Waste Not of Yamhill County

The Third Way

2010-07-24T22:07:00.001-07:00

County and Waste Management Have Options Other than Appealing or Allowing Landfills on Farmland

Since July 6, when the Land Use Board of Appeals ruled that Yamhill County followed the wrong procedure in approving expansion of Riverbend Landfill, both the County and the landfill have considered whether to appeal or to follow the correct procedure (a process that requires amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow landfills on farmland).

Neither party seems to have considered an obvious third choice: establish a new timetable for closing the existing landfill.

The County's July 21 decision to put off amending the Zoning Ordinance creates an opportunity for both County and Riverbend to explore this option.

According to DEQ, the landfill currently accepts about 540,000 tons of waste annually, nearly two-thirds of it imported from outside Yamhill County. At this rate, DEQ estimates the landfill will close by July 2014.

Yamhill County and Waste Management, which owns Riverbend Landfill, both have a say in when the landfill closes.

Waste Management could direct some of waste now going to Riverbend to other facilities, including its dry-country facility at Arlington. The County could take advantage of a law Metro adopted that allows the County to ask Metro to send less waste to Riverbend. Since Metro accounts for 50% of the garbage deposited at Riverbend, taking this step alone would allow Riverbend Landfill to remain open well past 2014, without expanding.

Keeping the existing landfill open longer will allow Waste Management to implement a sustainable alternative technology for processing solid waste in Yamhill County. WMI and other waste handlers are already exploring modern technologies and using them elsewhere. Contrary to assertions made by Waste Management spokespeople, composting organic waste, requiring recovery of recyclable materials, and converting waste (not landfill gas) to fuel can reduce the volume of unusable waste to such a great extent that expansion should never be necessary.

More than 500 people own property within three miles of Riverbend Landfill -- an area of 18,000 acres, 4% of all the land in the County, including high-value farmland farmed by some of the County's largest agricultural enterprises. The Riverbend neighborhood and the South Yamhill River have borne the environmental, financial, and aesthetic burdens of a landfill for nearly thirty years. It's time for the County and Waste Management to explore a new way to handle our solid waste. Extending the landfill's life without expanding is an excellent first step.

The Solid Waste Advisory Commission (SWAC) is currently reviewing the County's Solid Waste Management Plan. Waste Not calls on the County to ask Waste Management to meet with SWAC to reshape the future of solid waste in Yamhill County. SWAC and Waste Management should engage in an open and frank discussion of alternative processes that will not destroy farmland, risk our air and water, diminish our County's beauty and tourist allure, or exploit local resources for the benefit of out-of-area garbage-generators and business owners.

Waste Not of Yamhill County, the Yamhill County Soil and Water Conservation District, Yamhill County Farm Bureau, Willamette Valley Wineries Association, Willamette Riverkeeper, and fourteen other individuals and businesses filed the appeal that led to LUBA's decision. This coalition remains opposed to expanding Riverbend Landfill. Expansion is not necessary to serve the County's residents and businesses today. With waste reduction and implementation of environmentally-sound waste processing alternatives, expansion will never be necessary.

Commission stacked in WM’s favor

2010-07-24T22:03:00.000-07:00

To the editor:
Regarding the Riverbend Landfill situation, appeals and now a new application for use — I have to comment. First off, we have to consider that we only have two county commissioners that are able to vote on this. The third one has a husband employed by the landfill’s owners.
Now we take into consideration that the county planning commissioners recommended denial and yet the two county commissioners voted for it. So, now we have both of these two that are in total support of approval (which are the only voters on the matter), requesting an ordinance change. The new change (when approved) would then allow the extension of the landfill onto farmland.
Of course, the use of farmland was the sole reason for denial by LUBA. And if the commissioners recommended new ordinance (which they are the only vote) passes, the landfill extension may then be approved by the two commissioners that changed the ordinance.
Is it just me or is this working out to be a Kangaroo court? Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that this may be a very biased situation here? To have the only two votes that supported it in the first place (over objections), ask for and be the only votes on a new ordinance that would almost outright permit the use, has got to be wrong!
Get busy Waste Management and build a burner or something that has less impact to the surrounding area, our home.
Roger Currier, Newberg

County appeals landfill decision

2010-07-24T16:01:00.000-07:00

Land use — Comp plan change held in reserve; opponents urge new strategy

By: David Sale 7/24/2010

McMINNVILLE — The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners has elected not to pursue a change to the county comprehensive plan, but will appeal the recent verdict of the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) blocking expansion of Riverbend Landfill.
The decision came at the request of Riverbend’s parent company, Waste Management, which sought permission to expand the landfill footprint onto 87 adjacent acres zoned for agriculture.
“Initially we thought it was important to move quickly to initiate both processes, in the interest of time,” said Waste Management spokeswoman Jackie Lang. “After looking more closely at the options this week, we believe it makes sense to pursue the appeal as the first priority.”
Waste Management had sought approval for a goal exception to state land use law, which otherwise prioritizes farmland preservation. However, expansion opponents made a case — with which LUBA concurred — that while such an exception was permissible at the state level, the county’s own land use laws specifically blocked this type of development.
“The other process is still available if, in time, it becomes clear that we need to take that path,” Lang said. This would involve changing the county’s comprehensive plan to allow landfills on land zoned for exclusive farm use — a process likely to be as controversial as the two-year public hearings process that ensued to bring the expansion proposal this far.
Meanwhile, the members of Waste Not of Yamhill County — the coalition of landfill expansion opponents — urge a different tack.
“We feel strongly that the county and Waste Management should expend some of that energy they are investing in appeals ... on working out a deal to extend the existing landfill’s life while they develop a new long-term vision for handling our solid waste,” said Waste Not president Susan Watkins, adding that the Yamhill County Soil and Water Advisory Committee “can play a big role” in such a deal. The quasi-governmental agency has gone on record as opposing the landfill’s expansion.
“We know Waste Management is working with several alternatives that promise to be less harsh on the environment and the neighborhood than a landfill,” Watkins said, referring to new incineration technology being tested by Waste Management at its facility in Gilliam County. “Both the county and Waste Management can take steps to slow down the process that’s filling up the dump and give the county time to work up a new plan that can be implemented here if feasible.”
The appeal will be heard by the state Court of Appeals; a hearing date has yet to be announced.

