Almost blacked out in the Pioneer Press ….

The cost of being green is hitting Newport.

A garbage-processing plant, which grinds up trash so it can be burned to make electricity, is for sale for $26 million, and Ramsey and Washington counties are considering buying it.

The contract with the plant’s operators ends Dec. 31 — so the counties could buy the plant, renew the contract or get out of the garbage- burning business altogether.

While some groups say incineration hurts the environment, officials say the purchase could save money and offer environmental advantages in the future.

The Ramsey Washington Resource Recovery Project, which manages waste-to-energy system, will vote May 28 on whether to buy the plant.

The Pioneer Press posed commonly asked questions, and the answers below come from county officials, the Sierra Club, the state Pollution Control Agency, the owners of the Newport plant and groups opposed to incineration.

How does this system operate now?

Garbage contractors bring about 400,000 tons to the plant each year. There, some metals and other material are removed, and the rest is pulverized.

The shredded trash is hauled to Red Wing and Mankato to be burned in converted coal plants to produce electricity.

Is this an efficient way to generate power?

No. It is the least efficient way — by far. Nationally, the per-kilowatt cost of trash-to-energy systems is five times more than solar and 50 times more than with natural gas systems.

Then why should we do it?

Incineration reduces the flow of garbage into landfills. It’s better to get some benefit from the garbage than to waste it, said Zack Hansen, Ramsey County Environmental Health Director. “Garbage is a natural resource that is mined locally,” he said.

Incineration is also a state law. The 1980 Waste Management Act calls for reducing garbage by consuming less, recycling and burning garbage for power — in that order.

So all counties must burn garbage?

Not exactly. While Ramsey and Washington counties do, many counties don’t. It’s unclear what enforcement or expectations are in effect.

Does burning garbage hurt the environment?

No one can predict what ends up in garbage, so incineration means burning such materials as plastics, metals and spoiled food. The Sierra Club has called it a “dirty and expensive” way to handle waste and favors more recycling and landfill disposal. Nationally, the number of garbage-burning sites is dropping. The website for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives says 26 states do not have garbage-burning generators and that several states, including Wisconsin, have adopted policies of Zero Waste, a program which strives to eliminate all garbage.

But the plant owner and operator says the waste-to-energy system works well. “We are better for the environment,” said Chris Gondeck, chief financial officer of Resource Recovery Technologies Inc.

The state PCA has endorsed incineration in properly licensed and operated facilities, according to Ramsey County’s Hansen.

There is another advantage to public ownership, said Hansen. He said a private owner is less likely than the counties to take on the high cost of possibly upgrading the plant’s recycling technology for hard-to-handle materials sometime in the future.

Are there alternatives to burning garbage?

Opponents of incineration say reducing consumption and boosting recycling would be better. In Minnesota, about half of recyclable material is actually recycled. That rate could be boosted — it’s 80 percent, for example, in San Francisco.

“You are going to spend more money to grind up more garbage to burn it in Red Wing and Mankato,” said Nancy Hone, founder of Neighbors against the Burner, which opposes incinerators in Minneapolis.

“We believe to do that is a very, very stupid thing,” she said about the proposed Newport plant purchase. “The alternative is repair, re-use and compost.”

What would buying the Newport plant cost?

About $26 million. But the counties would save about $8 million a year, which they now pay to lure haulers to the site. Since 1994, those subsidies have totaled about $235 million.

The counties have not yet determined how the $26 million would be paid, but it would mostly likely come from existing fees and annual operational savings.

Why do they have to pay haulers to come to the Newport plant?

Because landfills are much cheaper. Trash haulers pay a fee per ton to dump their garbage, and landfills charge them much less. To compete, the counties subsidize the Newport fees to match the fees of the landfills.

But for various reasons, about 20 percent of the two counties’ garbage still ends up in landfills. Some of these are in Wisconsin and Iowa.

Can’t they require that all garbage be brought to Newport?

Not now. But that would change if the counties bought the plant. According to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision, if a garbage plant is publicly owned, haulers can be required to haul all garbage to the plant.

Would that save any money?

