|
home/resume
|
Bryan J. Clapper1502 2nd Ave SW, Austin, MN 55912 • bryan@bjclapper.com Writing examplesResidents raise stink over landfill Originally published in the Lake Country Echo, April 28, 2005 The Crosslake City Council got an earful about a noseful of stench hovering around the Crosslake Construction Demolition Debris Disposal Facility and the surrounding roads, homes and businesses at an April 21 special meeting to discuss the issue. Around 30 members of the public came, most in attendance to speak out against the facility, which is owned by Crosslake Councilman Dean Eggena. The landfill, which handles demolition material, has been in operation since 1992, and didn’t cause many problems until this past winter, when a strong, pronounced odor began to waft from the property. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the odor, which smells like rotten eggs, is hydrogen sulfide, most likely produced by the decomposition of sheetrock. “Hydrogen sulfide production...is pretty well documented,” said Dan Vleck, a permit engineer for the MPCA. “The bacteria use the sulfate in gypsum [a component of sheetrock] as an energy source and create hydrogen sulfide in the process.” The MPCA says the smell was likely accelerated by a small fire that burned in the landfill over Christmas 2004. According to the MPCA, of 120 demolition landfills in the state, only two Crosslake’s and one in Sauk Rapids are producing hydrogen sulfide in high enough quantities to induce public complaints. “Exactly how it’s being generated and why there’s so much in certain sites is still a mystery to us,” MPCA pollution control specialist Curt Hoffman said. The MPCA is in the process of repermitting the landfill, which it does every five years. The city does not issue a permit for the landfill, but the property holds a conditional use permit which allows for it to be used as a landfill. Landfill violating conditional use permit According to Community Development Director Ken Anderson, the conditional use permit issued in 1991 to allow the landfill has several conditions attached to it, including that a security fence at least six feet tall is constructed around the entirety of the demolition pit. However, Anderson said in a staff report to the city council that at least that condition has not been met. Anderson notes that there is no fence on the north property line and only a portion of the west and east property lines. The conditional use permit also requires that the demolition debris facility only has one access point. Anderson identifies three access points in his report, one of which “has been observed to be open and unattended.” One of the three gates is shared with the ready-mix concrete plant, which opens several hours before official operation of the landfill. Anderson also notes that the city’s zoning ordinances state that “violations of the conditions of a conditional use permit shall automatically void the permit.” Warned by the MPCA In the 13-year history of the landfill, Eggena points out that he has received only one letter of warning from the MPCA, the lowest form of warning the agency has. The letter of warning, which was issued to Eggena in February 2005, identifies at least two alleged violations and other possible violations that were not cited. Two MPCA employees inspected the landfill unannounced on Jan. 27, 2005 and observed green treated lumber, which is an unacceptable material in demolition landfills, on the working face of the landfill, according to the letter of warning. The MPCA inspectors also noted that one access to the landfill was not gated and would allow access to the site, also a violation of the operation’s permit. The MPCA requires demolition landfills to apply six inches of cover soil to the working face of the landfill to, in part, cut down on odors from the site. The letter of warning cited Eggena for not applying an adequate depth of cover soil. The inspectors also noted two possible violations that were not cited: that a dumpster for unacceptable waste was full with the overflow, including paint and polyurethane containers, placed on the ground next to the dumpster; and that fill phases were not properly staked out. The MPCA on April 5 said that Eggena’s facility had complied with their requests to fix the alleged violations. The MPCA allows for only “construction demolition” materials in demolition debris facilities. Those materials, according to the landfill’s original 1992 permit, are “earth, rocks, stones, trees, old bituminous surfacing, concrete, bricks, lumber, plaster, metals, glass and plastics. The 1992 permit specifically calls “large amounts of cardboard and wall boards” as an unacceptable material. Paul Willmus, who owns property near the landfill, said he has seen radiator hoses from cars, rolls of new carpet and carpet pads, and carpet display boards on the working face of the landfill. “If you go out there with a shovel I think you might find more than you want to find,” Willmus said. Public service or public nuisance? Eggena defends his operation, saying that it provides a needed public service. “With the volumes that we’re doing now, they’re equivalent to over 4,000 roll-off loads per year,” Eggena said. “If our facility weren’t open, those trucks would all have to go to the Brainerd landfill.” Eggena estimated that it would cost local contractors and builders $600,000 annually to haul their debris the additional miles to Brainerd. “I truly don’t see anything gained in closing a landfill in Crosslake,” Eggena said. Eggena said they are putting the final cover soil on a majority of the landfill, and hope to add lime to eliminate some of the odors soon. “We’ll do everything possible to be a good neighbor. We’ll do everything we can to minimize the smell,” Eggena said. How laws deal with odor There are two rules governing odors coming from the Crosslake Construction Demolition Debris Disposal Facility: the city’s and the MPCA’s. Crosslake has a city ordinance forbidding “nuisance odors,” which states that “No use shall cause the discharge of toxic, noxious, or odorous matter beyond the limits of the site where it is located in such concentration as to be obnoxious or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort or welfare or cause injury to property or business.” And while the city’s ordinance may rely on subjectivity to be enforced, the MPCA has a