New Riverbend application hits snag

2010-07-23T09:44:00.000-07:00

By Hannah Hoffman, News Register

UPDATE: Commissioners Kathy George and Leslie Lewis voted Wednesday to join Waste Management in its appeal of a July 7 decision by the state Land Use Board of Appeals denying a proposed Riverbend Landfill expansion. Oral argument before the Court of Appeals is expected in December, with a decision following a few months into the new year.

George and Lewis also directed the planning department to postpone initiating the process to change the county’s zoning ordinance until early next year. They decided they would revisit the issue in late February, reversing an earlier decision.

Waste Management spokeswoman Jackie Lang said the company supported the channge of course.
_____

Even if the county enacts a new zoning ordinance specifically authorizing landfills in farm zones, Riverbend Landfill's new expansion application will probably still require an exception to one element of Goal Three - a provision barring landfills on high-value farmland.

Ironically, taking a Goal Three exception was what led the state Land Use Board of Appeals to reverse the county's expansion approval in the first place. LUBA said the county should amend its zoning ordinance instead.

However, because the expansion targets what is virtually certain to qualify as high-value farmland, the county doesn't see any way around including an exception element once again. The only saving grace is that it would be much narrower in scope.

Jackie Lang, who speaks for Waste Management, Riverbend's Houston-based parent company, said the development shouldn't have any material effect.

She said, "This doesn't change our approach at all. We are pursuing this process because LUBA told us to do so."

However, Susan Watkins, president of the opposition group Waste Not, said incorporating an exceptions element into any new application by Riverbend or Waste Management for landfill expansion approval would, presumably, build more delay into the process. And she suggested that could create a time crunch for an operation expected to run out of room on its current site by 2014, less than four years away.

She said one constructive response would be to limit the landfill intake in the interim, giving everyone more time to work on solutions.

"They control how much waste they are taking in," Watkins said. "They can sit down at any time to limit the waste flow and keep the landfill open longer. That would allow time for the community to develop alternatives - a different way going forward."

LUBA issued its reversal July 7. It said the county and company had erred in taking an exception to state's farmland preservation goal in its entirety, since the goal specifically allows landfills on farmland under certain conditions.

In addition to submitting a new application, Riverbend plans to appeal the LUBA reversal to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Besides amending its zoning ordinance, the county is considering filing an appeal of its own or joining in Riverbend's appeal.

The two commissioners with a say in the matter, Leslie Lewis and Kathy George, told county counsel at the meeting last week that they supported an appeal of the LUBA decision. The counsel's office assumed that to mean the county would be joining Riverbend in a joint appeal, but George said Tuesday that she and Lewis wanted to consider the matter further.

She termed their initial response a hasty reaction to a frustrating decision, made at a point when it still wasn't clear what approach Waste Management would be taking. She said they had since decided they needed to explore the potential ramifications before making a hard and fast commitment.

Commissioner Mary Stern has recused herself throughout the process because her husband has long made his living in the waste disposal industry and currently works for Waste Management.

The Riverbend application went through the exceptions process because as it stands now, the county zoning ordinance forbids landfills on any farmland, regardless of value.

During last week's business meeting, Lewis and George authorized the staff to draft an amendment incorporating state language on the subject into the county ordinance. However, a complication has arisen.

One element of Goal Three is an Oregon Administrative Rule forbidding landfills on high value farmland. And County Planner Ken Friday included it in the draft amendment he submitted Monday to the state Department of Land Conservation and Development to meet a hearing deadline.

Planning Director Mike Brandt said the county had no choice but to include that language.

He said that would force Riverbend to either argue the acreage targeted for the expansion doesn't qualify as high value or pursue an exception on that point. He said he would recommend the latter, saying that would be a legally sounder course in his view.

The commissioners have scheduled a public hearing on the new zoning ordinance for 7 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 2, in Room 32 of the county courthouse. The state requires 45 days notice, which dictated the time of Monday's filing.

In addition to incorporating the state Goal Three language on the siting of landfills in farm zones, the county also included language to permit the siting of biofuel processing facilities in farm zones.

Landfill hits another snag

2010-07-21T20:26:00.000-07:00

Editorial: New berg Graphic

Last week’s decision by LUBA to overturn approval of Riverbend Landfill’s expansion by the Board of Commissioners was a proper one.
Simply put, the county approved the landfill’s expansion on exclusive farm use (EFU) land through a standard exemption process, but LUBA said that was improper because, while permissible under state law, this particular use was disallowed by the county’s own zoning law.
The solution, proposed by Waste Management, Riverbend’s parent company, would simply be for the commissioners to revisit the issue and change county ordinance to allow landfill on all EFU land.
But, be careful what you wish for. Sure, it may seem like Waste Management is just interested in expansion at this particular site, but open up the whole county to landfills and WM or some other company could decide there’s reason to construct another landfill elsewhere. After all, much of Riverbend’s garbage comes from the metro area and it’s not likely that waste stream, or the revenue it generates, is ever going to decrease.
Even though WM has indicated it will also appeal the LUBA decision, our hope is the company, the county and landfill opponents will get together and hash out a compromise, one that benefits all the parties involved.

