Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-17_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 17, 1983 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL PRESENTATION OF COLORS - Girl Scout Troop 1195 - Cornelia School MINUTES of August 30, Sept. 13, Sept. 22, Sept. 27, Dec. 29, 1982 and January 3, 1983, approved as submitted or amended by motion of , seconded by I.' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 fav- orable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Flood Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Admini- strative or Board of Appeals and Adjustments decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. II. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS A. Edina's Community Task Force II III. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES Tabulations and Recommendations by City Manager. Action of Council by Motion. A. Civil Defense Warning Siren B. Deep Well 467 Overhaul C. Park Calendar Printing IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of 2/11/83 B. Legislative Meeting - Friday, January 21 - 7:30 a.m. C. Legislative Discussion D. Final Report - Infiltration Inflow Study -E. Feasibility Report (83 -1) Set Hearing Date F. Long Range Plan - Demographics G. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council H. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items I. Appointment of Weed Inspector 2. Set Hearing Date - Easement Vacation - L. 1, Bl. 1, Graytower Estates V. FINANCE A. Motion of seconded by , for payment of the follow- ing Claims as per Pre - Lists: General Fund, $111,429.51; Park Fund, $26,436.15; Art Center, $4,286.46; Golf Course, $2,967.31; Arena, $8,022.74; Gun Range, $.379.92; Water, $12,502.88; Sewer, $8,700.11; Liquor Fund, $119,503.96; Construction, $50,678.06; Total, $344,907.10; and for confirmation of payment of the following Claims: General Fund, $3,403.12; Park Fund, $674.58; Art Center, $322.50; Golf Course, $5,501.70; Arena, $1,733.65; Water Fund, $1,935.88; Sewer, $141,097.00 Liquor Fund, $693.13; Total, $165,361.56 Sally Olsen District 41A Golden Valley /St. Louis Park Committees: Taxes Education School Aids Division General Legislation and Veterans Affairs Council on the Economic Status of Women OF THE W� Minnesota 0�01,-4r, ya +n - } t. O'n of .t' NE January 12, 1983 Mayor, City Council Ptembers and City :tanager City of St. Louis Park 5005 Ninnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN , 55416 RE: Pinnehaha Creek Headwaters Control Structure DNR Permit No. 76 -6240 Request for ";odification of Gray's Bay Operational Plant Dear Mayor, Council Members and Manager: Residents of the Minnehaha Gables Addition of St. Louis Park have reviewed in detail the Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy and Operating Procedures of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated September 16, 1982. It is our understanding that the DNR has not yet approved this policy. Therefore, we are requesting the City of St. Louis Park to prevail upon the D \R for a public hearing opportunity as allowed by :Minnesota Statute 105.44, subdivision 3, and as suggested in your M. & C. No. "82 -23 dated August 16, 1982, page 4, paragraph 1. We are making this request as we believe the City of St. Louis Park's input contained in the city manager's letter to David Cochran, President of the Board of *tanagers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, on September 13, 1982, setting the minimum discharge line at 928.6 on July 1 at a minimum of 15 c.f.s. was not reflected in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's final policy. The watershed district's proposal contained in the attachment to this letter states that from May 15 to September 15 the base flow will be 12 c.f.s. AVERAGE. The key wor" is "average." It is entirely possible to have a zero c.f.s. discharge during this period with a 12 c.f.s. average flow. We feel that a minimum c.f.s. flow should be stated, and the City of St. Louis Park has stated a reasonable base of 15 c.f.s. It is our thought that the c.f.s. flow should be greater, or a different formula based on the level of the lake should be used to provide an adequate flow during the open water season. As we interpret the watershed district's policy, the creek could be restricted to a 12 c.f.s. flow even if the lake level should rise to a 929.6 level, a whole foot higher than the old dam level of 928.6. The Edina City Council, in a 1982 Resolution, also made several points with which v:e agree. Edina suggested that the management policy include: NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE Reply to: J 329 State Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 296.3964 `( i C 3307 Decatur Lane. St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426 9 .1.1 -14.13 Mayor, City Council Members and City Manager City of St. Louis Park January 12, 1983 Page Two "An adequate base flow for the open water season should be provided to ensure recreational uses during June, July and August," and "The rapid and drastic draw downs of Lake Minnetonka in early spring and late fall months should be reduced to accomplish the objectives of the Headwaters Control Structure." The Minneapolis City Council also passed a Resolution on April 30, 1982, stating, "The City Council believes creek flow is being artificially restricted during the open water season," and "The City Council supports a change in the Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy and Operating Procedure which will to the extent possible provide a steady flow in Minnehaha Creek during the open water season." We urge the St. Louis Park City Council to take prompt action to request such a public hearing from the DNR. Copies of this letter will be forwarded to the Edina and Minneapolis City Councils asking