By Mary Lou Hinrichsen
Herald Staff Writer
May 12, 2006 11:28 am
—
CLINTON — Frustrated by the lack of follow-up information from Allied Waste, members of the Clinton County Area Solid Waste Agency Thursday night considered a motion to cease all contact with Allied regarding the possible sale of the landfill.
But the motion failed and the board members agreed by consensus to wait one more month before considering the proposed sale of the landfill to Allied a dead issue.
Representatives of Allied came to the March meeting of the landfill board and opened a discussion about the possible purchase of the property, saying their current location along U.S. 30 in Clinton will be lost to the Liberty Square redevelopment project.
They indicated they would return in May or June to visit further. Laura Liegois, director of the landfill, said Thursday night the pair returned near the end of March to tour the facility.
They indicated someone from their corporate headquarters also would come, but Liegois said that hasn’t happened.
“I called the manager here in town twice last month asking what he had heard from headquarters. I would like a heads-up to be prepared for them, with the documents they would like to view,” she told the board.
“He said he had not heard anything” from his corporate headquarters.
Liegois suggested she write a letter to the local representative saying the board members would like to know Allied’s plans by their June meeting.
But the board instructed her not to write the letter, saying then she would be obligated to send letters to other solid waste organizations that have asked for a chance to bid if the landfill is put up for sale.
In other business the board learned a change in Department of Natural Resources rules will cost the landfill agency about $22,000.
“We have been very proactive from day one when they said we would have to be a Subtitle D landfill. I’ve been in several meetings and discussed how our plans were going. And then to have them come back and say, ‘Oh, by the way…’”
She was referring to a letter she received April 17 from Michael Leat, environmental engineer with the DNR, which said:
“As you are likely aware, the Department is in the process of revising 567 IAC Chapter 113 for the purpose of receiving EPA approval of our Subtitle D program…
“Since the proposed expansion (at the Clinton landfill) includes an abutment against an unlined disposal cell, the proposed abutment design must be revised…
“Due to upcoming changes to 567 IAC Chapter 113… the slope of the existing waste area to be abutted against must have a minimum slope of 20 percent.”
The original plans called for a 5 percent slope.
“Obviously there is going to be a lot more engineering work involved,” Liegois said, “including design, soil testing and laboratory work.
“Maybe I should call the person at the DNR who has signed off on our materials and say, ‘Would you come to the next board meeting and explain the rules and how they’re changing?’ No one seems to have a good answer and the (solid waste) agencies that have done their planning and hoped to do it correctly are paying the bills.”
Liegois also reported on a state-wide “Waste Characterization Study” of what is being buried in landfills.
“They are seeing a need for businesses to do more recycling. There is too much commercial demolition material being landfilled,” she said. “But the bottom line is, landfilling is the cheapest way to go. Recycling programs cost a lot of money.”
And Liegois had one more concern to explain. It was about proposed reporting criteria.
She said under proposed new rules the CCASWA would have to report “every single appliance we receive — how many microwaves, how many dishwashers. The number of capacitors taken out, how much freon we removed, the amount of scrap metal we recovered.
“It could take a lot of staff time to keep track of all that and I doubt whether the DNR really cares. All they care is whether we’re doing it properly, she said. “I think there was a big push from one of the private industries that does this. With those rules in there, agencies such as ours would not want to do it.”
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.