LUBA decision is just one step on landfill

2010-07-21T20:17:00.000-07:00

To the editor: Newberg Graphic

Riverbend Landfill lost at the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). For now, they cannot build their towering landfill expansion into the banks of our river.
Texas-based Waste Management generated $11 billion last year — this court result is nothing more than a bad day at work. But to the dozens of local families whose lives have been overturned by this conflict, whose farms have been destroyed by the smells, noise and property devaluation, who are moving because the choking air makes their asthma act up, whose crops are in jeopardy and irrigation water suspect — this is a huge, life-changing victory.
To those who know the claim that our garbage bills will go through the roof unless we sacrifice a vast swath of prime farmland — the myth — this is a real truth-telling outcome.
To those who desperately need a green job, this is a banner decision of our courts. To those who have always wanted to pass their farms on to their kids, this is a shining day.
No one should think this is the end of the landfill wars. Waste Management wants its quick money made off the backs of their neighbors and will flood the county with fresh media and legal dollars.
Portland/Metro wants an “out of sight, out of mind” place to hide its trash and will continue to ignore this environmental menace they have filled to overflowing.
Perhaps the saddest aspect is that the county will continue its march to undermine the farming community by challenging our land use laws in the name of their own anti-agriculture political ideology.
We won, but the Fat Lady has yet to sing. Let’s hope that when she does, she isn’t singing “Deep in heart of Texas.”
Charles Ellis, McMinnville

Waste Management will appeal LUBA ruling

2010-07-17T21:48:00.000-07:00

Land use — Company officials announce Friday morning they will advance the landfill expansion to the Court of Appeals

By: David Sale

Representatives of Waste Management of Oregon, parent company of the Riverbend Landfill south of McMinnville, announced Friday their intent to appeal the Land Use Board of Appeals’ decision disallowing expansion approval on procedural grounds.
“It is unfortunate and disappointing that LUBA ignored the information showing that the expansion made sense and that the process was legally sound,” said company spokeswoman Jackie Lang. “LUBA did not address the merits of the county’s decision. Instead, it focused exclusively on a technical aspect of the process.”
The state board, which hears appeals to land use decisions around the state, reversed an ordinance enacted by the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners, which would have allowed Riverbend to expand onto nearly 100 adjoining acres, presently zoned for agricultural use.
To do so, the county sought a zone change under what is known as “Goal 3 exemption,” a finding that the need for the rezone outweighs state land use law as codified in Senate Bill 100. The bill sets a list of priorities for land use, with preservation of farmland the third among them.
However, LUBA ruled that the exemption was improper because it ran contrary to the legal precedent of the “goalpost rule,” which states that laws in place prior to a land use application cannot be waived by the application itself.
Since Yamhill County’s comprehensive plan had specifically disallowed landfills on land zoned for exclusive farm use, the board found, it could not grant the exemption as long as that law remains on the books and in force elsewhere in the county.
“Yamhill County does not allow, by virtue of their own county law, landfills on farmland. Period!” wrote Ramsey McPhillips on the blog of Waste Not of Yamhill County, a coalition of landfill opponents. “Blame LUBA all you want, but what you are blaming is LUBA making Yamhill County follow the letter of their own law.”
For this reason, in addition to bringing LUBA’s verdict before the state Court of Appeals, Waste Management has also requested that the Board of Commissioners change the county’s zoning ordinance to declare landfills permissible on all land zoned “exclusive farm use” throughout the county.
“What LUBA didn’t say is very important,” Lang said. “The board did not say the county made the wrong decision. They did not address the county’s conclusion that the continued operation of Riverbend is necessary for the economic health of the county. They did not say that expanding Riverbend is wrong... All they said is that we should have used a different process.”
However, in light of the two-year battle that led up to the recently-reversed zoning decision, a campaign to allow landfill development anywhere in the EFU zone may prove equally difficult and controversial — at least, if McPhillips and fellow Waste Not members have any say in the matter.
“Agriculture is 65 percent of this county’s tax base,” he said. “The wine industry is the brand that brings in the real tourist bacon. Not one agribusiness or large farm uses or needs Riverbend Landfill. We are all resolute.”
A longtime critic of the landfill whose farm adjoins the site, McPhillips added: “Everyone knows my agenda but at least I am advocating for a compromise — save the farms and the river and our garbage rates by extending the current dump, without expanding the footprint, until a better replacement is up and running in its place.”
Lang, meanwhile, argued that an expanded landfill footprint is necessary to continued operation, including the development of alternative disposal technology.
“By approving the expansion, the county made it clear that it needs Riverbend to ensure safe, affordable disposal and as a platform for new technologies,” she said. “Walking away is not an option.”

McPhillips Sets The News Register Editorial Board Straight On Riverbend Decision

2010-07-12T11:11:00.000-07:00

Decision on Riverbend shows 'gotcha' mentality

By News-Register Editorial Board

Once again, there’s proof positive that Oregon’s land use regulatory system is incomprehensible and wasteful. The latest evidence is this week’s decision by the Land Use Board of Appeals, which rejected the Riverbend Landfill expansion plan with an argument that was all form, no substance.