them to take similar actions requesting such a hearing. Thank you for your prompt attention. Sincerely, ,4allyv Ols State Representative cc; Mayor and City Council City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Alderman Walter Rockenstein City of Minneapolis City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55415 Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe, Regional Hydrologist Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 r Draft Resolution September lb, 1982 PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT APPROVING THE MANAGEMENT POLICY.AND OPERATING PROCEDURES DOCUMENT WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, following public review and comment, adopted a Management Policy for the Headwaters Control Structure on November 17, 1977; and WHEREAS, the Management Policy was further considered at a Joint public hearing held by the Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on February 8, 1978; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on July 26, 1979, issued Permit No. 76 -b240 to construct the Headwaters Control Structure which included, as Special Provision No. X, an Operation Plan for the Headwaters Control Structure, which was based on and incorporated the District's Management Policy dated November 17, 1977; and WHEREAS, the District has found this Operational Plan to unnecessarily restrict discharge to Minnehaha Creek under certain conditions and that the Operational Plan limits the District's ability to effectively respond to actual and changing lake and creek conditions; and WHEREAS, Special Provision No. X requires the District to submit to the DNR a proposed Operational Plan prior to January 1, 1933, for the operating period of March 1, 1983 through March 1, 1936, incorporating any amendments to the existing Operational Plan deemed wart -anted by the District based upon operating experience and data available to the District; and WHEREAS, the District,.on February 24, 1982, distributed a preliminary proposal for modification of the adopted Management Policy and existing Operational Plan to all municipalities and interested persons within the District for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Managers reviewed all comments received as a result of the preliminary proposal distributed February 24, 1932, both written and verbal.; and WHEREAS, the Board of Managers subsequently met with representatives of municipalities and interested groups to discuss the concerns expressed and comments received; and WHEREAS, the Board of Managers then directed staff to revise the preliminary proposal distributed February 24, 1982., Incorporating the. comments received to the greatest extent City of Edina Re: Amendment to Ordinance No. 406 to Correct t a Typographical Error Appearing in Ordinance No. 406 -A1 Dear In reviewing Ordinance No. 406 of the City, in connection with another matter, it came to our attention that certain language was inadvertently omitted when the ordinance was typed by the City. Enclosed is proposed Ordinance No. 406 -A3 amending Ordinance No. 406 to include such language. Should you have questions or comments, please call. VTY �l the Volume XI Number 3, October - November 1982 A NEWSLETTER OF THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION /Twin Cities Area SLUDGE DISPOSAL PROGRAM AT PEAK Demand is greater than the supply by lean Helget Yes! There is a waiting list of farmers who want to :utilize the nutrient value of the sludge generated at MWCC's facilities. The MWCC program of land application of sludge is of relatively recent vintage but has grown dra- matically during the past 2 to 3 years. The groundwork for the program was laid in 1973 when this agency entered into a joint demonstration project with the U of M, USDA, and USEPA. This project, which is still ongoing, has demonstrated that sludge can be used on crop land without creating problems. In 1978 it was determined that because of limited incinerator capacity at the Metro Plant (MWCC's largest treatment facility) effluent standards could not be met unless an alternative method of sludge disposal was developed. MWCC's program of controlled land application was developed as that alternative. The current success of the program is due to the combined efforts of a large number of individuals representing the U of M, USDA, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), a number of local township and county officials, the contractors involved in the project, finally MWCC's staff. When_ the program was'initiated in 1978 many people were skeptical about the fertilizer value of sludge; however, results of the demonstration project conducted at the University of Minnesota Rosemount Experiment Station generally alleviated most concerns. Since its incep- tion, the program has been governed by the MPCA- initially by a set of recommendations and more recently by permanent sludge management rules. The MPCA is charged with the ultimate responsibility of determining if a particular site is suitable for sludge application; however, a considerable amount of work is done before submitting an application to that agency. Applications are not submitted unless all MPCA criteria for soil characteristics and separation distances are met. This requires that soil samples be collected and analyzed. Subsequent to submitting the application, MPCA conducts a site visit. Local officials are invited to attend all site visits to provide both technical and non - technical input. When an MPCA Letter of Approval (Permit) is eventually issued it means that the site meets all the published criteria. The MPCA rules governing the agricultural use of wastewater treatment plant sludges limit the annual appli- cation of available nitrogen and cadmium to any particular site. These limitations are based on soil characteristics and expected crop yield and are specifically stated in each MPCA Letter of Approval. In addition, cumulative loadings for five metals, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc, are established based on soil characteristics. Nancy Schumacher (MWCC Eniri►onmental Scientist) checking farmers sludge fertilized corn field on luly'81h, 1981. 