Yes. County officials say that by eliminating profit for the private operator, costs would be reduced.

The fees for consumers would not be expected to change. In Washington County, the fee is a 35 percent surcharge on garbage bills. Ramsey County charges homeowners a 28 percent surcharge, and businesses 53 percent.

How does the owner of the plant feel about the purchase?

Gondeck said the decision is up to the counties. He said that regardless of who owns it, he’d like to see it continue operating. “At least we are using that waste rather than putting in the ground,” he said.

Is there a shortage of landfill space?

Not in Minnesota. Thanks to recycling, composting and yard waste dump sites, the flow of material into landfills has dropped. The PCA has said that the metro area’s landfills could handle waste for another 13 to 18 years, and other landfills could be built after that.

Bob Shaw can be reached at 651-228-5433. Follow him at twitter.com/BshawPP.

We sent this Letter to the Editor on August 21st. It wasn’t printed:

SUBMISSION TO THE PIONEER PRESS

On Aug 27 a joint powers board of Ramsey and Washington counties plans to approve buying a privately-owned garbage grinding facility in Newport that now processes much of the garbage generated in the two counties.  The main stated purpose of this is to impose “flow control,” meaning that all haulers would have to bring garbage collected in the two counties to the facility.   According to law made by the US Supreme Court, only publicly owned facilities can use flow control.  This monopoly would prevent garbage haulers from taking materials to less expensive destinations, and increased costs would likely be passed on to customers.  The cost of the purchase would be 73% funded by general obligation bonds of Ramsey County, thus putting residents on the hook.

The present waste system, in place since the 1980s, is already extraordinarily expensive, so much so that businesses in Ramsey County pay combined county/state waste surcharges of 70 percent. Neither is the system environmentally responsible.  The garbage ground up in Newport is hauled to Red Wing and Mankato, where it is burned in converted coal units from the 1940s, operating with lax and long-expired permits.  The joint powers board says it is interested in eventually getting its own “gasifier” (incinerator) or trash-to-ethanol facility, which would surely run costs up further since such facilities have no track record of commercial success.

The joint powers board hasn’t evaluated non-incineration alternatives, such as the “Zero Waste” approach increasingly adopted by progressive communities worldwide, and which the City of St. Paul has identified as a goal.

The Commissioners of Washington and Ramsey counties should “just say no,” to this deal until more credible and cost-effective approaches have been fairly evaluated, and the public has been engaged in a meaningful way.

Alan Muller
Red Wing

Then we got this story on with no mention of Neighbors Against the Burner’s concerns but extensive quotes from the promoters:

Ramsey, Washington counties to buy Newport garbage plant

Ramsey and Washington counties will buy a garbage-to-energy processing plant in Newport for $24 million.

But the PP did run this letter, from Paul Gardner, who represents the interests of Nestle Waters, not wanting to have to recycle zillions of empty water bottles:

As a Ramsey County taxpayer and recycling advocate, I have been frustrated over the years about the Newport refuse-derived fuel plant referred to in Newport Council Member Dan Lund’s letter (“A $2 million discount,” Sept. 9). Garbage is shredded and then burned at two waste-to-energy plants. We pay a hefty county environmental charge on our hauler bills to keep the hauler “tip fee” low so that the plant competes with landfills. Burning garbage is also very old technology when much of what goes to Newport is still recyclable and compostable. So I agree with Council Member Lund that we should get out of the garbage burning business. However, I respectfully suggest that the purchase of the Newport plant by Ramsey and Washington Counties this month will put us on a path to do just that.

And finally, one letter from Dan Lund, a concerned member of the Newport City Council:

A $2 million discount

Ramsey and Washington counties entered negotiations with a private equity firm for the purchase of Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT) in Newport and emerged with a victory — $2 million off the sticker price. The trouble is they still plan to dump $24.4 million of public money buying a money-hemorrhaging operation in a soon-to-be extinct industry.

So, overall, the Pioneer Press has done a little better than the Strib, but still did not allow the primary opponents of buying the RRT grinder an opportunity to state their case.   Nor did they report the views of Eureka Recycling.