . What then? Why isn ' t
consistent, periodical or even constant monitoring being
proposed for the stack emissions. Will the "blending"
method effect the stack emissions? How do you know? This
should be addressed.
4. The "footprint" of the dispersed products from the stack may
be extremely important depending on what is coMing� out of
the stack. First of a11, the stack must be r,ionitored,
secondly, has the footprint been determined under varying
climatic conditions and will the operation of the
incinerator be controlled and varied as these climatic
conditions vary? Or doesn' t it make a difference? Do we
know that and how do we know that?
5 . What studies were done on other methods of handling this
problem and how recent were they? Is this the cheapest
method of handling this problem, the safest, the least risky
one? Why this approach, when after it is completed, there
will still be as high as 25 ppm of PCBs in the soil
remaining?
��
� ,
Mr. Dave Perry
Page 2
6. Why not remove all the soil that is contaminated by the
PCBs? Why leave any level of contamination? Is this the
level at which you would require a private sector firm to
perform to. Why not take that one step further - take
longer if you have to and spread the cost out - get the job
done. Don' t leave Rosemount with one more mess to deal
with. The University of Minnesota is a state funded body.
Let the people of the State of r�innesota help pay to clean
up this entirely.
7. If there is a remnant of PCBs in the soil after cleanup,
what will have to be done to monitor and maintain the site
in years to come? t�Tho pays for that?
The City of Rosemount would like to go on record with these
comments and would ask for the agency' s response to them.
Sincerely,
Mayor Vernon Napper
VN/dw
cc: City Council Members
Stephan Jilk, City Administrator
Dennis Ozment
Pat Pariseau
. ..y. . . . . � � . .
y.: . . . . � . . �
July 9 � 199�
of M m �ommitment•
Nates On
U _ 1o�g ter
1 . Lar ge a°'
ount of 1and, 1170 acres
otential Liabili�ies
P ting a"d �nkn�Wn
2. eXis
pollu�iOn'
a• _ c1��n up
b.
Structures
Busines�es
Existing roblems i.e, The
3' Fire cOde p ' there �
Building� �ay not W�n� Material StOrage)
a. t we dous �o try
b �qu�a and U of M Hazar do We �ant
b, Busin That is, 1a� �O
Bom Issues: � Must deyel�c de
e�en �� �il to take
Prop�rtin busgneS��s and in�� ebuildin�� 1 ng
c. to r e t a cren t`� P Are
businesseS but issueS�
reta�-n Bu�ld ne l.�abi1itq
roblems' are
th i s o n? Wha •us� t� t a k e carRa��� $e a udreau) •
_ erson J 3..e•
time P �Ssues � ties� Water '&
d. Fu11 �aintenan�e �o extend utili
rentals/
_ Do we attempt �1 �p00,00�
4.
Utilities et financing flo��
Sewer? _ Where dO we g
to aeQ�ire
Debt ppp?
5• to �1 �5p0 � i� development with ?
PartnershiP
6� Engineers
Comb. Jaffleq
U of M er
i,e. PiP
Coun ey Finan��'a�' �Deve1Oper
Larg Industrlal t3.on)
e CorF°r�
GM�g(Greater Mement Firm
Manag
ProPert9 Minnesota
State °f
1 .
Notes U of M, Ju1y 9 , 1990
7 . City Staff (Team)
a. Propertq Management: rentals, maintenance, payment to
General Fund for fire, police, maintenance,
b. Engineering
c. Economic Development
d. Clerical
e. Consultants: legal, financial, real estate marketing,
development.
f. Open Space/Parks
8. Who owns? EDA? The EDA would probably have a Tax Inc, Bond.
9. Income from Leases/Rents: Gross revenues of $210,000 in
1990,
10. Resour'ce Recovery Project
a. Staff : Environmental Engineer
Clerical
Building Inspection Team
b. Steam Turbine
c, Income: Construction Permits ($5�0,000)
Ongoing Revenue
d, Do we attempt to push for other waste management
projects?
e, Water source
11 . Annexation - Should we attempt to annex all of county� s
lands? . . .to control development?
RECOMMBNDATION(S) : ,
A. Review appraisals - determine whether overall value is worth
getting into project.
2
. ♦. � � � . . .. � .�
� •. . . . . . . . - .
Notes U of M, July 9 , 1990
B. Property Management - Review income and expenses from
present operation.
1) Have building/fire code review of all structures to
determine if we can/should continue to lease
2) Review a11 leases to determine time frame/payments
(All except one on 30 day basis)
3) Have city staff review & determine cost to do proper
maintenance on roads, sewer systems, water systems etc,
map need outside engineering consultant on some.
4) Determine method of ongoing management. (Staffing &
cost)
C. Financing - Purchase - Review
Finanein� needs (cost) - determine avai1ab31itp of
revenue from:
a. On going leases
b, Resource Recoverp Revenue
c. U of M payment structure (not paq all debt
immediately) Net income will help determine.
D. Ownership - EDA Take Ownership of All Property
E. Other Waste Management Projects:
Ash Monofill
Coal Ash Landfill
Demolition Landf311
Coal Ash - Incinerator Ash Pellitization
Composting
Recycling
MRF
Existing Hazardous Materia7. Storage
Incinerator - USPCI
F, City Staff/Consultants
Propertp Review/Management
Development, determine
Environmental
Demolition, Breakdown, Recpcle, Removal
Engineering
3