5.4. SR 09-14-20095. ~1.
CITY OF ELK RIVER
~~
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
Elk
R ~ •^..~.
~`Ver SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 14, 2009
6:00 p.m.
Elk River City Hall
Upper Town Conference Room
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, Minnesota 55330
I, Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor, hereby request a special joint meeting of the Elk River City
Council and the Planning Commission on Monday, September 14, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at Elk
River City Hall, 13065 Orono Parkway, Elk River, Minnesota.
The purpose of the joint meeting is to discuss the Elk River Landfill's expansion related to
their:
^ Request for Land Use Amendment to Change the Land Use of Certain Property
from Mining to Landfill, Case No. LU 09-01
^ Request for Rezoning to Change the Zoning from AI (Agricultural
Conservation) to SWF (Solid Waste Facility), Case No. ZC 09-01
In accordance with State Statute, I hereby request the city clerk to post this notice at least.
three days prior to the meeting date. I further request the city clerk to notify each member of
the City Council and Planning Commission.
^a~'~ l
~"a
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor Date
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that this notice has been posted and that I have served this notice
upon the members of the City Council and Planning Commission by mail at least one day
prior to the above-called special joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting.
~L
Tina Allard, City Clerk Da e
S:\Council\Forms\Meeting No[ices\Special Joint.DOC
c,
or
l:~liL ~,~.+
River
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator
DATE: September 10, 2009
SUBJECT: Amended Graph for September 14, 2009 Workshop regarding
the Elk River Landfill
On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, staff distributed a graph depicting the percentages of
waste that each contributing county provides the Elk River Landfill. The graph was not
completely accurate in regards to the percentage of waste provided by Sherburne County.
The 15% shown on the Elk River Landfill Material Summary Report 2008 includes the non-
processibles from the RDF Facility. An updated graph is attached showing the percentages
by county of non-processibles and rejects from the RDF Facility. The non-processibles
include items such as mattresses, furniture, and bulky items. The rejects include items such
as sand, glass, and non-burnable items.
Attachments
• Elk River Landfill Material Suizunary Report & Graphs
ELK RIVER LANDFILL MATERIAL SUMMARY REPORT - 2008
OTHER COUNTIES""`
2%
STEARN
3%
SHERBURNE
9%
NON-PROCESSIBLE
6%
REJE
WRIGHT ANOKA
g% 5% CASS
Allocation of Non-Processibles
Allocation of RDF rejects
HENNEPIN
27%
12% ~
I
4% ^Anoka
`. 42% ^ Hennepin ',
^Sherburne
_ ^ Tri-County
42% - ~
**AITKIN, BECKER, BENSON, BENTON, CROW WING, DAKOTA, DOUGLAS, GOODHUE, HUBBARRD,
ISANTI, KANABEC, McCLEOD, MEEKER, MORRISON, OLMSTEAD, PINE, RAMSEY, RICE, SCOTT, ST.
CROIX, ST. LOUIS, TODD WADENA, WASHINGTON
13% I I HJI~H
MILLE LACS 11%
3%
ver
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor 8~ Council
FROM: Lori Johnson, City Administrator
DATE: September 8, 2009
SUBJECT: Elk River Landfill Expansion
At the August 17, 2009, Council meeting, the Council scheduled a worksession with the
Elk River Landfill (ERL) for September 14. At that same August meeting, ERL
distributed a report titled: Is the Landfill Expansion a Good Investment for Elk River?
The Council directed staff to review the report and report back by September 8.
The report, prepared by Richard Voith, PhD, Econsult Corporation, has now been
reviewed by the city attorney, consultant, and staff. The report focuses mainly on the
host fee and surcharge revenue and does not address property tax revenue. Therefore, it
addresses only part of the future revenue equation that itself is only one factor in the land
use decision the Council must make. In staff s view, property tax revenue is an important
factor as it continues on long after the landfill closes; the use and value of the property
affects the tax collections forever. Plus, the report takes into account both the City and
County host and surcharge revenue. The City in its analysis is taking into account just
the City revenue since it does not have control of the County revenue and thus does not
benefit from the revenue received by the County. Further, the report assumes that the
City would not spend any of its host fee revenue for many years and would invest it in
stocks and annuities. Both of these assumptions are erroneous. First, the City would
most likely use the host fee revenue to benefit the city and the residents who are dealing
with the impacts of the landfill during its operation. Second, the revenue remaining after
offsetting the impacts could not be invested in stocks or annuities as those are not
allowed by State law. The report briefly addresses land development, but does not
analyze the land use request made by ERL. The report states that the City has plenty of
other property to develop making this area less important but fails to take into
consideration that there is a limited amount of properly zoned property and an even more
limited amount of property along highway 169 that would produce higher valued
development.
Because of the issues noted in the above paragraph, staff did not have HKGi analyze that
report in detail, but instead chose to review the information contained in ERL's proposal
titled the New Plan on a handout provided by ERL on August 17. ERL states the landfill
footprint will decrease to 40.7 acres and the area available for future development will
increase from 10 acres to 33.1 acres.
Brad Scheib, HKGi, prepared the attached graphs. The first is titled Property Tax and
Host Fee Annual Impact depicting the revenue streams from host fee revenue and
potential future property tax revenue based on ERL's new proposal. To do this analysis,
a timeline for future development had to be selected. However, that was done with the
knowledge that it is not precise and it will change. Keep in mind, though, that the trend
stays the same if the timeline for actual development changes, it just starts later. For
instance, the difference in tax revenue generated between the two options does not
change; the actual year may not be the same as depicted on the chart but the gap between
the expansion and no expansion revenue streams remains the same. The same applies to
the Employment Estimates chart.
Finally, attached is a memo from Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator with data
on the sources of garbage collections that go to the landfill.
O
O
N
.-. Q
_~ ;
~ ~
~ ~
L ~
Q
~ LO
O
i+ ~.
