Laserfiche WebLink
<br />material. If after testing, Atlas finds the material ac~eptable ~or <br />incineration the product is shipped to Atlas under a blll of ladlng <br />process. Atl~ won't take in any lIDknown material. for incineration because <br />they want to determine what is going into the incinerator, what is <br />happening and what is ooming out. The purpose of this process is to learn <br />and develop better equipnent. <br /> <br />Liliana Heinen - 6370 143rd Lane - Stated that Val Carver's reply regarding <br />smoke emissions was not satisfactory to her. Ms. Heinen stated that the <br />residents are not concerned with visible smoke but with molecular particles <br />forming in that smoke. Regarding earlier comments about incineration of <br />general industrial trash (tars, sol vents, plastics, etc.), v.'hat is meant by <br />"etc. "? Would medical \<I'astes include amputated members of human bodies? <br />Will the residents be breathing burning flesh and plastics? <br /> <br />Mr. Labat - Stated that it is difficult to give totally 100% accurate <br />anS\\'ers on anything to do with garbage. All materials to be incinerated <br />\-..ill be traced and tracked and Atlas \<I'ill not accept any material it <br />doesn't want to; this cannot be said about landfills where all types of <br />garbage is being dumped and comingled. Atlas does not intend to handle <br />hazardous waste; households cannot say that as every one oontains hazardous <br />waste. According to t'unnesota State law, there are only two methODS for <br />handling veterinary and hospital waste, autoclaving and incineration. <br />According to the Minnesota Deparbnent of Health, these are the safest, most <br />humane and sanitary rneth0c3s for disposal of those types of waste. There <br />isn't a hospital in Minnesota that has clean up equipment on it's <br />incinerators; there is one hospital in central Minnesota in the process of <br />installing Clean-up equipment. Y~CA has in mind, in the future, to <br />encourage even more rules and regulations so there is better equipment <br />control and safety standards. Everybody should work to solve the problems <br />of waste disposal and not overlook then. <br /> <br />John Lichter - 14060 Fluorine - Stated that the ma'1ufacturing portion of <br />the facility doesn't bother him; the contract burn portion ooes. T'nere has <br />been discussion about types of waste and possible emission controls, but no <br />specifics have been heard regarding electrostatic precipitators, Dry <br />scrubbers, \<I'et scrubbers, etc.; we don't know what emission levels. The <br />word 'dioxins' hasn't even been mentioned; if you are going to burn <br />municipal solid waste, you will produce dioxin at some level. <br />Representative fran MPCA mentioned that the EAW is being prepareD. ~lr. <br />Lichter stated that it is his understanding that there has been no air <br />dispersion mottling done to predict fallout from the facility and where <br />the impacted areas are. T'nere has been no risk assessment work done. The <br />health impact of the facility has not been studied, rreasured and evaluated <br />against the rest of the FOpclation in the city. T'ne ash disposal method is <br />at an approved landfill but the landfill is not mentioned; there are very <br />fev approved lanc3fills for ash disposal in lIrinnesota. If the City is going <br />to issue a conditional use permit for this type of facility, these tYJ?2S of <br />questions should be addressed. With regard to contract burn facility <br />itself, it is mentioned that waste ~ill range from dead animals to <br />municipal solid waste to hazardous waste (sol vents are mentioned in Atlas' <br />literature) . In oreer to prs.7ent emissions of dioxins you have to maintain <br />a fairly constant temperature, air supply has to be controlled, maintain <br />Pla'1P~ng & Zoning Public Hearing/June 7, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 12 <br /> <br />16 <br />