"What a difference a day made...Twenty-four little hours...Brought the sun and the flowers...Where there used to be rain...My yesterday was blue, dear...Today I'm part of you, dear...My lonely nights are through, dear...Since you said you were mine...What a difference a day makes...There's a rainbow before me...Skies above can't be stormy...Since that moment of bliss, that thrilling kiss...It's heaven when you find romance on your menu...What a difference a day made...And the difference is you...What a difference a day makes...There's a rainbow before me...Skies above can't be stormy...Since that moment of bliss, that thrilling kiss...It's heaven when you find romance on your menu...What a difference a day made...And the difference is you."
--"What a Difference A Day Made" by Maria Grever and Stanley Adams
[song Dinah Washington won Grammy for in 1959: Best Rhythm and Blues Performance]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi all...
Check out http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/CLagenda.htm ...
[it's the agenda for today's County Legislature Committee Day]
Of note (among other things)-- check out resolution #2012021-- the only resolution on the agenda for the Environmental Committee meeting at 5 pm today ("Authorizing the Designation of County of Dutchess as the "Planning Unit" Pursuant to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Law Section 27-0107)...
[text-- http://www.dutchessny.gov/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/ResolutionsPDF/2012021.pdf ]
Fact: It bears an uncanny resemblance to resolutions like this one just below that I tried all last year to get uber-GOP Co. Leg. majority to pass (with help of Co. Leg. Jim Doxsey)...(GOP refused to pass it when Dem caucus brought it before our Co. Leg.'s Environmental Committee last Apr. 7th; see resolution text below).
[stop-- GOP thief; where's Michael Moore when needed?...(re: crime scene tape; need citizen's arrest)]
[recall my Feb. 21st blog post last year on this to my http://www.DutchessDemocracy.blogspot.com site]
What a difference a year makes, indeed...(recall testimony from Vassar RePower on this as well)...
Would be lovely to see some of you out there joining us today (Thurs.) at 5 pm to call GOP out for their rank hypocrisy on this on 6h floor of our County Office Building at 22 Market St. in Poughkeepsie...
Can't make it?...zip off an email to all 25 of us on this-- at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us...
[letters to editor to local papers needed on this too; hope GOP don't dupe media on this too; pass it on]
Joel
845-444-0599/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
http://www.JoelforCongress.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[here below-- resolution that I (with support of Jim Doxsey) tried to get passed last year-- but GOP killed]
Environment
Amended & Defeated 4/7/11
Resolution No. 2011102
RE: DUTCHESS COUNTY LEGISLATURE DECLARES THAT IT HAS THE POWER TO APPROVE, REJECT, AND/OR AMEND THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DUTCHESS COUNTY
Legislator TYNER and DOXSEY offer the following and move its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Poughkeepsie Journal recently reported that “the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency has the highest per-ton processing cost of 14 trash-burning plants in the region, at 46 percent higher than the average-- with heavy debt, higher costs and no-bid contracts at the agency; the subsidy has grown 250 percent since 2001,” and
WHEREAS, Dutchess County’s Solid Waste Management Plan was due at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at the end of last December, and
WHEREAS, Mid-Atlantic Solid Waste Consultants have already finished drafting half of a Solid Waste Management Plan for Dutchess County and have adequately proven themselves to be more competent than the DCRRA’s hired consultants Germano & Cahill, and
WHEREAS, unfortunately the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency’s hired consultants Germano & Cahill have proposed a Solid Waste Management Plan that promotes extending and expanding incineration in Dutchess County indefinitely, and
WHEREAS, Clearwater, Sierra Club, NYPIRG, and many other members of the New York State Zero-Waste Coalition also strongly recommend an 85%-by-2020 recycling rate goal for our state and our county; unfortunately, our county’s Resource Recovery Agency and Germano & Cahill propose only a 20% recycling rate goal at most for our county by 2020, and
WHEREAS, it is well within the legal right of the Dutchess County Legislature to have the power to vote to approve, reject, and/or amend the Solid Waste Management Plan for Dutchess County; given all the problems at the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency exposed in the local press over the last few years, anything less than our County Legislature assuming this power is an abdication of the responsibility to properly manage solid waste in Dutchess County, and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature hereby declares that it has the power to approve, reject, and/or amend the Solid Waste Management Plan for Dutchess County, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Dutchess County Executive William Steinhaus, Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency Executive Director William Calogero, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 3 Director Willie Janeway.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[here below-- earlier version]
[from the official minutes on this-- "[GOP] Legislator [Gary] Cooper denied unanimous consent."]