We should emphasize that our judgment of the LUBA decision is not based on advocacy for the Riverbend expansion project. It is based on a belief that important land use issues should be decided on their merits, or lack thereof, and that state government should be a helpful guide in the process, not an obstructionist using sleight-of-hand tricks.

Splitting hairs is the most charitable way to describe the opinion. A more negative analysis is that Oregon’s land use judges worship process to the degree that they become practitioners of a government “gotcha” mentality.

It might be cute and interesting in good economic times. But when basic government services are threatened at every level by a deep-seated financial crisis, we don’t have the luxury of wasting valuable time and money on this kind of trivial pursuit.

How’s this for irony: Yamhill County’s zoning ordinance doesn’t allow landfills on exclusive farm use lands because the county wants any such decision to require intense review involving a zone change and a statewide exceptions process. But LUBA, the judicial branch of a state system that fancies itself a guardian of farmlands, rejects that level of local protection. In order to allow expansion of Riverbend, says LUBA, Yamhill County must change its zoning ordinance to allow placement of landfills on any agricultural land.

There are, you might guess, other wrinkles to the complex and convoluted legal decision. There are past LUBA and Court of Appeals decisions that trod similar ground; there’s the state administrative rule that seems to say landfills cannot be sited on “high-value” farmland.

Finally, there is the inexplicable reality that many land use experts who have walked through this same maze in the past still could not find the way out. Perhaps that’s because LUBA decided to move the exits.

We don’t know what Yamhill County will do now. LUBA didn’t bother to decide the real issues raised by petitioners, so even if Yamhill County could overturn this limited ruling in the Court of Appeals, the case would start anew at LUBA. County officials don’t want to change their zoning ordinance to make landfills an outright use on farmland, but that’s what LUBA is telling them to do.

Opponents of the Riverbend expansion should be as surprised as the county that LUBA embraced the weakest of their arguments. They are happy to win the appeal, of course, but are being cautious not to take on the image of former President George Bush in front of that famous Mission Accomplished banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

There are real issues at stake with Riverbend, and local interests on both sides of the case have no time for “gotcha” governance.

Posted by: Ramsey McPhillips

Actually, this was not ”…the weakest of their arguments.” LUBA'S decision is a very sound opinion based on the rule of law. WASTE NOT intentionally sent its Lawyer, Bill Kabieseman, in to LUBA to argue for a reversal on this specific issue. We are not surprised at all that they ruled in our favor. WASTE NOT knew this was the correct legal argument for this stage of the process. WASTE NOT hired a very smart attorney who knows his land-use law. LUBA simply confirmed the obvious. All the other issues - environment, need, lost tourism, taking laws, nuisance are all very important and necessary to include in our argument to assure they move forward through the courts if this goes forward, but immaterial to the elephant in the room. Yamhill County does not allow, by virtue of their own county law, landfills on farmland. Period! Blame LUBA all you want, but what you are blaming is LUBA making Yamhill County follow the letter of their own law. We fully expected a full REVERSAL on this specific point. It’s great to see LUBA working, as it should.

Yamhill County does not allow landfills on farmland. Thus, when Waste Management submitted its application to expand a landfill on EFU farmland, the Planning Department was obligated to inform them of that zoning law and to stamp their application – DENIED. The laws on the books at the time the application is accepted as “complete” are the laws that every one must abide by. Mike Brandt of the Yamhill County Planning Department and John Grey, Yamhill County Council, told me that is called THE GOAL POST RULE. Neither the applicant nor the County nor the legislature can move the zoning goal post laws to suit, or prevent, or favor a request of the applicant once it is accepted by the County’s Planning Department. They taught me well. So, why then did Yamhill County forget their own mantra in this situation and waste two years of the County’s precious time and resources?

Here’s my take why. Folks in both the Planning Department and County Council decided that they wanted the dump from the very beginning, so much in fact, that they overlooked the County law and told Riverbend that they would re-interpret the law on the books and change the zoning to fit their particular desire to have THIS dump at THAT location. What the Planning Department should have told Riverbend was that in Yamhill County they are only allowed to put a landfill on EXISTING Public Works(PWS) zoned land and that the County was not authorized to spot change the zoning just for them without first changing the Comprehensive Plan in a new ordinance for everyone. In essence, making ALL PRIME FARMLAND in Yamhill County available to site a dump upon. Yikes, no one wants that so that should have been the end of it. Unless Waste Management could find existing PWS land to put a dump, they were not going to be able to build (or expand) a dump in our county. But, oh no, the Planning Department and Legal Council wanted this particular dump – so they tried to push through this strange, and now we have confirmed, not legal zone switch-a-roo.

This is no different than if I went into the Planning Department and applied to put a mini mall on my farm. The Planning Department would tell me that the zoning does not allow malls on farmland but that they could grant me, just me, an exception to this law and re-classify my farmland as commercial so that I could have a mall because, they wanted me to have the mall, too. We all know that would never happen because it is not legal.

The Planning Department prevented me from having a fun wine raffle for ONE night on my farm to raise money for this cause because that is not allowed on farmland but they overlooked the law that disallows landfills on farmland to pile 30 years worth of trash and championed Waste Management's wishes all the way to LUBA where they had to be schooled on their own law that even I knew was not legal. And you think this ruling is LUBA’s fault?

So, why did the Planning Department and County legal council just waste 2 years of our time and all that money and conflict for something this basic (the application came in June 20th, 2008.) Because they want this dump expansion at any cost… even at the cost of not applying the laws equally to every party that tries to skirt our standing zoning laws.