0 An analytical program along with an inventory system were developed to insure compliance with the MPCA limits. The dewatered sludge is monitored on a daily basis for solids content, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and cadmium. in addition, samples are collected on a weekly basis for determining the concentrations of copper, nickel, lead, zinc, and chromium. During 1981 approximately 4,200 sludge analyses were conducted. Two types of dewatered sludge are produced, filter cake and press cake. The two types of cake differ in the method used to condition solids prior to dewatering and equip- ment used for dewatering. The conditioning method is of more concent because it is in this step that pathogens are destroyed. The filter cake is conditioned by chemical means. After the addition of ferric chloride, sufficient lime is added to raise the pH to 12 or above. The conditioned slurry is then dewatered on a device called a vacuum filter. Approxi- mately 90 percent of the cake (wet weight basis) ultimately spread on land was produced by this process. The remaining portion of the sludge is thermally conditioned at a temperature of approximately 350 °F. The conditioned sludge is subsequently thickened and dewatered on a plate and frame press. Because of the good dewatering characteristics and the high pressure used in the presses the cake produced has a much higher solid content. . In mid 1980 MWCC entered into a three -year contract with W &G Rehbein Bros., Inc. to obtain the necessary permits, haul, and spread the sludge. Prior to that time the agricultural use of sludge average approximately 1500 tons per month. Since that time however useage has averaged well over 15,000 tons per month. It is believed that the dramatic increase is due to a number of factors including: an increase awareness of MWCC's program, a better understanding of the health and environmental safeguards built into the program through MPCA sludge management rules, the fact that the cost of nitrogen fertilizer remained high.as.the general farm economy continued to falter, and the fact that the sludge is applied to the land at no cost to the farmer. Prior to mid 1980 sludge was delivered to the farm site at no cost; however, the farmer was responsible for spreading the material Which required considerable effort. During 1981 a total of approximately 190,000 . tons of dewatered sludge was applied -to- farmland in' 9 -area counties. During the first nine months of this year approximately 127,000 tons have been applied to approx- imately 150 sites in 9 -area counties. The peak fall season is still ahead which will result in approximately 200,000 tons to spread by the end of the year. i Fall is the. peak season for delivering and spreading sludge on. farm fields because the -crops have been - harvested and the fields generally are in better condition than in the spring in terms of moisture content. In addition, the road weight restrictions which are generally enforced during the late winter and early spring no longer limit assess to sites.. _ Between 80% and 90% of the sludge spread on agri- cultural land is applied to land use for corn production. High corn yields require considerable nitrogen and the sludge can provide as much as 250 pounds of available nitrogen per acre. The field pictured illustrates a corn crop after sludge fertilization in 1981. The picture was taken on July 8, 1981, and it is obvious that the corn was at least knee high by the 4th of July. The farmer reported that it was his best crop since 1953. In addition to the direct utilization of dewatered sludge on agricultural land, approximately 10,000 tons of compost is produced annually at the Metro Plant. The compost has been used primarily to establish turf grasses on area parks, cemeteries, and completed land fills. The rules governing compost application are not significantly different and those which govern the agricultural use of sludge. Four MWCC -staff members in the Quality Control Department are directly involved -in the land application program. Dr. Bob Polta has had overall responsibility for the program since mid 1980. Rebecca Flood is responsible for maintaining all records including 4 large electronic (computer) data files. Nancy Schumacher represents MWCC at all site visits and prepares applications for MPCA approval of sites for liquid sludges produced at several of MWCC's smaller facilities. Both Rebecca and Nancy spend a considerable portion of their time discussing the program with interested parties and addressing complaints. An attempt is made to visit each site as soon as possible after a complaint is received and correct any problems that are observed. Claude Anderson is responsible for the development of composting tech- nology and coordinating compost production and utilization. Although the program is generally considered to be a success it is not problem free. Most of the complaints received are related to odor. Although ambient air samples are.collected periodically and odor units determined, the significance of any odor problem is difficult to quantify. The most serious problem from an operational standpoint is the fact that the hauling and spreading schedule is impacted by the weather as well as the farmers planting the harvesting schedule —which are all beyond MWCC's control. As the new incineration facilities at the Metro Plant are started up later this year and during 1983 the quantity of sludge available for land operation will be gradually reduced. It is anticipated, however, that the land application program will be operational on a moderate scale for at least several more years. November Meeting Schedule November 9 9:00 a.m. Environmental & Operations Committee 2:00 p.m. Budget, Finance & Personnel Committee November 16 2:00 p.m. Regular Commission Meeting MWCC Central Offices . 