FOR THE DUTCHESS COUNTY LEGISLATURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPER MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE IN DUTCHESS COUNTY BY ASSUMING PLANNING UNIT STATUS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Legislators TYNER [and DOXSEY] offer the following and move its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Poughkeepsie Journal recently reported that, "the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency has the highest per-ton processing cost of 14 trash-burning plants in the region, at 46 percent higher than the average-- with heavy debt, higher costs, and no-bid contracts at the agency; the subsidy has grown 250 percent since 2001," and
WHEREAS, Dutchess County's Solid Waste Management Plan was due at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at the end of last December, and
WHEREAS, Mid-Atlantic Solid Waste Consultants have already finished drafting half of a Solid Waste Management Plan for Dutchess County and have adequately proven themselves to be more competent than the DCRRA's hired consultants Germano & Cahill, and
WHEREAS, unfortunately the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency's hired consultants Germano & Cahill have proposed a Solid Waste Management Plan that promotes extending and expanding incineration in Dutchess County indefinitely, and
WHEREAS, Clearwater, Sierra Club, NYPIRG, Citizens Environmental Coalition, and many other members of the New York State Zero Waste Coalition also strongly recommend an 85%-by-2020 recycling rate goal for our state and our county; unfortunately, our county's Resource Recovery Agency and Germano & Cahill propose only a 20% recycling rate goal for our county by 2020, and
WHEREAS, it is well within the legal right of the Dutchess County Legislature to declare itself the planning unit with the power to vote to approve or reject the Solid Waste Management Plan for Dutchess County; given all the problems at the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency exposed in the local press over the last few years, anything less than our County Legislature assuming this power is an abdication of the responsibility to properly manage solid waste in Dutchess County, and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature hereby declares itself to be the planning unit with the power to approve or reject the Solid Waste Management Plan for Dutchess County, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Dutchess County Executive William Steinhaus, Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency Executive Director William Calogero, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 3 Director Willie Janeway.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.dutchessny.gov/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/ResolutionsPDF/2012021.pdf ...
[here's what we'll be discussing and voting on tomorrow]
Environmental Committee
RESOLUTION NO. 2012021
RE: AUTHORIZING THE DESIGNATION OF COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
AS THE "PLANNING UNIT" PURSUANT TO NEW YORK STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW SECTION 27-0107
LEGISLATORS MICCIO, TRAUDT, BORCHERT, FLESLAND, ROLISON,
ROMAN, and BOLNER offer the following and move its adoption:
WHEREAS, the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)
Section 27-0106 outlines the State solid waste management policy which in summary form is to:
reduce the amount of solid waste generated; reuse material and recycle that material which
cannot be reused; recover, in an environmentally acceptable manner, energy from solid waste
and dispose of that waste which cannot be reused, recycled or recovered pursuant to programs
approved by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC), and
WHEREAS, ECL Section 27-0107 and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto
authorize the preparation of a Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP) by counties and
other local governments, referred to as "planning units", in order to accomplish the goals set
forth in ECL Section 27-0106, and
WHEREAS, the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency (RRA), pursuant
to the agency's Resolution 204 of 1989, declared itself to be the planning unit in connection with
the preparation of the LSWMP which was finalized and adopted in February 1992, and
WHEREAS, the NYS DEC has required that the county's planning unit submit an
acceptable updated LSMWP which shall address the issues of solid waste management in
Dutchess County, and
WHEREAS, ECL Section 27-0107 states that a county qualifies as a planning
unit, and
WHEREAS, the RRA has no objection to the County being designated as the
planning unit, now therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the County of Dutchess is hereby authorized to be the county's
planning unit pursuant to New York State Environmental Conservation Law Section 27-0107.
##################################################
Recall my Feb. 21st blog post last year on this to http://www.DutchessDemocracy.blogspot.com ...
This past Monday (Feb. 14th) I learned after meeting with former
Dutchess County Legislature Attorney David Sears that, contrary to
Co. Leg. Chair Rolison's statements to the contrary at the end of
last Thursday, the fact is that even the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation's own website clearly states that it is
necessary for the Dutchess County Legislature to approve the Solid
Waste Management Plan for Dutchess County(!)...(kudos to Minority
Leader Goldberg for leading line of questioning on this last week)...
See below-- specifically, the DEC website itself states that "A
Resolution of adoption of the LSWMP [Local Solid Waste Management
Plan] from the Local Planning Unit's Legislative Board [County
Legislature]"(!)...