County Council so much as admitted this at the LUBA hearing when he answered the question of a judge…. “Why does Riverbend not allow landfills on farmland?” His answer was that they had many meetings about that and that the County wanted to have “control” on particular issues, such as site design, when the landfill process was brought to the hearing process. He said an ordinance allowing landfills on farmland would inhibit their power to regulate concerns. Huh? That presumes that the County Council and Planning Department assumed the landfill expansion was a given, that all they had to do was “control” the hearing process to appease those who opposed issues for this particular zone change – not landfills in general, but this preferred particular landfill. If this is the case, where is the “Control” in the ordinance the Commissioners authorized when they approved the landfill? It does not exist. There are no conditions in the ordinance about cost, or nuisance, or host fees, or recycling or about continuing to collect funds for our abandoned landfills, there is nothing in that ordinance about how long the landfill should function for our county or what can go into the landfill…. I could go on and on. Controls? There are very few, and that is why we are so mad. We have been left to the mercy of the landfill’s control that the County gave away. Did you even read the final ordinance before you wrote this editorial? Commissioners George and Lewis gave away all our negotiating tools for any Control when they granted the landfill’s expansion in an ordinance. Any “controls” could have been dealt with in the Comprehensive Plan but the Commissioners decided to ignore that route. I don’t ever remember hearing the Commissioners discuss having “Control” in an open meeting. They had an agenda to keep and expand the landfill, and that agenda blinded them to the most obvious legal question in this conflict - simple standing law; Yamhill County does not allow landfills on farmland any more than it allows farmland in downtown McMinnville.

And I, of all people, can answer the Judge’s question… why we do not put landfills on farmland In Yamhill County. It is NOT because the county wants “Control.” That is absurd.. Show me this Control and I will show you a towering stack of trash breaching the tree line that is tanking all our property values! The reason we do not allow landfills on farmland is because back when Riverbend was re-upping its expansion in the late 80’s/early 90’s it was decided by those in power - DEQ, City Center Garbage (now WOW), and yes, even the County that the floodplain landfill was a BIG mistake – County Sanitarian, Dyke Mace told me that he knew my family had been screwed over by siting the dump next to our farm, that the river was a really bad place to put it, that other companies had offered to take our trash at lower costs into the gorge, but that I should at least take heart that it would close once and for all in 2014. He and the head of DEQ told me that it would be the last riverbank dump because the County chose NOT to amend the Comp plan to allow landfills on farmland.

Dyke Mace has died. I really liked that man. He told it like it is. I often wonder where we would be in this conflict if he were still at the County. He was the only official at the County level who has had the decency to come to my farm and apologize, give some sort of sympathy, even solidarity, to the fact the landfill has destroyed my family property. The destruction has seeped to many other farms and now a really strong coalition, including every agency that watches over our agricultural and environmental health has sided with our goal to close Riverbend down in 2014. Agriculture is 65% of this County’s tax base. The Wine industry is the brand that brings in the real tourist bacon. Not one industrial ag business or large farm uses or “needs” Riverbend Landfill. We are all resolute. Do not destroy farmland to build out an expansion of this monster dump.

Putting the blame on LUBA for ruling to uphold Yamhill County’s own law is intellectually shallow. Evoking George Bush’s cod piece and Sarah Palin’s political Mantra “GOTCHA POLITICS” in this article is classless. It begs the question… does this paper of record want to operate as a tabloid, or as a vehicle for compromise between the parties. Is this a consummate paper of sound research, reason, impartiality and diplomacy, or a contrarian's paper of conflict for conflict’s sake, bias and buffoonery?

In stead of spending valuable print space blaming State agencies now would be a good time that we all come together and figure out how to close the dump, keep our trash bills low, begin to inventory and consolidate the valuable waste found in logging, agriculture and solid waste, apply, as a county, for all the great green incentives ripe for the plucking and invite high tech green solid waste technology into the county that will create more jobs and innovation. If the County and the landfill, and yes, the News Register insist on continuing this fight (your choice now) then more families will be hurt, more money and time will be wasted. In the end we will be right back where we started…. with no updated Comprehensive Plan in place for the future of Yamhill County.

No, the Mission is not finished. LUBA is not the problem. The only one wasting time here is the County. If you must place blame, I would look to those whose egos and history run long and deep in this landfill conflict. They are misinterpreting the law and ignoring those who came before them who said the dump would close after this footprint was filled up. This isn’t Waste Management’s fault… they are but a corporate machine built to make the easiest buck. The fact the county let them fill Riverbend up with out-of-county waste 20 years ahead of schedule is not a reality any rational business person can blame Waste Management for. This is the County’s issue to fix.

Everyone knows my agenda but at least I am advocating for a compromise. – save the farms and the river and our garbage rates by extending the current dump without expanding the footprint until a better replacement, hopefully local, is up and running in its place. The County and a huge Texas Corporation and perhaps, this uninformed Editorial Board are jonesing for a 'winner takes all' fight. A fight with nothing assured, a fight that in the end - way, way down the road – has nothing positive or permanent accomplished in terms of what to really do with our waste.

Go ahead; kick the can down the road. I am here. So are the growing opposition coalition and our attorneys. We’ll kick it back – harder.

But, for now the Courts have thankfully spoken…

You cannot put landfills on farmland in Yamhill County.

Ramsey McPhillips
Representing only myself - "Going Rogue!"