350 Metro Square Building St. Paul People on the Move New Hires: James Kilburg - Electrician, Seneca Plant; William Walek - Operating Attendant, Metro Plant; Louis Testa - Operating Attendant, Metro Plant; Michael O'Donnell - Asst. Operator, Blue Lake. Promotions: Mary Geisenhoff - Secretary to Director of Operations; Terrie Leonard Lab Tech II, Metro Lab; Harriet Williams - Secretary II, Operations; Robert Johnson - Operator 1, Metro Plant; Herbert McKnight - Process Operator 1, Metro Plant; Frank Belmares - Opera- tor I, Metro Plant; Joseph Grove - Interceptor Service - worker II, Interceptor System. 1983 Capital. Improvement Program The proposed 1983 Budget recently approved by the Commission and currently under review by the Metro- politan Council for formal approval provides for fourteen (14) new projects in the amount of $5.1 million, and additional appropriation of $41.8 million for fifteen (15) previously approved projects. The new projects include: A. MWWTP Screen and Grit Rehabilitation ............. S 700,000 B. MWWTP Primary Settling Tank Rehabilitation ......... 1,000,000 C. MWWTP Secondary Treatment Facility Rehabilitation ... 900,000 D. Blue Lake Plant Sludge Thickening Facilities .......... 200,000 E. Chaska Plant Improvements ....................... 200,000 F. Maple Plain Plant Improvements ................... 100,000 G. Medina Interceptor ............................ 200,000 H. Minnesota River Study ........................... 100,000 1. MWWTP Peak Power Demand Study ................ 25,000 1. MWWTP Fire Detection and Alarm System Study ...... 25,000 K. Lift Station Electrical System Rehabilitation ........... - 25,000 L. Metering and Lift Station Alarm System Improvements .. 25,000 M. MWWTP Disinfection Study ....................... 100,000 N. Miscellaneous Capital Improvements ................ 1,500,000 TOTAL $5,110000 Additional appropriation of funds for previously approved projects to be constructed include Lake Gervais Interceptor - $8,000,000; C.A.B.-Interceptor (Champlin- Anoka-Brooklyn Park) - $18,500,000; Seneca Plant Main- tenance & Dispatch Building - $3,000,000; an expanded treatment plant at Hastings - $9,300,000; and various other capital improvement projects. Treatment Plant Performance Continues to Excel During the first nine months of this year, treatment plant performance at the system's 14 plants continues to be excellent and well within state /federal standards. Compli- ance level of achievement is 97.9% to date. Out of a possible 1,772 violations that are allowed, a total of twenty -three (23) have occurred to date at six of the fourteen treatment plants. The eight plants that have achieved 100% permit compliance represent 89% of the total flow of the metropolitan area. MWCC is required to report plant performance on a monthly basis in accord- ance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Summary of each plant's performance is as follows: Treatment Monthly Per Cent Plant Flow (MGD) Violations Compliance Anoka 2.2 1 99% Bayport 0.5 0 100% Blue Lake 15.0 0 100% Chaska 0.7 0 100% Cottage Grove 1.2 1 98% Empire 4.5 3 96% Hastings 1.4 14 83% Maple Plain 0.4 2 94% Medina 0.2 0 100% Metropolitan 190.3 0 100% Rosemount 0.3 0 100% Savage 0.4 0 100% Seneca 15.3 1 99% Stillwater 2.5 0 100% "We don't change the old by resisting:it T We change the old by making it obsolete through superior methodology." r IT the Clean Up ,report by Jean Helget The nine - member Metropolitan Waste Control Commis- sion holds public meetings on the third Tuesday of every month at 2:00 p.m. This column provides significant business items from the August - September meetings. • Awarded contract for the Wayzata Odor Control, Project 81 -65 -377 to Axel Newman Heating and Plumbing Company in the amount of $43,625.00 at the August 17th meeting. • Awarded contract for the Process Piping Modifications, Project 81 -65 -395 to Grudem Brothers Company of St. Paul in the amount of $39,825.00 at the August 17th meeting. • Approved Pay Estimate No. 52 for Project No. 74 -01- 6(408), Sludge Processing Building with Paul Lawrence in the amount of $1,498,997.12 for July and $1,138,307.69 for August. • Authorized To Procure Training Services for. the 408 Facilities to Dale C. Bergstedt, P.E. EBSP and Peter Owre, Envirotech in the amount of $30,980.00. • Authorized the advertisements for bids for the leasing of MWCC owned farmland in Dakota and Scott Counties. The leases would be for one -year ending in October 25, 1983. • Amended Contract No. 198 with Rieke - Carroll- Muller, Inc. for Step II engineering for Blue Lake Sludge Thickening Facilities in the amount of $167,946.00. • Authorized to execute the Agreement for Engineering Services for the Lower Beltline Interceptor with Howard, Needles, Tammen, Bergendoff & Associates in the amount of $262,282.00 MWCC PROJECT NO. 76 -05. • Authorized for engineering services for the .Medina Interceptor, Project 83 -57, with Comstock and Davis, Inc. in the amount of $62,161.00. • Approved to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 687 with Henningson; Durham, Richardson} Inc. for Step . III engineering services in the amount of $380,870.00 contingent on State and Federal approval. i • Awarded Contract with the Harco Corporation of Schaumburg, Illinois, for their lump sum bid of $32,800.00 for the Cathodic Protection of three Sedimen- tation Basins at the Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant, MWCC