Fact: This is completely contrary to Co. Leg. Chair Rolison's
statements at end of last Thursday's County Legislature Environmental
Committee meeting (Feb. 10th).
[go to http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=dutchess to view
webcast of this for yourself!]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From [former Dutchess County Legislature Attorney]: David Sears
To: Joel Tyner joeltyner@earthlink.net
Joel, The County is the planning unit and even DEC Regs require the
Legs approval and either a EIS for adoption or a negative
declaration. This is clearly "cover" to continue to distance
themselves from the mis-managed RRA.
From the NYSDEC's own website [see http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/71265.html ]
"LSWMP Formal Approval Process
This page describes some of the procedures involved in DEC approval
of a Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP). More details on these
procedures can be found in 6 NYCRR Section 360-15.10.
All LSWMPs must be submitted to DEC in draft for approval.
DEC reviews the draft LSWMP to determine whether it effectively
addresses all matters required by 6 NYCRR 360-15.9
If it does not, DEC will specify the matters in which the draft LSWMP
is deficient (review letter). The Draft LSWMP must be revised based
on DEC comments. It is possible that more than one round of comments
and revisions may occur to the LSWMP document.
Once DEC determines that the draft LSWMP is a substantive
consideration of the elements in 360-15.9, DEC provides notice to the
Local Planning Unit of its intent to approve the LSWMP. This notice
is colloquially known as the "approvable letter".
DEC recommends that the Local Planning Unit conduct the Public
Comment period after receipt of the "Approvable Letter" from DEC.
This sequence serves to avoid the potential for needing two Public
Comment Periods, once for the Draft and once for the Final LSWMP, if
significant changes are made after DEC review. The same
recommendation applies to the resolution from the Governing Board,
described below.
The Approvable Letter indicates that the Local Planning Unit must
submit to DEC:
A Final stand-alone LSWMP
A Resolution of adoption of the LSWMP from the Local Planning Unit's
Legislative Board.
An EIS for the adoption of the LSWMP, SEQR findings statement --OR-
negative declaration
Once DEC determines that the Final LSWMP, adopting resolution, and
SEQR findings statement or Negative Declaration are complete and
acceptable, DEC approves the LSWMP. This notice is colloquially known
as the "Final Approval Letter."
The approved LSWMP becomes the LSWMP in effect for the Local Planning Unit."
####################################################
[recall below sent out originally to this list Dec. 5th]
Miss yesterday's Poughkeepsie Journal editorial?...(it's 100% spot-on; sometimes PoJo gets it right!)...
[note-- after you read the editorial, see: http://www.dps.state.ny.us/phonebook.html -- and contact NYS Public Service Commission Secretary to the Commission in Public Affairs Office Jaclyn Brilling-- at secretary@dps.ny.gov and (518) 474-6530; make "Comments on New York State Public Service Commission Cases/Initiatives/Proceedings (Opinion Line): 800-335-2120"-- pass this along to all!]
[recall facts-- http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/10/rally-for-zero-waste-oct-27th-save.html ]
[174 at "Zero Waste Dutchess"Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=130081000338005 ]
[see http://www.cectoxic.org/ZeroWaste.html for NYS Zero Waste Coalition-- TONS more info there too!]
[join 90+ Dutchess folks signed to my zero-waste petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/zeroyes ...Joel]
Energy tax incentives should go to cleanest
9:57 PM, Dec. 3, 2011 |
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20111116/NEWS/311160025/Green-groups-oppose-trash-burn-subsidies
The question is fairly straightforward: Should companies building trash-burning power plants be eligible for taxpayer-funded incentives that were clearly intended to entice the creation of more solar, wind and other forms of alternative energy to New York?
The answer is even more straightforward: Absolutely not.
Yet, for reasons passing understanding, a state panel is balking.
The New Jersey-based Covanta Energy Corp. - which operates the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility and about half dozen other trash-burning plants in New York - has petitioned to be eligible for the funding.
The state Public Service Commission should resoundingly reject the effort.
Covanta's request would not affect the Dutchess plant but rather would make the company eligible for funds for new projects. Specifically, it wants to benefit from the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard, a program begun in 2004 with a goal of generating 30 percent of the state's power with renewable resources by 2015.
The state Department of Environmental Conversation's own website says the standard was designed "to promote the research, development and use of alternative energy. Renewable energy resources include wind, hydroelectric, solar and biofuels."
The DEC further touts wind farms and other initiatives as ways to move the state's electricity consumption from dirty power plants over time.
Dutchess County's trash-burning incinerator releases more than 3,500 tons of global warming carbon dioxide, along with 333 tons of soot, sulfur compounds and other pollutants each year, according to environmental reports.
What's more, the DEC has found emissions from waste-to-energy plants still can outpace those from coal-burning plants, regarded as one of the dirtiest fossil fuels.
At a recent meeting, the PSC had questions for an administrative law judge about how the emissions from the garbage-burning plants stack up against those from biomass and landfill gas plants, which also are in the renewable program.
Those are legitimate questions.
The state should be setting the bar high for these tax incentives, ensuring it is getting the cleanest viable energy sources. This ultimately will reduce the state's dependency on traditional, dirtier sources of energy and create a healthier environment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Green groups oppose trash-burn subsidies
N.J. company seeks funds for new facilities
10:54 PM, Nov. 15, 2011 |
Written by
Jon Campbell | Albany Bureau
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20111204/OPINION01/312040008/Energy-tax-incentives-should-go-cleanest
ALBANY - Environmentalists spoke out Tuesday against a request from a New Jersey-based company to make trash-burning power plants eligible for renewable energy subsidies in New York.
The state Public Service Commission is set to vote Thursday on the petition from Covanta Energy Corp., which owns five plants in New York and operates two others, including the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility in Poughkeepsie.
The company contends the trash-burning operations should be covered under the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard, which is financed by a charge on utility bills and doles out about $250 million each year to renewable energy projects.
During a news conference in Albany on Tuesday, a handful of environmentalists spoke out against the company's request, saying it is trying to "game the system" by asking to be made eligible for funds reserved for environmentally friendly energy sources.
The groups cited Department of Environmental Conservation statistics that show trash-burning plants give off more emissions than coal-burning operations per megawatt hour.
"Coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, and incinerators are even dirtier," said Ross Gould, program director for Environmental Advocates of New York.
In all, there are 10 trash-burning power plants across the state, including one in Peekskill, Westchester County, owned by New Hampshire-based Wheelabrator Technologies.
As it stands, the state program provides funding for 13 different types of large-scale renewable energy projects, including those using wind, hydro and solar power...
Environmentalists say the New York program - which was launched in 2004 with a goal of generating 30 percent of the state's power with renewable resources by 2015 - is meant for "environmentally preferable" projects.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.CECToxic.org ...
Citizens' Environmental Coalition is New York's leading environmental health organization. CEC was founded in 1983 by community leaders organizing to clean up toxic sites. Find out more
CEC News
-----------------------------
More recycling will create 1.5 million new U.S. jobs
November 14, 2011
More Jobs, Less Pollution: Growing the Recycling Economy in the U.S. shows how a stronger recycling economy would create 1.5 million new jobs in manufacturing, collection, and other careers. If done right, recycling jobs can be quality jobs with family-supporting wages.
Click Here to read the report's key findings: http://www.RecyclingWorksCampaign.org .
Click Here to download the full report: http://www.cectoxic.org/Recycling_Jobs_Full_Report_1_.pdf .
Burning Public Money for Dirty Energy
CEC co-released the report, Burning Public Money for Dirty Energy, produced by GAIA, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. The report exposes why the Incinerator Industry has been working so hard to paint themselves as Green, which has included deliberately misrepresenting the benefits and drawbacks of this technology. They have a strong motivation-- they want to obtain huge subsidies, millions of dollars of green cash. This is a particularly important time for the public to be asking what kind of a future we want to have, when public officials seek to remove funding from essential programs, while providing extraordinary subsidies to those dirty industries that produce pollution and harm public health. The report also provides case studies of a few incinerators that have caused serious financial harm to local communities.
Click here to read the report: http://www.no-burn.org/burning-public-money-for-dirty-energy
GARBAGE INCINERATION IS EXPENSIVE AND POLLUTIVE
What is the most costly way to produce electricity? Garbage Incineration! At $8232/kW for capital costs it is more costly than other ways of generating electricity by a very wide margin. Operating costs are the highest too.
Click here for EIA Report on Electricity Costs:
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/pdf/updatedplantcosts.pdf
The Story of Broke
The United States isn't broke; we're the richest country on the planet and a country in which the richest among us are doing exceptionally well. But the truth is, our economy is broken, producing more pollution, greenhouse gasses and garbage than any other country. In these and so many other ways, it just isn't working. But rather than invest in something better, we continue to keep this 'dinosaur economy' on life support with hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money. The Story of Broke calls for a shift in government spending toward investments in clean, green solutions-renewable energy, safer chemicals and materials, zero waste and more-that can deliver jobs AND a healthier environment. It's time to rebuild the American Dream; but this time, let's build it better.