W m
.~.+
d •~
~ ~
oa
as
W o
N
h
0
0
0
N
O
ti
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
L(')
O
N
N
~_
H
O
V
O
N
0
M
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
N
C
O
.~
C
(6
Q
X
O
C
N
O
.~
C
N
U
N
O
~II
O
H
I
C
O
.~
C
f6
d
X
W
O
.~
C
N
U
O
(6
O
i
N
O
(6
(sqo~) ~iun~oddp
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
d0 CO ~ N O CO CO ~ N '
r ~ r r r
O
O
N
Q
C
N
CO
~ N
C ~
~ ~
L
Q
'~ O
Q~
~ ~
O
..i N
V
L
~ a
a~
Q
O
a
N
(B
CO
N
~.+
V
Q
t6
d
LL
r.+
N
O
C
K
H
L
d
Q.
L
a
saelloa
O
O
O
N
O
ti
0
N
O
M
O
N
O
O
N
f6
d
O
0
N
0
M
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
r
O
N
a
C
_T
U_
N
LL
O
2
C
O
.N
C
(6
Q
X
O
C
N
O
.~
C
N
U
X
f6
F-'
d
O
a`
I
C
O
.~
a
x
Q~
r
O
.~
c
U
~_
X
f6
Q
O
a`
N
N
d
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O ~
O O O O O O O O ~
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
a0 I~ O ~ ~ M N ~
EA d~ EA EH ER d3 ER (fl
.ver
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator
DATE: September 8, 2009
SUBJECT: Information for September 14, 2009 Workshop regarding the
Elk River Landfill
The origin of waste has been discussed at previous meetings and I have attached a
spreadsheet and graph depicting that information. The rejects from the RDF process are
made up of approximately 4% of Sherburne County's contracted waste. Anoka County's
contribution is approximately 42%; Hennepin County's is approximately 42%; and Tri-
County's is approximately 12% for the rejects. It is also important to note that the rejects
are calculated out of the host fee. This was done to be consistent with MN Statute
115A.919 which exempts fees being imposed by a county.
Based on conversations staff has had with Wayne Hanson, Great River Energy (GRE),
the outcome of the Elk River Landfill will have a tremendous impact on the future of the
processing operation. Currently, the glass, sand, and other non-burnable materials are
rejected and transported to the Elk River Landfill. The approximate costs for the
transportation to the Elk River Landfill are approximately $3/ton with a $32/ton tip fee.
If the landfill closes, these costs will go up to approximately $15/ton for transportation
and a minimum of $40/ton tip fee. Mr. Hanson has agreed to be present at the September
14 Workshop to further discuss this information. An e-mail has also been attached from
Mr. Hanson.
Attachments
Elk River Landfill Material Summary Report & Graph
E-mail dated August 31, 2009 from Wayne Hanson, GRE
Letter and attachments dated September 8, 2009 from Deb Walters, WMI
ELK RIVER LANDFILL MATERIAL SUMMARY REPORT - 2008
TONS
AITKIN 218.99 0.09%
ANOKA 13297.66 5.22%
BECKER 8.36 0.00%
BENSON 13.42 0.01
BENTON 162.26 0.06%
CARVER 0.62 0.00%
CASS 14653.45 5.75%
CHISAGO 15.6 0.01%
CROW WING 4.15 0.00%
DAKOTA 21.82 0.01
DOUGLAS 44.01 0.02%
GOODHUE 0.74 0.00%
HENNEPIN 68225.18 26.79%
HUBBARD 261.17 0.10%
ISANTI 428.97 0.17%
ITASCA 26919.26 10.57%
KANABEC 42.93 0.02%
McCleod 5.99 0.00%
MEEKER 2003.26 0.79%
MILLE LACS 7296.68 2.87%
MORRISON 8.45 0.00%
OLMSTEAD 7.39 0.00%
PINE 36.66 0.01%
RAMSEY 114.36 0.04%
RICE 2.27 0.00%
SCOTT 0.09 0.00%
REJECTS - RRT 31503.71 12.37%
SHERBURNE 38885.63 15.27%
ST. CROIX 0.4 0.00%
STEARNS 6905.33 2.71
ST.LOUIS 10.04 0.00%
TODD 2332.5 0.92%
TRI-COUNTY 19529.26 7.67%
WADENA 23.48 0.01
WASHINGTON 56.05 0.02%
WRIGHT 21613.8 8.49%
254,653.94 100.00%
OD
~ ~
~ ~
v~ z
O ~
zm
On
~m
~~
~W
D m
~ Z
_ ~
~O
z?
mW
~m
D z
~ ~
~ O
z
_ C7
~ :U
n0
m~
~~
O _~
0
~ D
~ ~
C7 O
~ D
O ~
X O
C
r
O
C ~
~O
~O
O p
~ _
~c
~rn
p C
Z ~
D D
~ ~
D-
~ ~
= D
zz
G7
O
zz
D
W
rn
n
n
r
m
O
0
m
m
rn
0
cn
= =
m
m ~
-~ ~
cn fn N n
oo
o C -~
D
~ o p
o C
r
z o
Z ~ n ~ T~
m ~ o p ~ ~
~ z ~
~ m
m ~
~
N
~' r
D
~ z
~ ~ ~
°o ~
o ~ r
_ ~
~
D
~ ~
~
r ~
w
m
r
D
cni>
~, D
z
r
~
D
~
D
o n
D ~
-G
D ~
~ ~]
~' m
O
=
m N
p
m O
0°
z
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
WASTE MANAGEMENT
September 1, 2009 (revised September 8, 2009)
Mayor Klinzing, Council Members and City Staff
c/o Lori Johnson, City Administrator
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Elk River Landfill SDA
Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Staff,
ELK RIVER LANDFILL
Elk River Landfill, Inc.
22460 Hwy. 169 NW
Elk River, MN 55330
(763)441-2464
(763)441-2025 Fax
The following is a brief summary of items to be discussed at the September 14th Workshop with the Elk River
City Council. At the September 14th Workshop, representatives of the Elk River Landfill would be happy to
discuss any additional items that may not be included in this letter that City Council Members would like to
have addressed prior to the September 21St Council Meeting.