LUBA Ruling Prevents Expansion of Yamhill County’s Riverbend Landfill

2010-07-09T17:39:00.000-07:00

PORTLAND, OR – July 7, 2010. Garvey Schubert Barer, representing Waste Not of Yamhill County, a coalition of Yamhill County businesses and citizens, reports that the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (“LUBA”) issued a final order in Waste Not v. Yamhill County, LUBA No. 2010-002, on July 6, concluding that Yamhill County violated the law in authorizing the expansion of the Riverbend Landfill.

Waste Not had numerous concerns with the proposed landfill expansion, but LUBA chose to focus on a single issue – whether the county’s decision to take an exception to the land use “Goals” is even possible. LUBA concluded that, because Goal 3 expressly allows landfills in farm land, no exception is possible. Bill Kabeiseman, lead attorney on the case, explains, “Goal 3 specifies only certain uses are acceptable on farm land. Although those uses include landfills, it is only if the local community authorizes such waste facilities. In this case, Yamhill County, through their adopted Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations, wisely chose not to allow landfills on valuable farm land in the county. LUBA’s decision enforces Yamhill County’s comprehensive plan and prevents the applicant from finding a way around the community’s desires by applying for, in this case, a mythical exception.”

LUBA rarely grants reversals, instead favoring remand to allow local governments to fix problems associated with improper zone changes. However, in this instance, because the re-zoning was prohibited as a matter of law, LUBA had no choice but to reverse this zone change.

Waste Not recognizes that the County has a window of opportunity, now, to explore waste disposal options that both protect the environment and benefit the community economically, creating family-wage jobs while protecting thriving local tourism and agricultural industries. Waste Not encourages the County to take advantage of that window of opportunity and pursue those other options.

Petitioners Welcome LUBA Ruling

2010-07-08T20:12:00.000-07:00

Waste Not of Yamhill County, the Yamhill County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Yamhill County Farm Bureau, Willamette Valley Wineries Association, Willamette Riverkeeper and fourteen additional co-petitioners are gratified that the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals has stopped, at least temporarily, expansion of Riverbend Landfill.

Waste Not and its fellow petitioners represent a broad community-based coalition of resource and business organizations, farmers, vintners, and residents. The Land Use Board of Appeals ruled last Tuesday that the Riverbend regional landfill cannot expand unless the Yamhill County Zoning Ordinance is first amended to allow landfills on EFU farmland.

The County and Riverbend Landfill must now decide whether to continue the court process by appealing LUBA's ruling or to amend the Yamhill County Zoning Ordinance to allow landfills on farmland in Yamhill County.

Waste Not and its coalition urge the County and Riverbend to instead work with the community to find a new way to manage solid waste. Riverbend Landfill has told the County that it will accept County waste only through October 2014. Yamhill County's Commissioners need to begin now to develop a plan for a post-landfill future.

Members of Waste Not of Yamhill County
Kris Bledsoe Clark Ellingson Lee Frease John McGhehey
Ramsey McPhillips Susan Meredith Ilsa Perse Susan Watkins

LUBA Nixes Riverbend Landfill expansion

2010-07-07T15:06:00.000-07:00

By Hannah Hoffman

The Land Use Board of Appeals reversed the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners’ decision to expand Riverbend Landfill Wednesday. Commissioners Kathy George and Leslie Lewis had approved the expansion in November.

LUBA judge Melissa Ryan wrote the opinion. In reversing the decision, the board cited the fact that Yamhill County approved an exception to land use planning Goal Three, which requires the preservation of farmland, in order to rezone Riverbend’s property to public works and safety, the zone required under Yamhill County’s zoning ordinances.

Ryan wrote that because landfills are allowed under the statewide Goal Three, albeit not in the county, Yamhill County should not have taken an exception and instead should have changed its zoning ordinance to allow landfills on farmland.

Riverbend has the option to appeal the decision. If it does not, the expansion will not go forward. Jackie Lang, spokeswoman for Riverbend’s parent company, Waste Management, Inc., said a decision had not been made as of Wednesday morning.

County Counsel John Gray said Yamhill County also has the option of an appeal.

Conservation Groups File Opposition Appeal to Landfill Expansion

2010-05-15T13:46:00.000-07:00

McMINNVILLE — Waste Not of Yamhill County, an association of conservationists and property owners near the Riverbend Landfill, have followed through on plans to appeal the county’s approval of the site’s expansion plans.
Attorney Bill Kabeiseman filed a petition for review May 5 to the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The petition is on behalf of Waste Not as well as the county Farm Bureau, Soil and Water Conservation District, the Willamette Valley Wineries Association and half-a-dozen vineyards.
First proposed in late 2008, the 109-acre expansion was touted by employees of Waste Management Inc., the landfill’s parent company, as necessary to continue operations past 2014 and ensure current rates remained in place. Opponents, meanwhile, argued that as much of the waste (some 48 percent, according to Metro) was from out-of-county, an expansion was not necessary to serve local needs.
Because the expansion area includes land presently zoned for exclusive farm use, and some wetlands, Waste Management sought a state land use goal exemption from the county as part of their application. Although denied by the county planning commission, the expansion was eventually approved by the Board of Commissioners.
The appeal argues that the commissioners did not sufficiently demonstrate that granting the goal exemption was truly necessary — “to the extent there is any need, it is to manage solid waste, not to expand (or) ... site a landfill in the county,” Kabeiseman argued, adding that the commissioners did not go far enough in exploring alternatives — including shipping waste to out-of-county landfills.
“There is simply nothing in the (statewide land use planning) goals that requires that the county look only to properties within the county for a site to dispose of solid waste,” he wrote. “Most counties in the state do not need a regional landfill within their boundaries in order to serve their residents.”
One of the chief arguments in favor of expansion, advanced by local industry (including Newberg’s SP Newsprint mill) was the need to maintain low disposal rates, which would increase if waste were shipped out of county.
Kabeiseman dismisses this as an inadequate justification, writing: “Increasing Yamhill County’s stated disposal costs from $30.30 to $35.30, or even $38.30 per ton, does not justify a goal exemption when the adjacent region (Metro) is currently imposing a disposal rate in excess of $80 (per ton)... If anything, the costs charged to dispose of waste at Riverbend serves only to subsidize solid waste disposal in Yamhill County when the rate should be significantly higher.”
Waste Management spokeswoman Jackie Lang did not respond to a request for comment by press time Friday morning, but has previously stated that the appeal was expected, though disappointing, and that the company would lend its assistance to county officials in defending the original verdict.
LUBA, a division of the state Department of Land Conservation and Development, conducts administrative reviews of land use decisions. A decision is expected later this year.
By DAVID SALE
NEWBERG GRAPHIC May 15th, 2010