Program 041 - 5097 - (912). • Approved Comprehensive Sewer Plans for the cities of Forest Lake, Little Canada, Andover, Champlin, and Columbus Township provided the Cities operate its sanitary sewer system in accordance with the "Sewage and Waste Control Rules and Regulations for the Metropolitan Disposal System ". • Water quality in the Mississippi River was fair to medium during the month of August, 1982 (Exhibit B). All turbidity, temperature, and chlorine residual values were in compliance with water quality standards. Several values in excess of the PH, un- ionized ammonia and fecal coliform standards were recorded. Dissolved oxygen at Grey Cloud was slightly below the 5 mg /L water quality standard in late August when flows were down to 4,000 cfs. Monthly mean river flow was approximately 6,200 cfs, somewhat lower than the historical mean flow of approximately 8,000 cfs. • During the month of August, 1982, 12,200 wet tons of sludge were hauled fro_ m dewatering sources to on -site storage, while 21,310 wet tons were landspread on farmland. About 1,000 wet tons were transferred to the composting project. Sludge remaining in storage de- creased from 25,840 wet tons at the end of July to 15,710 wet tons at the end of August. The sludge inventory should be further reduced during the coming end of August. The sludge inventory should be further reduced during the coming month as crops are harvested, making more farmland available for sludge application. During 1982, a total of 6,000 wet tons of sludge have been composted, compared to an annual requirement of 9,000 wet tons. It is expected that the initial roll press cake production will be composted, bringing the total . requirement of 38,000 wet tons by late 1982. METROPOLITAf1 Bulk Rate WAITE ! U.S. Postage PAID COrf�1TrRr1OL Mpls., Minn. COI I r II I II %fioI t1 1 Permit No. 10 Twin Cities Area . 550 METROfOUARE BLDG.. 7TH & ROBERT /TREET/ /AinT PAUL mn 55101 I 612 222.8423 ! Salisbury Adams Chairman - - George W. Lusher Chief Administrator i October - November, 1982 SOLID WASTE Enclosed herewith is a letter to the Editor at the Star and Tribune as it was sent to the paper but not as they printed it. Also enclosed is a booklet by Frederich S. Gram containing a chapter 410 starting on page 32 about sewage and solid waste. There is enclosed also a copy of Metro Waste .Control .Commission's paper, The Outfall, which contains interesting information about the operation of that commission. All of this is sent youto encourage your support for the Metro Waste Control Commission to handle solid waste. Presently much of the costs of pick up and disposal of solid wastes are uncontrolled, unregulated, and unreported." Some of the pick up charges have doubled in'the last five years. There is much to question about the present system of handling solid waste. Your support is vitally needed. If you have any comments, or need further information, please contact the writer or contact Grant Merritt at 339 -4546 or at 4444 I. D. S. Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55402. Yours truly, Milton C. Honsey 537 -5871 8021 6011 Ave. N. New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Enclosures November 10, 1982 SOLID WASTE - A METRO PROBLEM Letter to the Editor, After many years of effort by many people and groups, the Legislature in 1969 passed the Metropolitan Sewer Bill and set up the Metropolitan Sewer Board. The Board after much discussion and research asked and it was granted that its name be changed to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. This was asked for to allow the Commission to proceed with development of a system to process solid waste so that after removing metals and other usable materials the balance would be converted into a fuel to be used for heat and energy. A system called pyrolosis to do.just that was developed to produce pelletized activated carbon. While there were undoubtedly bugs in the system it was an excellent start in the right direction and had tentative approval in several areas. The system called for waste in the Metro area to be picked up as it is now by private haulers and to be delivered to various of the 14 sewer plants where the means for processing were provided and, if necessary, where means were provided for compaction and haulage to processing sites. The system was to financed by 75% Federal Money and 15% State Money and 10% user fees. Considerable opposition by the counties, the Phoenix Corporation, Horner Waldorf, the City of St. Paul and others dete'red the program while they were getting nowhere themselves: Certainly they lacked the engineering expertise and the advantageous location of the Metro Waste Control Commission plants. It was hoped that with the satisfactory development of a pyrolosis system it could also lead to the means for handling hazardous waste. However, in a total lack of vision or for other reasons the Metropolitan Council turned the plan down, rather opting to irritate all sections of the Metro Area by continuing their short sighted unsatisfactory plans for landfills. I understand that a plant for solid waste use much as described above is being built presently in Red Wing, Minnesota. Sincerely, Milton C. Honsey Former Chairman of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 4 tF r titive today, e p. y, will produce cheaper electricity than coal Council and chairman of the committee dealing with this by 1990, i i problem. Kegler complained at the time of the action that p g p • •. 