Thoughts on an incineration plant at the mill site
Published 12:12 am Friday, October 3, 2008
Last week, Ross Kilburn criticized Snoqualmie City Councilman Jeff MacNichols’ opposition of a solid waste management facility in our community. In this scenario, we are faced with the relatively new technology to burn garbage – more commonly referred to as “waste-to-energy.”
Perhaps Mr. Kilburn is completely unaware that Weyerhaeuser’s former lumber mill is located within the highly regulated floodway and floodplain. In the record flood of 1990, the high-velocity flood flows on this property were approximately 4-feet deep!
Regarding land use compatibility, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Decision-Maker’s Guide To Solid Waste Management states: “WTE plants should be located where they will be considered a compatible or non-disruptive land use … Compatible areas … are those that have not been deemed environmentally sensitive, those excluded from consideration … are … floodplains …”
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study estimates a 100-year flood would be about 8-feet deep. Consequently, the mill site would most likely need to be raised 10 feet or more in order to protect it from flooding – which, in turn, would divert more floodwater into Snoqualmie.
I wholeheartedly agree that the technology to incinerate garbage and generate recovery of thermal energy must be considered. A community should evaluate the feasibility and long-term consequences in determining the appropriateness of a regional facility. The most contentious part of the solid waste management process is finding sites that are both environmentally and socially acceptable.
The EPA strongly recommends: “Appropriate sectors of the public should be consulted at every stage of the decision-making process. The public must be given an opportunity to participate in every phase of the siting process. The public’s concerns, opinions and ideas are solicited and considered. Seek the full spectrum of opinions within the community.”
However, this project quietly surfaced. Who would have ever known that a presentation to the Snoqualmie City Council by Waste Recovery Seattle truly meant burning garbage in our community? At that presentation, this company was lobbying for quick council approval. At what point did they intend to inform and include Snoqualmie citizens and the general public?
Regarding Mr. Kilburn’s perception that the “two men” are doing it out of a passion for making a difference in our world – their company, Waste Recovery Seattle Inc., is an international high-tech consulting company in the waste management industry, according to their Web site, and serves as an agent for the Hamburg, Germany conversion technology supplier. As for doing this on their own time, they are capitalists and that is the “American Dream” – the prospective market investment is worth somewhere in the range of $40 to $50 million dollars annually.
If their long-term project performance:
* Controls carcinogen emissions effectively;
* Preserves the natural floodplain’s ability to convey and store floodwaters and does not worsen flooding conditions in Snoqualmie;
* Does not impact human health and the environment;
* Prevents significant air quality deterioration;
* Properly burns wet waste;
* Disposes of hazardous waste ash containing heavy metals properly;
* Does not contaminate ground and surface waters;
* Minimizes negative aesthetic impacts; and
* Mitigates the over 266,000 trucks in and out of Snoqualmie each year, I don’t see a problem with it.
Perhaps Mr. Kilburn should conduct his own research. Does North Bend have room for this facility?
Lastly, a Waste Recovery Seattle company vehicle passed me on the freeway. Imagine my surprise to see a case of disposable diapers visible in his rear window.
Jim Simon is a resident of Snoqualmie.