Yamhill County InEntec Presentation

2010-04-17T10:23:00.000-07:00

Waste company to report

Garbage is something that normally goes “out of mind” as soon as it goes “out of sight” — either into a garbage truck or dropped off at the landfill or a transfer station. But it’s at this point that garbage (municipal waste) becomes the responsibility of either Western Oregon Waste or Waste Management. Both these companies have contracts or franchise agreements with Yamhill County that set the rates residents pay for waste disposal.

The Solid Waste Advisory Committee oversees these agreements and reports to the commissioners. Garbage management is hardly exciting, but it’s getting more interesting and it’s become a political issue.

Nearly all the county’s waste goes to the Riverbend Landfill (some people call it a dump) on Highway 18 southwest of McMinn-ville. The resulting mound now rises above the trees and could be about to cover a lot more acreage. No one, including WM, is enthusiastic about this growing mountain, but the alternatives are limited and the garbage has to go somewhere.

SWAC continues to evaluate alternatives to the landfill and will listen to one possibility during their meeting next week. Waste Management will present the status of a process to turn waste into diesel fuel, and the possibility of the process replacing the Riverbend Landfill as the primary destination for our waste.

As chair of SWAC, I invite you to this meeting, which is an opportunity for the public to offer an opinion or simply learn more about one of the county’s efforts to be a bit “greener:” 4 p.m. Wednesday, April 21, Room 32 at Yamhill County Courthouse.

Brian Doyle
Newberg

PRESS RELEASE

2010-03-23T15:50:00.001-07:00

Waste Not of Yamhill County applauds Texas-based Waste Management Inc. (WMI) for its decision to add plasma arc technology to Oregon's solid waste disposal options. WMI is partnering with Bend's Inentec to develop the promising technology at its Columbia Ridge disposal site at Arlington in Gilliam County. WMI and InEnTec hope to have the process up and running at full speed within five years or less.

Last year, Yamhill County Commissioners held hearings to decide whether to allow Riverbend Landfill, located on the South Yamhill River, to expand. During those hearings, Waste Not asked County Commissioners to consider bringing the Inentec plasma arc or other environmentally and economically friendly technology to Yamhill County. The CEO of InEnTec confirmed to Waste Not that the company was economically and environmentally prepared to offer Yamhill County its high temperature gasification system at the company's expense. At that time, WMI--which owns the company that runs Riverbend--resisted this suggestion, claiming the technology was unproven and expensive and would take too long to implement. After Waste Not revealed its conversations with InEnTec, WMI invested in the company.

Waste Not is pleased to see that since partnering with InEnTec, WMI has changed its position on the viability of high temperature gasification. We hope this may signal a change in plans for Yamhill County.

The plasma arc process utilizes extremely high temperatures to produce both syngas, which can be converted to fuel or electricity, and a glassy substance that locks toxins in and can be used in construction. The process creates three times as much energy as it uses, without polluting emissions.

Unlike a smelly, noisy landfill topped with heavy equipment, shiny plastic, and scavenging birds, the plasma arc process can be housed inside an attractive, enclosed facility. Visitors to the area won't even know it's there.

Plasma arc technology also means high-paying jobs. InEnTec has announced that the Arlington project will add 16 permanent "green" jobs, some of which may pay six figures. Waste must be pre-sorted, creating yet more jobs and another source of income from material recovery.

Plasma arc gasification offers a welcome alternative to landfills. Landfills are the nation's largest emitter of methane, a devastating greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Even systems that turn landfill gas into electricity--like the one ready to go online at Riverbend--leak tons of methane into the atmosphere. Expanding landfills for the purpose of collecting methane to burn to generate electricity cannot be justified economically or environmentally. Burning the garbage directly, as in a low-oxygen plasma arc gasification system, generates far more energy and sequesters all the methane that forms when garbage decomposes.

Landfills pose other environmental and economic problems. At depositories like Riverbend Landfill where garbage is not pre-sorted, toxic materials may be dumped. Because landfill liners will eventually leak, these wastes pose unknown challenges to future generations. Recyclables also make their way into landfills like Riverbend, using capacity and requiring ever larger landfills that encroach on waterways and farmland.

Waste Not is encouraged that WMI is taking essential steps that could phase out landfills in the near future. Now Waste Not asks WMI to take InEnTec up on its original offer to bring plasma arc gasification technology to Riverbend instead of expanding the landfill into the South Yamhill River floodplain.