10.,.,' Sewage 8L S011d Waste the Commission had not kept him informed about its plans. But during the years of studies, full reports had been filed in voluminous detail, and had been read by many non- Our management ' (or lack of it) of wastes and t members of the Council who were interested and able to ,solid sewage can only be described as a scandal. And the scan- read. Kegler has refused to discuss the matter with re- �!;` - dal is posted unmistakably to the door of the Metropolitan porters. His response to reporters seeking interviews is � Council, with some fallout to the doors of various civic and a bang of the telephone. :'public agencies, The effect of the Kegler-initiated policy has been to g p Y The scandal, almost totally ignored b the d it Y a Y require continued use of eight million gallons of fuel oil or • first surfaced in mid -1976 when the Metropolitan ' 1� its coal equivalent each year to process the sewage at the ,,,,'Press, 'Council ordered an end to plans of the Metropolitan pig's Eye plant, and"to cause the loss of substantial Control Commission to build a sewage processing plant amounts of plant nutrients which the vetoed process, called :. ;.which would end river pollution, meet federal waste con- trol pollution standards and be, ener p energy. sufficient: The. was a reversal by the Council of its formal approval in Commission had spent $5.million on the ,engineezu�g of_.:.�:__ '' May, 1974. To give the appearance of technical backing . _: - "- project, " this ro ect and had scheduled it to .come into operation in .: for its reversal, the Council commissioned a 90 -day study . - late 1977.. The plan was based'on several years,of studies' - by a consulting team which asserted that the five -year involving engineers and other specialists covering all, engineering work done for the Commission•was invalid. ° r. areas of the problem. ' It would,. according to these spe= The confrontation also brought out the fact that in cialists, have generated the fuel needed to. operate the ,' addition to duplicating —and competing with —the engi- system, and provided valuable by- products including Agri -} � veering work procured by the Commission, the Council .' 'cultural nutrients and chemicals. was also duplicating the Commission's staff work. One of The Metropolitan Council vetoed the 'plan, and the documents in the confrontation is an August, 1975 directed the Commission to continue burning fossil fuel to' opinion: by Council staff members Karl Burandt, Gene, -process, the sewage, drastically limiting recovery, of the Franchett, Sheila O'Connell and Ray Thon contradicting :.: biomass values in the sewage., One result of this last, -..`< ." the evaluations of the Commission staff and engineers by ,: , minute action of the Metropolitan CounciT`was that, in early: ` several hundred percentage points, and putting in a plug 1978 the Commission was in violation; of federal pollution for a private agency competing for the solid wastes in the ;,regulations. Though the responsibility I rested with the area for use as fuel. ;Council, the Commission was held responsible, and the That private agency is the Phoenix Corporation,._ which has a monopoly contract with the City of Minneapolis ,,,...Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,' apparentry,unaware '. of the facts in the case, attempted to levy a fine against and had at that time a similar contract with the City of St. the Commission. Paul for the solid wastes generated in the area.. At the i ' The author of this scandal is University of Minnesota time, Phoenix was negotiating with the Hoerner Waldorf , vice president Stanley Kegler, who was a member of the Corporation to provide garbage to fuel a steam plant at its-'' Midway factory. This never developed, and the solid 32 33 wastes are still going into landfills controlled by Phoenix. At the time the Commission's plans for a pyrolysis plant were maturing, however, the Hoerner Waldorf pro- ject was very much alive, and since the pyrolysis project would require some solid waste, there was strong compe- tition for this prospective fuel. Lined up against the use of this fuel for public purposes were, in addition to Phoenix and the Metropolitan Council: The Citizens League, the .St. Paul City Council, the St. Paul Area Chamber of Com- merce, the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. The most effective lobbyist at the Council's hearings was St. Paul City Councilman David Hozza (also a University of Minnesota staff member), who demanded that the pyrolysis project be forbidden unless the Commission could obtain firm contracts for solid waste to fuel the project. This was another way of saying that Phoenix must be given the veto power over this public project. During the. course of this controversy; Hozza gave -an interview to the Minneapolis STAR in which he indicated that a similar pyrolysis system in Baltimore did not work. Not true, Baltimore's director of public works, Francis W. Kuchta, said later: "The pyrolysis system has worked." This reporter had made concentrated efforts to get in touch with Hozza, without success. The net result of the success of lobbying efforts to reserve the solid wastes produced in the metropolitan area for the garbage monopoly is that they continue to be trucked to garbage dumps, at enormous costs of fuel, man- hours and vehicle maintenance. Although nobody on or off the Metropolitan Council has questioned the validity or responsibility of the Council in canceling a five - million - dollar engineering commitment by a constituent agency — made with the assent of the Council — there is in fact some question as to its legality. The legislature assigned to the Waste Control Commission responsibility for and authority over disposition of sewage and solid wastes. The Metropolitan Council's function, under the law, is to establish guidelines for the constituent 34 agencies. There is nothing in the law authorizing the Council to interpose its authority over the functions as- signed to the constituent agencies. Indeed, the idea of two authorities performing the same public functions in. compe- tition