Laserfiche WebLink
material. If after testing, Atlas finds the material acceptable for <br />incineration, the product is shipped to Atlas under a bill of lading <br />process. Atlas won't take in any unknown material for incineration because <br />they want to determine what is going into the incinerator, what is <br />happening and what is coming out. The purpose of this process is to learn <br />and develop better equipment. <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, solvents, plastics, etc.), what is meant by <br />"etc."? Would medical wastes include amputated members of human bodies? <br />Will the residents be breathing burning flesh and plastics? <br /> <br />Mr. Iabat - Stated that it is difficult to give totally 100% accurate <br />answers on anything to do with garbage. Ail materials to be incinerated <br />will be traced and tracked and Atlas will 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 contains hazardous <br />waste. According to Minnesota State law, there are only two methods for <br />handling veterinary and hospital waste, autoclaving and incineration. <br />According to the Minnesota Department of Health, these are the safest, nDst <br />humane and sanitary methods 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. MPCA 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 th~m. <br /> <br />John Lichter - 14060 Fluorine - Stated that the manufacturing portion of <br />the facility doesn't bother him; the contract burn portion does. There has <br />been discussion about types of waste and possible emission controls, but no <br />specifics have been heard regarding electrostatic precipitators, d~ry <br />scrubbers, wet 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 from MPCA mentioned that the EAW is being prepared. Mr. <br />Lichter stated that it is his understanding that there has been no air <br />dispersion mottling done to predict fall out from the facility and where <br />the impacted areas are. There has been no risk assessment work done. The <br />health i~act of the facility has not been studied, measured and evaluated <br />against the rest of the population in the city. The ash disposal method is <br />at an approved landfill but the landfill is not mentioned; there are very <br />f~ approved landfills for ash disposal in Minnesota. If the City is going <br />to issue a conditional use permit for this type of facility, these ty~es of <br />questions should be addressed. With regard to contract burn facility <br />itself, it is mentioned that waste will range from dead animals to <br />municipal solid waste to hazardous waste (solvents are mentioned in Atlas' <br />literature). In order to prevent emissions of dioxins you have to maintain <br />a fairly constant temperature, air supply has to be controlled, maintain <br />Planning & Zoning Public Hearing/June 7, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />