5.4. SR 09-14-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of 2 Haug, Rebecca From: Hanson, Wayne GRE/MG [WHANSON@GREnergy.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:36 PM To: Haug, Rebecca Subject: Elk River landfill expansion As I indicated earlier the future operation of the Elk River Station (ERS) and the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility (ERRRF) is dependant on having an economical disposal method for the materials that are rejected from the ERRRF. Up to 70,000 tons of glass, sand and other non-burnable materials are rejected annually in the conversion of MSW to refuse derived fuel for the Elk River Station. This material is landfilled at the Elk River landfill. Trucking that material to the nearest landfill if the Elk River landfill is not available can cost the project about $15/ton or over a $1,000,000 a year. Since GRE is snot-for-profit organization, we do not have a margin built into this project to cover these additional expenses without increasing our energy costs from the station and potentially making the station uneconomical to operate. GRE had voiced concerned earlier to the City of Elk River that we were concerned that the tons of MSW currently going to the RDF project would go to the Elk River landfill after the existing fuel supply contracts expired for the station and therefore the expansion of the Elk River landfill could be detrimental to the future of the Elk River RDF project. Waste Management Inc. has recently agreed to support the Elk River RDF project to the previous level of MSW delivered to the project. With these tons from WMI and the tons from the other haulers that have voiced support for the Elk River project, GRE is optimistic we will be able to keep the ERS and the ERRRF operating for many years to come. I was selected earlier this year to represent the electric utilities of Minnesota on the MPCA Stakeholders process. This process was established by the legislature to develop a solid waste management plan for the state that has the lowest impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Even though the Stakeholders process is still studying the options, it is clear from a GHG standpoint we need to maximize the source reduction and recycling programs for the state. Since no large waste management program can reduce or recycle 100% of the waste there is remaining solid waste that needs to go to another disposal method. Waste-to-energy stations similar to the ERS are the lowest generator of GHG after source reduction and recycling and therefore waste-to-energy fills a critical role in the solid waste management program for minimizing GHG emissions while disposing of solid waste materials. Even after all waste is reduced, recycled and combusted however, there is still remaining solid waste that needs to go to a landfill.. Since both the ERS and the Elk River landfill are needed for Minnesota's integrated solid waste management plan and since the continued operation of the ERS is dependant on the continued operation of the .Elk River landfill, I recommend the City of Elk River approve the land use change and the zoning change needed to allowed the long-term continued operation of the Elk River landfill. W Nt~• Director, MN Generation Great River Energy 12300 Elm Creek Boulevard Maple Grove, MN 55369-4718 8/31 /2009