Summary of Design Modifications
The Elk River Landfill began the design of the Southern Development Area (SDA) back in 2001. In February
2004, the ERL officially submitted the proposed design of the SDA in a Solid Waste Permit Application to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), with copies also submitted to the City of Elk River and Sherburne
County. In April 2004 the ERL submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on the SDA. The
EAW was used as a scoping document in preparation for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process
that was initiated by the MPCA in mid-2005 and completed in late March 2006. During the environmental
review phase of this project (2004-2006) comments were received from area residents and members of the
regulatory community (including the City of Elk River) on several aspects of the proposed design and operation
of the SDA. In response to some of the comments received, minor changes to the design of the SDA were
made, relating to issues like stormwater control, and some commitments were made with regard to operational
issues (for example, the posting of the Landfill Manager's cell phone number on the Ridges of Rice Lake
Homeowner's Association web-site).
As the ERL prepared to submit the Land Use Application to the City of Elk River, there were a series of
meetings held with City Staff and individual City Council Members, and an update was given to the City
Council at their mid-January Workshop. In response to the comments received during these meetings with
City staff and Council Members in early 2009, the ERL modified the proposed footprint of the Landfill from that
in the original 2004 MPCA Permit Application, and also increased the size of the screening berm located
around the perimeter of the property. The design included in the submitted Land Use Application submitted on
March 30th allowed for a small amount of development along 221St Avenue and significantly increased the
screening of the facility from 221St Avenue and Highway 169. While screening and the visual nature of the
facility had been a comment received during the EAW/EIS process, the issue of future development potential
of this parcel had not been a comment received at any point prior to the meetings held with the City in early
2009.
From everyday collection to environmental protection, Think Green® Think Waste Management.
® Printed on 100Y post-ronsumer reryc[ed paper.
Page 2 of 7
Following submittal of the Land Use Application on March 30tH, the ERL met with City Staff and their
consultants on May 12tH to answer questions regarding their review of the Application. Items relating to the
following were discussed on May 12tH:
• MNDOT Highway 169 Interchange design and frontage road right-of-way
• Questions and a few points of clarification on screening and landscape berm
• Forest management regarding 12 acres of preserved woodlands
• A proposed easement to the City Trail
• Contingency Action costs
• Proposed landfill closure date of 12/31/2033
• Timing and commitment to gas plant permitting and construction
• Commitment to working with City and County of future Household Hazardous Waste facility
• Concerns regarding the soil balance for the site and the amount of soil material necessary for
construction
• Clean-up Day versus use of coupons for City residents
• Timing of City review/approval process
Revised drawings, updated tables, and additional information as necessary related to the above items were
submitted to the City in a letter on May 26tH.
As we read materials prepared by City Staff and their consultants, went through the Planning Commission
process, and listened to comments from the Council members at the July 6tH Council meeting, it became
apparent that additional future development potential along 221St Avenue and the future interchange was a key
issue with regard to our Land Use Application. Thus, based on these comments and the Council's desire for
additional future development potential in the area, on August 17tH the ERL submitted a modified Landfill
footprint, allowing for additional development along the southern portion of the 109-acre SDA parcel. The
August 17tH drawings also included a larger screening berm located along 221St Avenue, as this was another
major concern made by Council during the July 6tH meeting.
8/17/2009 Modified
Cit A lication 3/30/2009
Cit A lication 2004 Original MPCA
Desi n
Increase in Ca acit 9,850,300 CY 13,600,000 CY 15,000,000 CY
Increase in Landfill Foot rint 49.3 acres 68.8 acres 73.7 acres
Landfill Footprint Located on
109-acre Parcel 40.7 acres 60.2 acres 65.1 acres
Antici ated Closure Date 2029 2033 2033
Area Available for Future
Develo ment 33.1 acres 10 acres Minimal
The drawings depicting the revised footprint provided to Council on August 17tH are also included as part of
this submittal as Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 represents the difference between the design included with the
March 30tH City Application (Old Plan) and the revised design submitted at the August 17tH Council meeting
(New Plan). Figure 2 represents the area available for future development, 33.1 acres, which would be
available following the closure of the Landfill and removal of the perimeter screening berm. During a meeting
with City Staff on August 25tH an additional drawing, Figure 3, was submitted. Figure 3 represents the area
available for development during the active life of the Landfill (i.e. with the screening berm in place). Figure 3
also represents the enhanced screening berm which is being proposed as part of the revised design.
Page 3 of 7
Figure 4, submitted to Council at the August 17th meeting, is a future view from along 221St Avenue. Figure 4
shows that with the enhanced screening berm and the reduced footprint, the Landfill will effectively be screen
from view along 221St Avenue. Figure 5 represents the view from along Highway 169 looking north, with
existing views, interim views (immediately following construction of the screening berm) and final views (during
the active life of the last cell of the landfill).
With the exception of the few modifications described above, all based on comments received by members of
the City Council, Elk River Planning Commission or City Staff, the bulk Elk River Landfill's Land Use
Application as submitted on March 30th remains the same, especially with regard to the future land use of the
109-acre parcel. Indeed the design modifications relate to issues that are more appropriately dealt with in the
CUP process. Rezoning approval do not get into permit conditions.
Future Use of the Landfill -End Use
In 2001/2002 when the Elk River Landfill began working on the design of the SDA, ERL staff began work with
the City on the development of conceptual end use possibilities. Following completion of several meetings and
Workshops in 2002, an End Use Masfer Plan was developed. This end use plan reflected a vision for the area
to be a passive recreational use with some commercial opportunity along the highway.
As the Landfill began preparing to formally submit an application to the City of Elk River for the continued
development onto the SDA, the 2002 end use planning materials were reviewed. However, based on
discussions with City staff and some Council Members, the Landfill determined that the 2002 documents may
need to be updated to better reflect the desires of the City and the vision the City has for the Highway 169
corridor. Thus, the Landfill worked with the City to develop four end use concepts that included a passive use
park, an active use park, a park with energy related opportunities, and the development of a park at an off-site
location. In the end, City staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission reaffirmed the vision for the area
from 2002, recommending the end use for the facility be a combination of passive recreational use with some
commercial opportunity at the intersection of Highway 169 and 221St Avenue.