with each other would surely have been rejected out of hand by the legislators if it had ever come up. Yet that is what we have had. The law says: "The development program prepared by the Commission (in this case, the Waste Control Com- mission) shall be submitted to the Council for review and approval or,disapproval. The Council shall complete its review within 90 days ... If it determines that the pro- gram is inconsistent with the policy plan, it shall disap- prove it and return it to the submitting commission.. . Within two years of the approval of its first development program by the Council and at least biennially thereafter each Commission ... shall submit the program to the Council for its review and approval or disapproval ... " This procedure was followed by the Waste Control Commission, which submitted detailed reports during the progress of the engineering study, beginning in December, 1971, when the study began. This was followed by a report in October, 1972, on a $400, 000 engineering study'of the feasibility of pyrolysis for processing sewage wastes. Then came a six - volume engineering report and recom- mendation in March, 1974. In May of that year the Metropolitan Council formally approved this report and authorized the Commission to proceed with the pyrolysis project. Although periodic reports were made thereafter, it was not until the plans were all ready to be executed that the Council voted them down. The Commission had spent $4, 083, 000 on the engineering work. The Metropolitan Council's apparent policy of reserv- ing to the "private sector" control over solid wastes has some implications that are not covered in the law, which assigns responsibility for solid wastes to the Waste Con- trol Commission. The "private sector" in the matterunder review here had no intention of investing private funds in .I 35 the processing of solid wastes. Its intention was to use public financing, from the St. Paul Port Authority. This, however, is the least of the problem. i The optimum recovery of salvageable, energy - valuable materials from solid wastes can only be developed by a public agency. The limitations imposed by Kegler and the Metropolitan Council mean that uncounted tons of metals, paper, plastics and other materials are being lost as long as this policy goes on. These materials are, of course, part of the energy problem, as well as of the environmental problem. The paralysis of the metropolitan area in converting sewage and solid waste to energy is the product of the Metropolitan Council and its "guidelines. " Solid waste still goes into landfills. The gas, oil, char, and fertilizer in sewage still gets burned up at enormous cost in fossil fuel. Nearly five million dollars in engineer- ing to solve the problem has been lost. One of the authors of this policy, the Citizens League, said in August, 1975: "The Twin Cities is in an excellent position to treat refuse as a resource." But the Citizens League was part of the campaign to frustrate such a policy. The Commission's engineers esti- mated that the relatively small amount of 'waste needed to power the pyrolysis system would produce nearly a million dollars annually in resource recovery: * Ferrous metals, 7960 tons, $636, 000. * Aluminum, 384 tons, $154, 000. * Other metal, 250 tons, $ 95, 000. * Plastics, paper and other materials, not estimated. These resources are now going to dumps in the area. And it costs money, motor fuel, truck wear and tear, and man -hours to continue filling up these dumps. Figures compiled for the St. Paul City Council in 1977 indicate that the transportation of St. Paul's solid wastes alone to the Pine Bend landfill consumes about 1.5 million gallons of motor fuel annually. Should the Waste Control Commission have to adopt the Council's recommendation of turning to coal instead of 36 oil at the Pig's Eye plant, this would involve two serious problems. Burning 140 tons of coal a day at this location would create enormous pollution problems, with acid rains on much of the city.. And it would require a four -car coal train every day. A postscript to this report which may or may not be i pertinent: when the Waste Control Commission was cited by the Environmental Protection Agency for the pollution that resulted from the action of the Metropolitan Council, the. St. Paul daily press had a field day of criticism of the. Commission. The DISPATCH refused to print correspon- dence pointing out that, .but for the Council's action, the Commissionwould have had its anti pollution controls in operation at the time of the EPA citation. Meanwhile., the Waste Control Commission is ,con- tinuing its' studies and experiments with the use of sewage by- products as agricultural. nutrients. While the Metropoli tan Council appears to have stopped one field of inquiry -, the conversion of by- products of the pyrolysis process to fertilizer —a number of other studies are going forward..; ' Sewage has been used on.corn fields, with results as good-. -- as or- better- than- cammercial, petroleum -based fertilizer, No adverse effects have been reported from pathogenic organisms or metal, chemical, and other pollutants. The metropolitan area produces 1.6 million tons of solid waste per year, according to the Metropolitan Coun- cil. , This waste is generally 80 percent combustible, but >. some of the combustible materials are also valuable as salvage. The Minnesota Energy Agency estimates the solid waste has an energy potential of 1, 600 million BTUs per hour, and that this could increase to 2, 500 million by 1990.. The current solid waste production could sustain 100 mega i watts of electrical production, the agency 'estimates.,' Progress (if any) toward converting this energy potential has been slow. Projects in Hennepin County and at the University of Minnesota have been discussed, but not developed. 