03-23-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I V** ^^ t r'-'i-l >;V '■^V'''^ i-^' i-t r» ; ---t W" S''"'-S isvj >.•■»•* -.. -.v f/. vl'^'-- : V * --r - I'■fe'.11 ,k ^■y ■r I Brt ■i;: ?v»-- fel' i^fIpW:m w y'- .’■. i-. ;-,K - i.- •. f;^,' Reasons to Support Ash Demonstration Project l. Landfill Abatement - there will be fewer landfiUs needed for garbage, especially in western Hennepin County, if HERC can continue to operate. 2. Likewise, there wiU be fewer landfills needed for ash, espcciaUy in western Hennepin County, if Lhe ash is permitted to be recycled. If the ash has nowhere to go. HERC may have to shut down, sending mountains of garbage back to landfills. 3. Conserve natural mineral resources by replacing a portion of the rock used in pavement with synthetic aggregate made from ash. 4. Provide a more cost-effective method for Hennepin County to manage its JIERC ash than by disposal of the ash in a landfill- 5 Recycling as many waste streams as possible, including the fly ash portion of the ash, is good * public policy. This is one recycling method that could really work wcU, or at least it should be given the opportunity to be demonstrated. 6. The test wilt not be a good measure of the effectiveness of the MSC process if only bottom ash is used. 7. Using combined ash actuaUy produces a better synthetic aggregate than using bonom ash alone. 8 The 100 tons intended for use in the Demo pr ~t have already been produced usmg both bottom ash and fly ash. The aggregate has bee.*.cd and proven to meet state and federal drinking water standards by an independent environmental testmg laboratory located m me Twin Cities. This is me standard of safety established for this project by me Minnesota PoUution Control Agency. 9. 10. The residents of Pioneer Trail, who are most affected, suppon the project. CaU them and ask. Only a smaU percentage (about 5%) of the ash cannot be processed into aggregate and would require landfill disposal. That's 5.000 tons divided by 365,000 tons of garbage per year, or less man 1% of me original garbage being landfilled, resulting in a bener than 98% reduction through incineration and then utilization of the ash by-product. 11.There are .sufficient safeguards in place to prevent any possibiUty of harm to human hcalth^or me environment. These include laboratory testing, site momtoring during and for years after construction to ensure environmental safety, and plans for removal of me road if necessary. 12.The environmental advocacy groups oppose the beneficial use of ash because it does not fu^.er their political agenda, which is to shut down all municipal solid waste incinerators throughout the U S. With the advanced air poUution control systems now being installed, ash dispose., is me only issue mat can be contested by environmental advocacy groups, and meir last remammg weapon to use to shut down the garbage burners. A safe. environmentaUy-acceptable rnemod of utilizmg me ash will take away their last argument against keeping the HERC waste-to-ener- gy plant open (and require them to find a new way to keep the donations coming in). PLEASE WRITE OR CALL COMMISSIONER JUDE WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW ’ll