Click here to watch The Story of Broke: http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-broke/
#############################################
From http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/10/rally-for-zero-waste-oct-27th-save.html ...
Monday, October 10, 2011
Rally for Zero Waste Oct. 27th-- Save $$$, Create 10x More Jobs, Clean Air!...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[recall last blog post here from yours truly on this-- still quite pertinent!]
From
http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/05/rragop-for-new-55-million-incinerator.html
...
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
RRA/GOP for new $55 million incinerator boiler, $30 million ash landfill(!)...
First-- Page 3 of Mid-Atlantic Solid Waste
Consultants' Executive Summary of their analysis
of our county Resource Recovery Agency's Solid
Waste Management Plan boldly shares with us all
this(!):
"Capital Costs of New Publicly-Owned Facilities
Recomm.'d in Local Solid Waste Management Plan"
-- "$55 million to add a new 250-ton-per-day
boiler" [MSWC deserves credit for exposing RRA on
this]
-- "$30 million to build a local ash landfill"
[recall: sadly, even Comptroller Coughlan
suggested this(!)]
-- "$3 to $7 million to upgrade existing Resource
Recovery Facility [incinerator] turbine "
[that's right folks-- read what's just above over
again one more time 'til it truly seeps in--
incredible!]
[not outraged?...you're not payin' attention
folks; email all 25 of us:
countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us!]
Second-- MSWC's criticisms of DCRRA's original
Solid Waste Management Plan are largely
accurate-- but MSWC don't go nearly far enough in
pushing for same green-jobs, cost-saving
85%-recycling-rate-by-2020 rate that Clearwater,
Sierra Club, NYPIRG, EANY, Citizens Environmental
Coalition, and so many of you across our county
have embraced for Dutchess/NYS; no excuse on
this...
[see: http://www.cectoxic.org/ZeroWaste.html ]
Third, a recurring point that MSWC make
repeatedly is this erroneous one-- that "In the
opinion of MSWC, the decision of waste disposal
is between retaining the waste-to-energy system
that exists currently or converting to a waste
export system." [false choice!!!]
This blithe assertion ignores these 3 key facts
on how Dutchess could/should move towards zero
waste:
Fact #1: Dutchess County now incinerates or sends
to landfills $15 million worth of materials and
resources that could be recycled, including plant
debris, food waste, paper, wood, ceramics, soils,
metals, glass, polymers, textiles, chemicals, and
various items for reuse (Richard Anthony
Associates).
[see:
http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/pubworks/sw-future/docs/resource-assessment.pdf
MD like NYS!]
Fact #2: Ten times more jobs could be created by
moving towards a zero-waste approach to resource
recovery compared to incineration/landfilling,
according to the Institute for Local
Self-Reliance; locally this means 500 new jobs
could be created right here in Dutchess County if
those materials were recycled instead of burned
or buried, according to the Institute for Local
Self-Reliance/Rick Anthony.
[see: http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recyclingmeansbusiness.html ]
Fact #3: The city of Springfield, Mass. has saved
$75,000 in just the first half of this year alone
by expanding recycling to one-third of the city;
it expects to save $450,000 a year through greatly
expanded recycling. ["Springfield Municipal
Recycling Initiative To Expand" (WAMC's Paul
Tuthill 7/10)
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1679516/news/Municipal.Recycling.Initative.To.Expand
]
And let's not forget these 2 other facts either
(recall: ALANY just rated Dutchess air "F" third
yr. in row!):
Fact: The Poughkeepsie Journal reported March 7th
that emissions from our county incinerator of
particulate matter, volatile organic compounds,
and nitrogen oxide have all increased over the
last decade-- along with the fact that, on an
annual basis, our county incinerator also creates
50,000 tons of toxic ash-- and spews 29 pounds of
heavy metals (mercury/arsenic/lead/cadmium), 37
tons of sulfur dioxide, 22 tons of hydrogen
chloride/hydrogen fluoride, and 3700 tons of
carbon dioxide.
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100307/NEWS01/3070350/Burn-plants-seem-cleaner-but-facts-debated
Fact: Dutchess County incinerator in Poughkeepsie
spews 3700 tons of carbon emissions yearly.
[ http://www.CARMA.org ;
http://www.StopTrashingtheClimate.org ; recall
http://www.350.org !]
[NY = MD; see
http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/pubworks/sw-future/docs/resource-assessment.pdf
]
Fact: "The Dutchess County trash-burning plant
needs millions from taxpayers to break even each
year, costs 46 percent more to operate than 13
other plants in New York and Connecticut and has
debts
stretching beyond all of them." [Poughkeepsie Journal 5/10/09]
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090510/NEWS01/905100344/Dutchess-County-Resource-Recovery-Agency-Inefficient-expensive-in-debt
Recall this, too, buried on p. 2 in the B
(Mid-Hudson) section of Oct. 11th Poughkeepsie
Journal from last year: "The DCRRA's deficit, the
amount that must be shouldered by county
taxpayers, rose from $850,000 a decade ago to
more than $6 million last year."
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20101011/REPOSITORY/10110335/Conners-quits-RRA-waste-plan-hearing-is-today
Fact: The cost of disposing of the Dutchess
County Incinerator's 50,000 tons of toxic ash
annually has doubled in recent years to three
million dollars a year, according to Dutchess
County Resource
Recovery Agency Board Chair William Conners in a
statement he made in Co. Leg. chambers in 2010.
[see:
http://www.no-burn.org/why-incineration-is-a-very-bad-idea-in-the-twenty-first-century (Paul Connett)]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recall...
From Institute for Local Self-Reliance President Neil Seldman: "these are the zero waste/resource
management plans ILSR has assisted with in the
US.:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/sws/zerowaste_masterplan.htm
-- zero waste plan Austin, TX
http://compostingconsultant.com/images2/hawaii-zero-waste-plan.pdf
-- zero waste plan for Hawaii Co.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Library/infoCycling/2001/Winter/DelNorte.htm
-- zero DelNorte
http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/delaware-resource-management.pdf
: Resource Management in Delaware.
[also see:
http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/links.html ;
http://www.ilsr.org/pubs/2010yearendreport.pdf ;
Neil S."Wasted Energy: Debunking Waste-to-Energy
Scheme" http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4315 ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fact: Shabazz for years now has taken all of the
food waste from Vassar, Marist, and SUNY New
Paltz and mixed it with yard waste-- and just
over the past year has gotten the
Poughkeepsie Town Board (including Town Supervisor
there Pat Myers) to vote unanimously to allow
Shabazz to expand food-waste composting operation
he's run for years at Vassar Farms to 70 acres on
DeGarmo Road(!).
[this is clear example for Rhinebeck and all of
our municipalities; organics make up half
wastestream]
[see "Case for Composting" 3/22/10 Boston Globe
http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=5692 !]
Fact: The woody waste and other yard waste
(leaves/grass) sitting in piles at the Rhinebeck
Town Dump (on Stone Church Rd.) is the PERFECT
material that Shabazz has proven can be mixed
with food waste to make valuable compost and
biofiltration soils to spec!...(Shabazz and I
have seen this).
[here in Dutchess, Royal Carting tried 177-home
food-waste collection pilot program in Beacon]
[see below-- Massachusetts Municipal Association
( http://www.MMA.org ) Associate Editor Mitch
Evich last May 5th ran an article about the
successful curbside collection of food waste in
the towns of Hamilton and Wenham-- referring to
how "organic waste accounts for roughly 40
percent of the solid waste that the typical
household generates (about 10-12 pounds out of 27
pounds per week)": savings!]
Recall the front-page article about Shabazz in
the Poughkeepsie Journal April 3, 2008 on great
food-waste composting operation in Poughkeepsie
using materials from Vassar and Marist to produce
extremely valuable compost in high demand at
non-odor facility (Vassar Farm); see:
http://groups.google.com/group/planputnam/msg/bb0dd1fd8ca9441a
; http://greenwayny.com/beta/about/?id=bio ;
http://www.recycle.net/trade/aa945288.html ;
http://www.grn.com/trade/aa945288.html ; http://nysawg.org/news.php?id=40 .
Remember, too-- even back in '09 I succeeded in
convincing Northern Dutchess Hospital, Baptist
Home at Brookmeade, and folks from Fairgrounds
and the Rhinebeck Central School District to all
endorse the notion of moving Rhinebeck towards
zero waste-- saving $$$ with food waste
collection (remember Northern Dutchess News
article on all this from summer of '09; other
local media ignored this-- why?)...
[see:
http://www.elementalimpact.org/ZWZDowntownAtlanta
-- Atlanta is great example for Dutchess; many
restaurants, entertainment and convention centers
there saving money separating food waste!]