more scientific rule. MPCA ordinances allow for a concentration of hydrogen sulfide of 30 parts per billion (ppb) as measured at the landfill’s property line. According to MPCA inspector Dean Fundine, the agency measured concentrations of five to 10 ppb of hydrogen sulfide at the property line during an inspection in the afternoon of Feb. 22, 2005, far below the agency’s standard. However, many members of the public have noted that the odor is stronger during cold weather, which Fundine said would be because colder temperatures would allow more gas to flow through the soil of the landfill. The temperature was in the mid-20s when Fundine and two other inspectors visited the site. Eggena says that even at much higher concentrations, hydrogen sulfide is not a dangerous gas. “I’ve done a lot of research,” Eggena said. “A worker is allowed to work an eight-hour shift in an environment of hydrogen sulfide that is equal to 20,000 parts per billion.” The highest levels recorded by the MPCA were 200 ppb, measured at the top of the landfill mound. “Canary in the coal mine” Several members of the public spoke up at the April 21 special meeting, many of whom indicated that it was not so much the smell they were worried about, but the pollution it may signify. “That smell is the canary in the coal mine, and that canary is dead at the bottom of the cage,” Crosslake resident Paula Karl said. “It’s not so much the smell, it’s what that smell means.” Neighboring property owner Paul Willmus said that potential future affects to the water supply may outweigh current economic benefits that the city’s contractors may experience. “When it hits the wells...you’ve got a whole different beast to deal with,” Willmus said. “When you talk about a real burden, it’s not going to be trucking it down to Brainerd, it’s going to be cleaning up what might be left behind.” Another neighboring property owner said he was concerned with groundwater contamination, especially after what happened when wells in Arden Hills, Moundsview and Shoreview were found to be contaminated with chemicals from a nearby former U.S. Army arsenal years after it closed down. “I’m concerned about the groundwater because I’m so close,” the resident said. Eggena threatens to sue city In a staff report to the council, Community Development Director Ken Anderson said that Eggena had threatened on several occasions to sue the city and its employees for trespassing in the past few months. Anderson wrote that he visited the landfill on March 17 in a city vehicle to investigate complaints regarding powerline clearance and security issues. Anderson said he was approached by an employee who identified himself as Butch and was told to leave. Four days later, Anderson wrote that Eggena approached him in the city office and, “stated I was trespassing on private property, had no right to be there, should know as city planner what is private and what is public road, and I had better check with the city attorney.” Anderson wrote that Eggena hadn’t decided at that point whether or not to prosecute the alleged trespass. On April 1, Anderson says that an informal meeting was held involving himself, Mayor Jay Andolshek, City Administrator Tom Swenson, and Brian Dobie, a member of the public with a background in engineering and pit operations. According to Anderson’s staff report, “During the meeting, Dean Eggena entered the conference room and questioned Mr. Dobie if he drove a maroon pickup truck. He replied in the affirmative and Mr. Eggena stated his staff had obtained the license number of his truck at the demolition debris facility. “Mr. Eggena said Mr. Dobie was trespassing on private property and if he were caught on the property again he would be sued for trespass,” Anderson wrote. On April 19, City Administrator Tom Swenson sent a memo to city employees stating that “no city employee or city official will be allowed to enter any property in which Dean Eggena has an ownership interest. Mr. Eggena will view any employee or official of the City of Crosslake as trespassing and will initiate a legal action against the city for trespassing.” At the April 21 special meeting, Eggena said that he did not want any city employees on his property without permission due to safety concerns. “Yes, I did put the city on notice that before anyone trespasses on the property I want to be notified,” Eggena said. “We’re not hiding anything. We’re more than happy to give tours to anyone, including the public, but there is a safety issue.” Anderson also told the council that he had heard from some members of the public that they may consider suing the city. “There’s a group of citizens that are going to sue the city if it doesn’t take action to enforce its own ordinance,” Anderson said. Council reactions Eggena recused himself from council deliberation at the April 21 special meeting and said he will abstain from future votes. He spoke as the owner of the landfill. Councilman Dean Swanson said that the major difference between the Crosslake demolition landfill and the county’s near Brainerd was their relative locations. “[The county landfill] is a big area,” Swanson said. “They have a large buffer from anything adjacent to it. There’s plenty of protection to it. This site’s not large enough to do what is necessary to protect the citizens of Crosslake.” Councilman Dick Phillips said that the council should follow the direction of the MPCA rather than try to set its own standards. “I don’t know how we as a city can scrutinize or micromanage something better than the MPCA,” Phillips said. “Bottom line for me is I’ve got to stick with the MPCA.” Phillips said that while he sympathizes with those that have to live with the odor, he believes it’s temporary and will go away. Eggena said the operation is working on ways to get rid of the odor. The council asked Eggena for a survey showing the original permitted four-acre spot of land for which a landfill was permitted. Eggena said he would. However, after a short recess during which most of the public in attendance left, having been led to believe that discussion of the landfill was over, the council continued discussion on the issue for another hour. During that discussion, Eggena said he would not provide the design of the four-acre parcel of the 23-acre property. The council is faced with several options, identified by Anderson in his staff report:
|