As shown conceptually on the attached Figure 6 and 7, a future passive use park would include several trails
winding around and through the more level upper part of the site. Overlooks would be located near the upper
edges of the site in order to take advantage of views in all directions. Overlooks to the Rice Lake Wetland
could also include interpretive boards to explain the significant features of the wetland and the importance of
wetlands to environmental health. The trails would connect to the City owned trail system located on the old
railroad bed, may also include Rice Lake wetland trails developed on property owned by the ERL, and connect
to other trails or parks in the area (Sugarbush in Livonia Township). This extensive trail system would link
together a series of scenic overlooks, boardwalks, and landscape ecosystems that would offer additional
environmental interpretive opportunities. Parking will be available, but minimized to presence as much open
space as possible.
The overall landscape of the facility will include prairie, woodland, savanna, and wetland. Areas within the
closed landfill will be mostly native grasses and flowers, which by their nature will attract birds, butterflies and
other wildlife. The areas not directly over the closed landfill will consist of transitional savanna and woodland
plantings, including upland tree species and grasses. The majority of the land owned by the ERL on the west
side of the City trail would be wetlands, with additional area of woodland. This open space will provide critical
habitat to the area.
Concept plan sketches prepared as part of the end use planning process for the Landfill's end use are
included as Figures 8 and 9. The drawings include a series of sketches of the trails and overlooks envisioned
for the closed Landfill.
Page 4 of 7
As previously discussed, commercial or light-industrial development opportunities will be possible along the
eastern and southern portions of the SDA property. Located at the northern edge of the City of Elk River, the
future development of this area provides an opportunity to welcome new and old visitors with features that
emphasize renewable energy and sustainable development and tie into the City's reputation as Energy City,
and a regional resource in the energy marketplace. Potential development would be significantly benefited by
the ability of these sites to utilize the green energy developed by the Landfill to reduce energy costs. These
cost savings may be in the form of reduced heating costs from the use of the excess heat from either of the
landfill-gas-to-energy plants or the landfill itself, or from several other available energy related opportunities
that may become available as economics make them feasible. Such an Energy or Eco Park when combined
with the existing Environmental Learning Center, adjacent natural habitat, trails and wetlands may also foster
public interaction and become a destination for educational uses as well as recreational, business and
commercial uses.
As previously discussed with City Staff and the Parks and Recreation Board, It is anticipated that the end use
development could be broken into approximately four phases (Figure 7). Each development phase will
coincide with the facility's closure of that area of the Landfill and other on-site development activities.
Incoming waste volumes will determine the actual date of development activities. Until final closure of the
Landfill, portions of the park/trail system located on the east side of the City's Railroad Trail would only operate
during hours the Landfill is in operation.
Phase 1
• Development of majority of screening around the perimeter of the property.
• Install initial phase of plantings along the berms and buffer property.
• Development of a trail system in the northern portion of the MSW Landfill, near the City's border with
Livonia Township.
• Modify Landfill infrastructure (such as gas extraction wells) with locking mechanisms to prevent
damage or harm to trail users.
• Development of an initial phase of a wetland trail in Rice Lake wetland complex.
• Construction of scenic overlooks, educational pavilion, and environmental interpretive boards along
trail system.
• Connect Facility's northern trail system and the wetland trail with City trail (note that the Facility's trail
system would have to be locked when the Facility was not in operation).
• Construct a parking area in the northern portion of the MSW portion of the Facility for use by people
utilizing the trail system.
• Construction of an additional landfill-gas-to-energy facility.
Phase 2
• Development of additional screening around perimeter of property as necessary
• Extend trail and overlooks toward the south
• Install additional planting as may be necessary
Phase 3
• Develop entrance from 221St Avenue and parking in southwest portion of the site for use by users of
the. City trail.
• Extend trail and overlooks towards the south
• Install additional plantings
• Install additional parking
Page 5 of 7
Phase 4
• Complete trail, interpretive signage, and overlook system.
• Connect Facility trail system to the City trail near the south of the facility.
• Develop entrance from 221St Avenue for use by recreational and commercial users.
• Convert access roads for use by recreational and commercial users.
• Renovate on-site buildings that will no longer be utilized for on-site purposes for either commercial
business use or for use as facility related buildings (educational purposes, visitor center, park
equipment storage, etc.)
• Develop commercial area and other associated hard surfaces (to be done by others).
Elk River Landfill is responsible for the costs to close the Landfill in accordance with applicable federal, state
and local regulations, as well as permits, licenses and any other conditional approvals (CUP). The closure
plan currently for the facility consists of native prairie style plantings and natural habitat, which is very similar to
the end use discussed above. This existing closure plan can be supplemented with additional parking, a
combination of woodchip or gravel trails, overlook structures, optics for wildlife and nature viewing, and
interpretive signage, the envisioned end use for the facility will be realized, with ERL and WM developing the
area as part of their closure activities.
With regard to maintenance of the facility, the ERL and WM also have to maintain the facility for a minimum of
20 years following closure as laid out by state and federal regulations, along with the facility's permits. The
ERL is also required by the MPCA to have money set aside in case a catastrophic event would occur at the
facility (referred to as contingency action costs). In addition to these costs, the WM Closed Landfill Group will
continue to be responsible for the maintenance of the facility long after the 20 year post-closure period allowed
for in the regulations. WM will continue to maintain the facility for as long as WM owns the facility.
To comply with these financial requirements, the ERL currently has the following financial assurance
mechanisms in place:
City of Elk River: Compliance with CUP/License $300,000 Surety Bond
Sherburne County: Compliance with License $300,000 Surety Bond
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Closure $5,584,025 Surety Bond
Post-Closure $4,704,796 Surety Bond
Contingency $783,027 Surety Bond
If necessary, the ERL would be willing to put an additional surety bond in place with the City for the increased
costs of closure as the closure of the landfill gets closer (suggested date of 2025).