The City of Toronto has proven for years now that
it actually saves tax dollars to have businesses
and homeowners separate their food waste for
weekly curbside collection-- because now, as a
result of this, they only have to have their
garbage collected once every other week(!)...why
can't we do this here?...
[see: http://www.toronto.ca/greenbin/card.htm ]
Fact: Incinerator folks don't even want food
waste; it's highly inefficient to burn (over 70%
water; see http://www.Cool2012.com ).
Fact: Ithaca, Portland, Seattle, Boulder,
Cambridge, and communities across Vermont, North
Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, California have
smartly moved towards zero waste with food-waste
composting
[ http://www.cool2012.com/community/collection/
http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/000525.html
;
http://www.recycletompkins.org/editorstree/view/177
; http://ccetompkins.org/compost/index.html ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From
http://www.DCRRA.org/reports/LSWMP_12-4-10.pdf
...(from DCRRA's own website)...
[read below, folks-- proof right here that DCRRA
STILL bent on prolonging/expanding incineration!]
County of Dutchess
and
Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency
LOCAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
November 29, 2010
_______________________________________
Germano & Cahill, P.C. Gerhardt, LLC
Michael J. Cahill, Esq. Hans G. Arnold
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From page 5...
"Optimize Waste-to-Energy - The Agency should
commission a thorough study of the condition and
life expectancy of the RRF in anticipation of a
competitive procurement for a new contract
for operation of the RRF and possible capital
improvements after the expiration of the
current operating agreement in June 2014."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From page 59...
"The current Service Agreement with Covanta
Energy (which concluded a stock purchase of the
assets of Montenay Dutchess in August 2009) will
expire in June 2014, and prior to that date, the
DCRRA
will have to procure a new operating contract for
the Facility, through competitive
bidding under General Municipal Law §120-w. In
preparation for that procurement, the
DCRRA should undertake a full engineering
assessment of the condition of the Facility,
and prepare an estimate of the major components and equipment which will need
refurbishment or replacement to assure continued
reliable operation for the ensuing 20
to 25 years. Such an assessment will allow the DCRRA to provide for capital
improvements when needed, and will provide
prospective bidders for the post-2014
Service Agreement with technical information necessary to submit an informed
proposal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From page 76...
"The following summarizes the basis for the projections in Table 13:
2010 the Resource Recovery Facility (RRF)
[Dutchess County Incinerator] at 92% capacity
2015 the existing RRF at 100% capacity.
2020 the RRF expanded with a third boiler for a
total capacity of 199,000 tons per year."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From page 80...
"The O'Connor rotary waterwall combustor is no
longer being manufactured. However
replacement parts for continuous maintenance are
available and have been obtained
without difficulty by the facility operator. A
review of the performance and condition of
the RRF by HDR Engineers in 2007 found that with
appropriate maintenance, the RRF
has a useful life expectancy of more than 20 years.
The O'Connor design has limitations in both power generation and combustion
efficiency when compared to other designs in use
in the United States and in Europe.
As noted, the RRF has consistently provided
approximately 315 KWh/ton of electric power for
export. Other boiler designs in use today can
combust larger quantities of MSW and generate up
to 650 KWh/ton with optimal MSW feedstock in
terms of BTU value and consistency."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From page 84...
"The RRF has not been expanded as originally
planned for, and continues to process
only about two-thirds of the non-recyclable
fraction of the municipal waste stream.
In 2009 the Agency received 150,641 tons of MSW for processing at the RRF. This
means that approximately 99,359 tons of MSW generated in Dutchess County was
taken to disposal facilities outside the County for disposal.
Similarly, the MRF is undersized and processes
only a portion of the County's recyclables...the
Agency should consider an increase in the
capacity of the RRF to reduce the amount of
material transported to
distant landfills."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From page 93...
"In order to extend the useful life of the
waste-to-energy facility through 2030 and
beyond, a detailed analysis of the facility and
an estimate of the capital expenditures
that would be needed at various points over the
next 20 years of operations in order to
continue satisfactory performance should be performed."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From page 94...
"Some immediate and long term improvements to the RRF can be made in
order to increase efficiency without increasing
the Facility's current throughput.
Currently, WTE Facility expansions are being
planned or constructed at Lee County,
Florida; Hillsborough County, Florida; Honolulu,
Hawaii; York, Pennsylvania; Olmsted,
Minnesota; Hempstead, New York; Islip, New York
and Harford County, Maryland. The
size and costs of these expansions vary.