37 ' EDIIdA CHO4ICAL - ^_DVISORY CCi'TMITTEE - AGE DA - Wednesday, January, 19, 1903 7:30 a.m. 1. Report on Community Task Force (now meeting) by those Advisory Committee members now attending: Judi Heidkamp, Sandi Dunn, I•'icki Gamer. 5 minutes 2. Don Brundage retort. 5 - 10 minutes 3. Introduction of any newcomers; fields of endeavors; application to interests of this committee. 3 minutes 1 +. Timely drug articles;, new drugs; interactions, reac tic ns of drugs of recent note. 15 minutes a. ;that you would like to see written about in IJ'dina Dru,; . wareness, b. Bring anything that we can place in either of two library files. (Edina Community Library has drawer files as well as the Dortfolio on i,Iarihuana which is in a separate location.) 5. Pastor Gerald Eisele report on '5th step's training by Chanhassen Treatment Center for clergy. 2 minutes 6. my Youth Representative who wishes to speak. 7. r':i'AT IS m'iIS :'1D1rl i : :�'± rC :. :` ?ITTL : "� ! Y ^U SEE IT? 15 rdinutes ?HAT COULD IT II; If you would care to write down and give Tour ideas in a ore- ^:inute repdr d 0 ge're "c and then -;gassed on to the Community Task- Force, T would appreciate it. `!'here will be some recommendations corning out that task force. Some cf tile y eonle par ticipati g ?eno,a about us and others don't. I would but all your ideas tot-,ether to anuaint them with us. Thankyou , i Pat Llona THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1933 REVIEW & OUTLOOK A Costly Crutch Squawks about the new federal budget are already rising from the na- tion's mayors and governors. They know, sight unseen, that the biggest target for spending cuts is bound to be their aid from Uncle Sam. Even with- out a program of "New Federalism," budget discipline that exempts Social Security and the Defense Department translates into drastic reductions in the programs that feed into state and local budgets. So the National League of Cities, for instance, is warning that its members face a "bleak" financial outlook. The NLC staff made this pre- diction in releasing a survey showing that of 79 cities, 90% would not spend their own money to make up planned federal cuts in community and urban development giants. The city lobby- ists also note that this is the first re- cession since the 1940s which has not been buffered by growth in municipal employment. Before we shed too many tears, however, it's worth noting a point which the NLC left out. This group traditionally has been the least skepti- cal of the seven major state and local government associations toward the benefits of federal aid. When it im- plies, along with so many others, that federal cutbacks will inevitably force state and local governments to raise taxes, it ignores recent studies sug- gesting that grants from_ Washington have increased, not reduced, the costs of state and local government. In a recent paper circulated by the Heritage Foundation, for instance, Clemson University economist Rich- ard B. McKenzie reports that states and localities with above average lev- els of federal support also impose higher than average tax burdens, A few years ago, similarly, Dart- mouth College economist Colin Camp- bell studied the rising tax burdens in Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. lie found that the first two states paid higher taxes in part because they relied much more heav- ily than New Hampshire on federal grants in aid. His explanation was that "units of government are more efficient when they have to rely on their own sources of revenue." There are other ways to account for this paradox as well. A majority of federal grants require matching funds from the lower levels, pushing them into new spending land sometimes leaving them holding the bag when the federal programs expire). The federal government has used this le- verage to demand more services from local governments. Probably the most important effect of federal money, though, has been to wipe out the natural discipline on spending imposed by competition among state and local governments. Before the New Deal, it was the con- ventional wisdom among states that too great an increase in public spend- ing would send business and taxpay- ers fleeing across the border to lower taxes. So those who wanted an ex- panded public sector turned to the federal government, which collected taxes everywhere, to provide the money. But when the manna floated down from Washington, the local poli- ticians didn't have to worry whether they were getting the best use out of then• budgets. The pervasive belief that government is wasting money on an unprecedented scale shows up clearly in the opinion polls, not to mention the tax revolt. An utisung feature of the adminis- tration's New Federalism is that it should reduce the size not only of the federal government but of state and local governments as well. What this might mean for the economy can be seen from comparing-New Hampshire_ to its neighbors. For the last decade, it has led New England and much of the entire East Coast in its propor- tional growth in jobs and population. This record is still holding up, even in the face of declining tax burdens, and dramatic economic turn - arounds, in neighboring Vermont and Massachu- setts. So it doesn't alarm us to hear that municipal employment is declining or that state and local spending isn't swelling to fill the cutbacks in federal aid. We of course admit there is am- ple pain in making this transition dur- ing a recession; the social demands of the downturn compound the difficulty of winding down spending; a hard enough task in good times. Ultimately, though, the decline in federal aid will leave behind lean. ef- ficient and more responsive state and local governments. The taxpayers will appreciate it, even if mayors and gov- ernors don't.