Disposal Coupons for City Residents
The Elk River Landfill is proposing to give each residential household within the City Limits of the City of Elk
River a Coupon for free disposal of a pick-upload of residential trash on asemi-annual basis. The coupons
will be included in asemi-annual mailing with the Prime Advertising newsletters, which is mailed to the
residents of Elk River. When the resident comes to the Landfill, they need only bring a form of identification
showing that they reside within the City of Elk River and they will be allowed to dispose of their material without
any charge. By utilizing a coupon system instead of a "clean-up week", residents can utilize the service when
it is convenient for them, and it avoids long lines at the landfill.
Page 6 of 7
Committed Partner in a Future Household Hazardous Waste Facility
The Elk River Landfill is committed to a partnership with the City of Elk River and Sherburne County in the
construction and operation of a Household Hazardous Waste and Recycling Facility. The Landfill will provide
the land for the future HHW facility, and assist with the design, site development costs (grading of the site),
and provide staff to ensure acceptance of materials during all hours the landfill is open.
However, the Landfill cannot manage such a facility, and thus will need assistance from the Sherburne County
and the City of Elk River with the costs of construction of the building, as well as with the permitting, operation,
packaging and disposal of the collected hazardous materials.
Having a HHW facility along with an expanded recycling center located at the Landfill would be a true
convenience to area residents, as it would be one of the few facilities in the state where a single facility could
manage all the waste disposal and recycling needs of area residents (recycling, HHW, C&D, MSW, etc.).
Landfill Gas to Energy
Since 1998 the Elk River Landfill has partnered with Elk River Municipal Utilities to produce energy from waste
decomposition by extracting the methane gas and converting it to electricity to be distributed to local homes.
The proposed new landfill capacity provides the opportunity to add a new gas to energy facility and provide
additional green energy generation capacity. The Elk River Landfill has committed 100% of the costs for the
construction and operations of an additional landfill gas to energy facility associated with the proposed
additional landfill capacity, and will begin the permitting and the subsequent construction of the new gas plant
upon receipt of approval.
Waste Management's (WM) Statewide Commitment to Solid Waste Processing
Waste Management is committed to the processing system that the State of Minnesota has advocated based
on the waste hierarchy in state statute. Waste Management is the largest supporter of waste processing in the
state, with our hauling division delivering more tons to waste processing facilities than any other waste hauler
in Minnesota. Our commitment to processing is demonstrated by the fact that WM's hauling companies are
contracted to deliver over half a million tons of waste to processing facilities each year, more than any other
hauler in the state, amounting to an estimated $25 million a year. WM sends approximately 50% of the waste
that we collect to systems that process waste.
Both the processing facility and the Landfill are part of an integrated solid waste system. From the GRE
testimony at the City Council Meeting on August 17th and in an August 31St a-mail to the City (attached), it is
clear that the two facilities are both part of an integrated solid waste system, and that WM both historically and
currently, has fully supported the Elk River processing facility. In fact, in this instance, WM has demonstrated
leadership in the solid waste system of private and public entities, by showing support for the facility and
thereby enlisting interest amongst all of the players in the system.
Because WM's portion of the Hennepin County Contract has historically only been at 45% and today would be
at 25%, it is clear that WM's commitment alone does not affect the viability of the Elk River RDF facility, and
that all public and private entities that are part of the Elk River system need to sign contracts to supply the
waste needed to keep the Elk River RDF facility operating. In fact to make up the lost difference in tonnage
from WM's North Hennepin system, WM amended the agreement with RRT to include new tons from Eastern
Sherburne and Anoka Counties.
As discussed with City Staff, the Landfill's largest customer is the rejects and by-pass materials generated
from the RRT processing facility in Elk River. From 2008 data provided to the City, the Landfill accepted
approximately 31,000 tons of reject material from RRT and 38,000 tons of by-pass material from RRT, out of a
Page 7 of 7
total of approximately 254,000 tons of MSW material. Thus, the material from RRT accounts for just over 27%
of the total amount of MSW accepted at the Landfill. In 2008, the Landfill accepted a total of 68,000 tons of
MSW from Hennepin County, accounting for just under 27% of the waste accepted at the Landfill. From the
2007 SCORE report, Hennepin County generated 1.6 million tons of MSW, and thus the Landfill accepts
approximately 4% of the MSW generated in Hennepin County.
The Landfill signed a contract in 1997 to accept the rejects and the by-pass materials for disposal with the
former owner of the Elk River processing facility, NRG. The current contract with RRT on the acceptance of
the rejects and the by-pass was signed in 2007 and runs for 66 months, or through the current estimated life of
the Landfill. The current contract has an automatic renewal clause written into the contract.
Review of EIS on No Landfill Expansion
The EIS included a limited amount of information on the impact to the solid waste system and environment if
the Landfill were not to expand. One topic that was only briefly mentioned in the EIS which is currently getting
a lot of attention is the effect certain actions have on greenhouse gases. Based on the information provided in
the EIS, the ERL had a consultant do an analysis of the effect the additional trucking distance would have on
the generation of greenhouse gases. The added travel required for disposal alone would result in an
additional 1,489 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents being emitted to the atmosphere. Attached is
the consultants report regarding the Greenhouse Gas Impacts.
If City Staff, the Mayor or members of the Council would like any additional information, please contact me at
either 612-270-2942 or dwaltersQwm.com. Thank you and we look forward to working with you on this
project.
Sincerely,
ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC.
C-a~-_-'-e ~ ~C,c--.mot _.~~~
Deb Walters
District Manager
attachments
.~
V
L
a~
0
ca
._
L
.~
~ ~
~ ~
J ~
T
O T
~ ~
o ~
.~
L ~
~ 0
~ ~
V
a
.. _ ~_
,~,, ~ ;,
~ r•: `
~ ~ t 6
i' ~ 1 r ,4 ~,:i~
~~...~ r d i }. i
4J 1
f' r 5
.~ ~~
r' 1
_.
~~
-;
~~ '~ ~ , ,
,- ~ . .
- s,
a
3
a~
z
.%fi''
-a
,. ~
0
A
c~
O
,
.;
I
.
o
+~ ~~°~ i
,.
- ,
~
~
, ~ I
.
o
_ ~ a
, ~ ~~
o
~. g .
~
._ .
: `~
:
-
i
' \
rte
`
s _ _
_
- /
_ ~
~ ¢
>
, ~
j j~,~ q~
ii ~
~`
l
F
d
~. ~~~~.
C
~ 1 q \ \
'~ ~ ~ . _ I
_ ~~
t ~~ ~
~~i%i$ li
_ t I1
j t •I
1
I
i/ ~~
,, - ;111.
~:- -
~-
,~e~ ~
F o~
9`S
o s=m
N ~~
~T
su~
~~v
~z~
oP~
~€o
~ ;l
~€
' i
m o F~ m a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ f S g ~ I
F
n 6 5
S S
s E
C ~ _
f 71`
RE NMt: u=i0~. }IRK Id
~ ~~ We n c k ~~. ~E. ,,.~~
€ SHERBURNE RCOUNTr~MINNE50tA PROPOSED FINAL GRADES
ns~~~ss .~z~+ PREPARED FOR ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC.
UBiom:s;:r`au.:~`w.~'~.~,.w`a,59.~. ~ ~. ~. o.,~~-o«a-,~o-
_ FIG. 2
f
f
I
t
f
I
t
L
., .._ .
„,
'~ ~
n.~o i
~~~ - i
,, ~. o
~;: , _ . .
~, . _-- -
_ ~ ~ ~ r, : i
,, ,
k
._~
- ~ ``
`-
~~ ' ~ f ~j/ - = i
:,
~,
I % ,
,,~ ''
~~ d
,~ ~i!~ /
L § ~ / /~
/ V ~/
t I p~/
I !
I
- / i +
/,~.
t~ ~ ~ m~
/~~~~; _~
~/~ ~~
_~__,/j~~i/~
i ~.
~'~ l -~
•~~ I u~~s~:.
',~ , ~ ,
r, ` G„ ~~ _
,. _
.. ..
~~~
e
~ ; yes a
o
_ ... _
~ € ~
xrE
O ~o~
tiiL n R~~D
_~
:~ ~
'~
_ $"g
s R"
~
~,£
0 0 oP'
'
Fi ~8
' • • II
. 1 f~
s~<~ ~,~~,~€
F£~~ g ~ a
~ b
s
iE
~ ~ --
.:.a~ ~a.cx.uac.wx,oevnovoso ~«u rowcnu.
~~ Wenck .~~. ~~„~,« o..E
ELK RIVER LANDFILL PROPOSED FINAL GRADES
a SHERBURNE COUNTY, MINNESOTA
..Ine. B00 ~]63~~]s~.300 PREPARED FOR ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC.
FIG 3
t '
1
k
I~~
S
~4.:
kw
~rv~ ,
ds
~, v
a.':~, 'E
~ ) 61 ,.1~ m ~~
r y,
~;
~, ~~
P «"
.
w. ,.
, ~ Y
f
~
`~'
s~, s
r S
~^
f~s„~ ~~
~. . .~~
f'.
~
~ a}
y
`
a.
`
~
{{
µ ~~ ~~7 K,
~.
~ ~
x'~ e
~ }
F ~
.~..
i
qtr '~
j
z
~~
...., '., .' i, ,.
N
~' '}
} ~,
} t
1
k. '.
4 +
i
.._. i
{: *~~
Existing View Northbound TH 169 -South of 219th Avenue NW
Cell 18 Expansion - 2011
Cell 24 Expansion - 2025 FIG 5
~:
~.
tt,
r~~n~
~~1~
4~
~~, , .`
~ w 4rw'~
----__
.~.- --
8 ' ._
TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION
~,„~e,,~--- --
s' ~,~,~-~ -;
---~---
~„ ~~~~ ~a
~:~ >~
~_ ~~,
'~ti~-
' -. ~._~ - - A~4~
^e. ~ ~ ',
Picnic Shelter with Ammenities for Active Park Use
MAIN OVERLOOK
T~
I~`
;y. ~ ~I~
Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update
Concept Plan Sketches
INTERPRETIVE BOOTH
.t~~z
;'~~t. '!~ ~~ ~ td;'~ ,~,~-7 ~+~ ~'~r~ .a.i~~,w.~ ~;.~s~~-}~ -,±~~'~srr S. X~~~ f.,. ~a ~~}C~ fX` .~ 6"t! ~ ~ ~ ~,
`-.i yam' r .aid'' .""`ter ~At r' ~ ,..~ ~~ ~~ ~ f~
t! ``"~~l ~e 1- F,,~~ . ~ <ti ~ ~fE~y '~t°`~pCt: ~€.~ ~~~"~J
j' ..~'`---.3.
jj,,// ri
Quiet Overlook to Interpretive Trail
-a>
~... ~ --
t~>. ,~ ~_ , , --
=~_ _ ---
-. 1
" ~f
~.--~~
~~;
E;~.
r ~h
.. ~. - -
y
~°
A1~°
-.
y,~~ ! ~, ,~ ~~ ~~ F~
b
.:'
_ _ ~ ~• ~
.~ ._ ~ +..'. r.,.~-~~m .. ,rte
---
_ _~_-_
.., ., s. _,~..__ . _
Simple Shade Structures for Passive Use
Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update
Concept Plan Sketches
Yage 1 of 2
Griffiths, Maureen
From: Walters, Debra
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 9:48 AM
To: Griffiths, Maureen
Subject: FW: Elk River landfill expansion
Please print
Debra Walters
District Manager
dwalters@wm.com
612-270-2972
1Naste Management's renewable energy projects create enough energy to power over 1 million
homes.
From: Ketchum, Julie
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:41 PM
To: Kellas, John; Walters, Debra; Johnson, Terry; Ayers, Michael
Subject: FW: Elk River landfill expansion
-----Original Message-----
From: Hanson, Wayne GRE/MG [mailto:WHANSON@GREnergy.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:40 PM
To: Ketchum, Julie
Subject: FW: Elk River landfill expansion
Rebecca asked that I send her an a-mail reviewing again why GRE supports the landfill expansion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hanson, Wayne GRE/MG
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:36 PM
To: Rebecca Haug (rhaug@ci.elk-river.mn.us~
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 anot-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.
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
9/1/2009_ .............. _ _. _ . .. _ .
Page 2 of 2
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 tate. 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.
Wayne Hanson
Director, MN Generation
Great River Energy
12300 Elm Creek Boulevard
Maple Grove, MN 55369-4718
753-445-5818
Fax 763-445-6618
whanson GREnergy.com_
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information contained in this message from
Great River Energy and any attachments are confidential and intended
only for the named recipient(s). If you have received this message in
error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the
information. Please contact the sender immediately by return email and
delete the original message.
9/ 1 /2009
Criteria: 01/01/2008 12:00 AM to 12/31/2008 11:59 PM
Business Unit Name: MN/IA Landfills-Elk River Landfill(USA)
User: shell
Date: Jul 07 2009, 12:55:37 PM
Operation Type: All
Customer Name: All
Ticket Type: All
Customer Type: All
PMT Category: MSW
Origin Material Loads Yards Tons Percent
AITKM MSWT 25 0.0 218.99 0.09%
ANOKM MSWT 3096 0.0 13,295.00 5.22%
BECKM MSWT 3 0.0 8.36 0.00%
BENSM MSWT 6 0.0 13.42 0.01
BENTM MSWT 62 0.0 162.26 0.06%
CARVM MSWT 1 0.0 0.62 0.00%
CASSM MSWT 723 0.0 14,653.45 5.75%
CHISM MSWT 9 0.0 15.60 0.01
CROWM MSWT 5 0.0 4.15 0.00%
DAKOM MSWT 8 0.0 21.82 0.01
DOUGM MSWT 3 0.0 44.01 0.02%
GOODM MSWT 1 0.0 0.74 0.00%
HENNM MSWT 4431 0.0 68,225.18 26.79%~
HUBBM MSWT 14 0.0 261.17 0.10%
ISANM MSWT 197 0.0 428.97 0.17%
ITASM MSWT 1273 0.0 26,919.26 10.57%
KANAM MSWT 16 0.0 42.93 0.02%
MCLEM MSWT 3 0.0 5.99 0.00%
MEEKM MSWT 107 0.0 2,003.26 0.79%
MILLM MSWT 1408 0.0 7,296.68 2.87%
MORRM MSWT 3 0.0 8.45 0.00%
OLMSM MSWT 3 0.0 7.39 0.00%
PINEM MSWT 15 0.0 36.66 0.01
RAMSM MSWT 78 0.0 114.36 0.04%
RICEM MSWT 2 0.0 2.27 0.00%
SCOTM MSWT 1 0.0 0.09 0.00%
SHERM MSWT 8033 0.0 70,389.34 27.64%
STCRW MSWT 1 0.0 0.40 0.00%
STEAM MSWT 360 0.0 6,905.33 2.71
STLOM MSWT 5 0.0 10.04 0.00%
TODDM MSWT 120 0.0 2,332.50 0.92%
TRICOM MSWT 1122 0.0 19,529.26 7.67%
WADEM MSWT 1 0.0 23.48 0.01
WASHM MSWT 15 0.0 56.05 0.02%
WRIGM MSWT 4030 10.0 21,613.46 8.49%
Ticket Totals 25184 70.0 254,653.94
County Survey Responses
Recycling rate
Tons Percent of MSW Source Yard Recycling
collected for Total MSW collected for reduction waste rate with
County recycling generated recycling credit credit credits
Aitkin 2,558 12,625 20.3% 3% 5% 28.3%
Anoka 145,373 334,968 43.4% 3% 5% 51.4%
Becker 11,767 30,701 38.3% 3% 5% 46.3%
Beltrami 7,019 33,342 21.1 % 1 % 5% 27.1
Benton 44,749 68,522 65.3% 2% 5% 72.3%
Big Stone 1,224 4,637 26.4% 2% 3% 31.4%
Blue Earth 75,268 114,285 65.9% 3% 5% 73.9%
Brown 17,863 33,627 53.1% 3% 5% 61.1%
Carlton 5,699 20,513 27.8% 3% 5% 35.8%
Carver 44,426 100,430 44.2% 3% 5% 52.2%
Cass 12,817 30,789 41.6% 3% 5% 49.6%
Chippewa 2,714 13,387 20.3% 0% 5% 25.3%
Chisago 8,309 33,824 24.6% 3% 5% 32.6%
Clay 19,774 48,252 41.0% 3% 5% 4.9.0%
Clearwater 1,049 5,383 19.5% 3% 0% 22.5%
COOk 1,498 6,416 23.3% 3% 5% 31.3%
Cottonwood 6,289 13,850 45.4% 3% 5% 53.4%
Crow Wing 48,747 89,993 54.2% 7% 5% 66.6%
Dakota 199,130 435,567 45.7% 3% 5% 53.7%
Dodge 4,018 14,137 28.4% 2% 5% 35.4%
Faribault 6,308 16,434 38.4% 3% 5% 46.4%
Fillmore 2,986 12,109 24.7% 3% 5% 32.7%
Freeborn 16,999 43,774 38.8% 3% 5% 46.8%
Goodhue 15,457 43,514 35.5% 1% 5% 41.5%
Grant 760 3,696 20.6% 0% 5% 25.6%
Hennepin 604,575 1,616,569 37.4% 3% 5% 45.4%
Houston 2,511 9,012 27.9% 3% 5% 35.9%
Hubbard 7,919 23,444 33.8% 3% 5% 41.8%
Isanti 11,179 35,298 31.7% 3% 5% 39.7%
Itasca 11,689 40,582 28.8% 3% 5% 36.8%
Jackson 3,991 10,372 38.5% 3% 5% 46.5%
Kanabec 2,750 11,136 24.7% 2% 5% 31.7%
Kandiyohi 7,262 32,043 22.7% 2% 5% 29.7%
Kittson 611 2,566 23.8% 3% 5% 31.8%
Koochiching 3,116 11,732 26.6% 1% 5% 32.6%
Lac qui Parle 1,317 6,771 19.5% 3% 5% 27.5%
Lake 2,384 8,123 29.4% 2% 5% 36.4%
Lake of The Woods 928 3,794 24.5% 1% 5% 30.5%
Le Sueur 10,525 28,835 36.5% 3% 5% 44.5%
Lincoln 778 3,302 23.6% 3% 5% 31.6%
Lyon 16,522 34,007 48.6% 2% 5% 55.6%
Mahnomen 349 2,344 14.9% 3% 5% 22.9%
Marshall 896 6,366 14.1 % 2% 5% 21.1
Martin 20,120 33,407 60.2% 3% 5% 68.2%
McLeod 15,497 38,722 40.0% 2% 5% 47.0%
Meeker 4,267 15,506 27.5% 3% 5% 35.5%
Mille Lacs 1,748 17,007 10.3% 0% 5% 15.3%
Report on 2007 SCORE Programs A-29 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
-~~ Wenck
August 28, 2009
Ms. Deb Walters
Waste Management
Elk River Landfill, Inc.
22460 Hwy. 169 NW
Elk River, MN 55330
Wenck Associates,lnc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
Fax (783) 479-4242
E-mail: wenckmp@wenck.com
Re: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts from Operational Changes
Dear Deb:
Impacts to local/regional GHG emissions have been calculated in order to provide an
assessment of consequences resulting from operational changes associated with the Elk
River Landfill. These calculations, and resulting changes in emissions, have been based
on a limited set of information intended to capture the primary contributions from each
operational change. As such, the calculations provide a relatively conservative estimate
for the potential carbon emissions associated with new disposal locations. However, the
actual impacts could vary as more detailed information becomes available.
The following table displays the approximate emissions for each route change. In total,
an additional 1,489 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (C02-e) will be emitted
based solely on the added travel required for disposal. More detailed calculations are
provided in the attachment.
Route
,'
Trips I Iona
Miles (per
trip, r/t) Ilona
Miles
Traveled Ilona
Gallons
Consumed o a m
C02e
Additional
Transfer Station Change 8,686 20 173,717 29,951.25 304.30
Direct Haul Chan e 3,429 104 356,569 61,477.37 624.59
Direct Haul Chan e 682 16 10,909 1,880.88 19.11
Direct Haul Change 682 90 61,364 10,579.94 107.49
Processing Facility Change 2,382 104 247,681 42,703.57 433.86
1,489.35
The calculations are based on the following assumptions and methodologies:
• All trucks used for disposal are over 26,000 lbs and use diesel.
• All trucks have a fuel economy of 5.8 miles per gallon (based on Table 5.4 from
Department Of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book, Ed. 26, 2007 as listed
T:\0742U 406\Etk River GHG Impactdoc
Ms. Deb Walters
Waste Management
August 28, 2008
Page 2
in The Climate Registry guidance, General Reporting Protocol, version 1.1, May
2008, p.86)
• All trucks have a capacity of 22-tons and carry a full load on all trips.
• Based on information contained in the October 2005 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, 348,911 tons of MSW will be redirected. For purposes of this analysis,
the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill is the designated alternative landfill:
o Transfer Station Change
^ 191,089 tons of MSW currently delivered from the existing transfer
station will travel an additiona120 miles per trip (round trip, each leg is
an extra 10 miles) to the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill.
o Direct Haul Change (assumes new transfer station constructed in general
vicinity of the Elk River Landfill)
^ 75,428 tons of direct haul material will travel an additional 104 miles per
trip to the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill.
^ 15,000 tons of direct haul material will travel an additional 16 miles per
trip to the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility.
^ 15,000 tons of direct haul material will travel an additiona190 miles per
trip to the Newport Resource Recovery Facility.
o Processing Facility Change
^ 52,394 tons of direct haul material will travel an additional 104 miles per
trip to the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill.
• Emission Factors:
o Carbon Dioxide -10.15 kg/gallon (based on Table 13.1 from The Climate
Registry General Reporting Protocol, version 1.1, May 2008)
o Methane - 0.0048 g/mile (based on Table 13.4 from The Climate Registry
General Reporting Protocol, version 1.1, May 2008)
o Nitrous Oxide - 0.0051 g/mile (based on Table 13.4 from The Climate
Registry General Reporting Protocol, version 1.1, May 2008)
• Global Warming Potentials
o Carbon Dioxide - 1 (from IPCC Second Assessment Report)
o Methane - 21 (from IPCC Second Assessment Report)
o Nitrous Oxide - 310 (from IPCC Second Assessment Report)
T:\0742\I406\Elk River GHG Impactdoc
Ms. Deb Walters
Waste Management
August 28, 2008
Page 3
The additional GHG emissions resulting from the operational changes at Elk River
Landfill are based solely on logistical alterations. These emissions do not account for
additional sources associated with other facility changes such as construction, electricity
consumption, methane generation. Additionally, the increase of 1500 metric tons of
GHG emissions has not been placed in the context of overall facility emissions.
Therefore, the true impacts may be difficult to interpret during further analysis.
However, the operational changes will result in a net increase of GHG emissions in the
area.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (678) 987-5844 or
mshoemaker(a~wenck.com.
Sincerely,
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
,~1~ ~ ,C ~G,C
Michael Shoemaker, P.E.
Chemical Engineer
T:\0742V 406\Elk River GHG Impact.doc
m
0
0
N
T
N
C
O
m
J
n
0
0
N
m
N
9
W
Y
O m
O O
Q] O
W d C
C ~ O
O ~ N
~ O ~
O V U
~ ~ O
~a
N Q
~ O N O~
m 11 N G
.~
B ^'°v o
° W 4 E