Comparisons of costs per ton of new capacity
reveal a wide range of variation, reflecting
differences in design, site restrictions and
other local conditions. In general, the costs are
significant. Examples are $193,000.00
per design ton at Lee County, Florida to
$233,000.00 per design ton at Hillsborough
County Florida, both of which are approximately
700 tpd expansions currently under
construction. In New York, neither Covanta Energy
Hempstead nor the Islip Resource
Recovery Agency has publicly announced costs for
the expansions of their respective
facilities. Studies performed for the Montgomery-Otsego-Schoharie Solid Waste
Authority (MOSA) have estimated costs at $225,000.00 per design/ton. We have no
reason to believe that costs for an expansion of
the Dutchess RRF would be different.
The absence of a local ash landfill owned by the DCRRA means that the County
continues to depend on competitive bids for the
transport and disposal of ash residue at
landfills outside the County, and in fact, at
significant distance from the County."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[...and let's not forget this from page 95--
"Ideally, the County would have its own ash
landfill. Although it might be equal in cost to
the current cost of export, it would stabilize
costs over the long term and eliminate the risk
of price hikes due to fuel increases and a
constriction in disposal capacity..."(!)...]
#################################################
[recall blog post from yours truly on this Apr.
27th to http://www.DutchessDemocracy.blogspot.com
]
CEC Ex. Dir. Barbara Warren outraged re: Dutchess
RRA, GOP, DEC-- wake up, folks!...
[recent letter here from Citizens Environmental
Coalition Executive Director Barbara Warren to
myself and area environmentalists from Orange and
Dutchess counties and beyond-- most
interesting!...(letters to editor needed on all
this to local newspapers, folks!)...and emails to
25 of us at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us!]
[recall-- Barbara is also the leader beyond the
New York State Zero Waste Alliance!]
http://www.cectoxic.org/ZeroWaste.html -- check
out this just in to us from Barbara-- "Guess what
is the most costly way to make electricity?
Garbage Incineration! At $8232/kW for capital
costs it is more costly than other ways of
generating electricity by a very wide margin.
Operating costs are the highest too; see:
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/pdf/updatedplantcosts.pdf
!"]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Barbara Warren (warrenba@msn.com)
To: Katherine Bourbeau, Glen Silver, Linda Ochs,
Michael Edelstein, Joel Tyner, James Travers, Tom
Ellis
Subject: Urgent Alert & Action Needed Re: Solid
Waste Planning for Local Planning Units
Date: April 7, 2011
Hi All,
Many planning units are required to update their
solid waste plans in the near future.
Unfortunately I have received recent indications
that specific requirements related to public
involvement and comment on solid waste plans is
being given little attention. I am attempting to
better clarify this situation.
However, at this time we know of at least one
County [Dutchess] where the solid waste plan has
been submitted and no public involvement has yet
occurred. At a forum yesterday a DEC
representative [DEC Region 3 Recycling
Coordinator Theresa Laibach] described a process
whereby DEC first determines a plan is approvable
and then sends it back to the planning unit for
final approval. What this allows is no PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT in the planning process. Please see
especially item p) below. If DEC is receiving a
plan for review it should contain a section that
describes the full public process and the
comments and views of the public. If that is not
in the submitted plan, DEC should not be acting
on it.
In the case of Dutchess County the DEC described
a situation where the County had turned over
planning to the Resource Recovery Agency -- the
ones in charge of running the incinerator. The
public is concerned that this could mean a plan
for incinerator expansion.
In the case of Orange County, we believe the plan
will direct garbage to the new planned
gasification facility.
DEC Solid Waste Regulations are in Part 360.
Subpart 360-15: Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Planning
Section 9 Plan Contents
(o) a description of the measures used to secure
participation of neighboring jurisdictions, any
limitations which the plan's implementation would
impose on the neighboring jurisdictions' solid
waste management programs, and the effects of
including the jurisdiction in the plan, including
additional viable alternatives; and
(p) an accounting, to the maximum extent
practicable, for the comments and views expressed
by concerned governmental, environmental,
commercial, and industrial interests, the public,
and neighboring jurisdictions.
ACTION Needed.
We need a Sign On Letter of all interested
individuals and groups within each planning unit
indicating 1) their views on how materials and
solid waste should be managed, and 2) that the
plan must increase diversion from disposal to be
consistent with state law and 3) citing the
regulatory requirement that plans must adequately
address the views of the people in the planning
unit.
More Info Soon !
Barbara J. Warren
Executive Director
Citizens' Environmental Coalition
33 Central Ave.
Albany, NY 12210
518-462-5527/ 845-754-7951 H
warrenba@msn.com
www.cectoxic.org
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment