Laserfiche WebLink
<br />because of it's proximity to the existing landfill. <br /> <br />Don Greenberg - Stated that he has been meeting with Atlas for about 3 <br />months and the philosophy of their business is on-site incineration; their <br />main goal is not to do conunercial incineration. The main function of their <br />contract burn facility is to demonstrate and sell incinerators. Mr. <br />Greenberg stated that he thinks Atlas will be doing Ramsey a community <br />service; the industrial/commercial areas will benefit from Atlas being <br />located in Ramsey and we will have a facility that can handle waste <br />locally. <br /> <br />Dan Rydborn - 8021 177th Avenue N.W. - Stated that the ash must be a <br />hazardous waste if it has to be shipped out of state. Inquired how the <br />company can say it deals in on-site incineration when the material to be <br />burneCl is brought onto their site. <br /> <br />Hr. Labat - Stated that Minnesota has no hazardous ash waste dumps; until <br />Atlas proves that the ash is not hazardous, it is more economical to ship <br />it out of state. '!be sites the ash is being ship:p=d to are not necessarily <br />hazardous waste landfills; they just haven't stated that they 'WOn I t accept <br />ash. <br /> <br />John Lichter - Stated that tests have been done on solid waste incinerators <br />in Minnesota and fly ash consistently shOl.'s to be hazardous. <br /> <br />Val Carver - stated that there are tv.'o different kinds of ash in normcJ. <br />incineration, bottom and fly ash. Only fly ash, through electrostatic <br />precipitators, is proving to probably be hazardous. Thirteen out of 30 <br />incinerators with electrostatics had hazardous waste in the fly ash; bottom <br />ash was not hazardous. Atlas is assuming it's ash is hazardous and <br />shipping it out of state to be handled properly until Atlas can generate <br />the aata to indicate whether it is hazardous or not. The majority of the <br />time, data indicates that the ash is not hazaraous. <br /> <br />1I1t. Berg - stated that Atlas' proposed facility is not going to burn mixed <br />municipal waste. This ash would fall into existing regulatory standards <br />which says that it is tested according to extraction procedures and <br />analyzed in order to be declared non-hazarccus. There is a lower set of <br />levels belCM which it could be declared prodisposable. If it tests law <br />enough, it could be disposed of in mixed municipal landfills. <br /> <br />Bruce Bacon - stated that there is a cocrrnon concern about handling waste <br />and on-site. disposal; that leads to recycling because a great deal of <br />products are wasted. The only value in burning is the BTU value of the <br />prooucts burned. The State goes along in a certain way \ldth burning, but <br />that strategy does compete with recycling. ~tr. Bacon encouraged the <br />commission and businessmen and citizens to find a common ground and not <br />focus on one strategy. A subject for another meeting is liability. It is <br />clear that certain unscrupulous' would want to take advantage of such a <br />meeting to get together and talk about liability about how city might <br />have different interest than the state or county \-,There we \-,Tant to look at <br />risks in this farticular COIP.munity. o.rr children are going to inherit the <br />problar'.s \-,'e invent for them. We vlant at least as healthful 1m env ironment <br />Planning & Zoning Public Hearing/June 7, 1988 <br /> <br />Paoe 11 of 12 <br />-' <br /> <br />8~ <br />