Waste Not Of Yamhill County

County double-crossed

2010-03-13T13:19:00.000-08:00

Last week, Waste Management Inc. announced plans for a small-scale plasma arc gasification facility for processing municipal solid waste to be in operation late this year at their Columbia Ridge site (Arlington). This demonstrates a radical change in position on this technology for both Waste Management and the two Yamhill County commissioners, Lewis and George. After a presentation by Waste Management on this new facility, both commissioners were quoted as saying they “liked” what they heard.

Last March at the Riverbend rezoning hearing, I represented Waste Not of Yamhill County and presented detailed evidence of plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative to landfilling that deserved an opportunity to be explored for Yamhill County. Specifically, I noted that St. Lucie County, Fla., after three years of intensive research, had approved and will build a plasma arc plant to handle their daily incoming waste stream and remediate their existing landfill within 18 years. Were the commissioners listening then? It appears not.

At that same March hearing, Waste Management, which surely was completely aware of this technology’s potential, chose to strongly criticize it as an option now and for the foreseeable future. Now, they are acting as if it is some newly discovered idea of their own and touting its benefits. Adding further insult, they have chosen to implement their “proof of concept” plant at Arlington, not in Yamhill County. This cost Yamhill County those newly created jobs that facility requires for both construction and operation.

The good news is now that Waste Management Inc. has endorsed plasma arc gasification, it is very difficult for anyone to pretend that this technology is not a viable alternative that deserves further consideration. It’s just sad it’s not happening in Yamhill County.

Susan Meredith
McMinnville

The Day The Landfill Died

2010-03-05T09:49:00.000-08:00

S4 Energy Solutions Announces Plasma Gasification Project

HOUSTON and GILLIAM COUNTY, Ore. S4 Energy Solutions LLC, a joint venture by Waste Management, Inc. and InEnTec LLC, today announced plans to develop a plasma gasification facility at Waste Management's Columbia Ridge Landfill in Arlington, Oregon. The planned facility will be a comprehensive and integrated S4 designed solution that will convert municipal solid waste into clean fuels and renewable energy.

Construction is expected to begin in the early summer, with startup scheduled by year end. The project is expected to create up to 28 jobs during the construction phase, with up to 16 permanent green jobs when the facility is operational.

"Our goal is to extract as much value as possible from waste and this project will help us recover valuable resources to generate clean fuels, renewable energy and other beneficial products," said Dean Kattler, area vice president for Waste Management Pacific Northwest. "This project strengthens our focus on renewable energy and new technologies that use waste as a resource. We are committed to growing our business in this region in innovative ways, bringing green jobs to communities where we already have operations and community relationships."

With the S4 system, waste materials are prepared and fed into a first phase gasification chamber that operates at temperatures of approximately 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. After the first phase, the waste materials flow into a second closed chamber where they are superheated to temperatures between 10,000 and 20,000 degrees Fahrenheit using an electricity-conducting gas called plasma. The intense heat of the second stage plasma gasifier rearranges the molecular structure of the waste, transforming organic (carbon-based) materials into an ultra-clean, synthesis gas (syngas). The clean syngas may then be converted into transportation fuels such as ethanol and diesel, or industrial products like hydrogen and methanol. The syngas could also be used as a substitute for natural gas for heating or electricity generation. In a secondary stage of the PEM(TM) process, inorganic (non-carbon-based) materials are transformed into environmentally inert products.

The new plasma gasification facility will complement the landfill site's other renewable energy production. Waste Management began generating renewable electricity at the site in January 2010 with the startup of a new landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) facility. The LFGTE process captures methane gas generated as waste decomposes in the landfill and then uses the gas to generate 6 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The electricity is powering 5,000 homes in Seattle through an agreement with Seattle City Light. Wind power is also generated at the landfill, with 67 windmills producing more than 100 MW of renewable energy for PacifiCorp.

"Plasma gasification has garnered a lot of attention recently, as we look for new ways to sustainably manage waste while recovering valuable resources," said Jeff Surma, president and chief executive officer of S4 Energy Solutions. "We believe the project will demonstrate commercial viability of the new S4 integrated system, so that we can implement this technology at many other locations for a wide variety of applications."

S4 Energy Solutions was formed in May 2009 as a joint venture between Waste Management and InEnTec. The partnership combines Waste Management's industry leadership and expertise in the collection and management of a wide range of waste streams with InEnTec's PEM(TM) technology.

Together with Waste Management's other renewable energy initiatives, the joint venture has moved Waste Management toward meeting two of its sustainability goals, doubling its renewable energy production to a energy equivalent of powering two million homes by 2020, and investing in emerging technologies for managing waste. It is also complementary to Waste Management's comprehensive waste services in the areas of recycling, landfill, and waste-to-energy and landfill gas-to-energy capabilities.

Surprise rejection at Riverbend Landfill

2010-02-27T13:45:00.000-08:00

Whatchama Column
By Jeb Bladine

Riverbend Landfill annoyed me this week — actually, “infuriated” better describes my initial feelings about a major inconvenience due to rules that nobody knows. But I calmed down long enough to do some research on solid waste disposal in northwest Oregon.

It turns out, there actually is method behind the madness that had me snarling at Riverbend manager George Duvendack.
First, the madness part: Our family cleaned out old contents of a mobile home in Beaverton last weekend, returning with a trailer full of mixed “dry waste.” Its final destination, I thought, would be Riverbend Landfill on Monday morning.

“Where is all this from?” the check-in lady asked. I answered honestly, thinking it was just a normal survey to track the flow of solid waste.

“I’m sorry,” she said, “you’ll have to take it back to a Portland-area facility.”

I was dumbstruck. I heard her explain that Riverbend cannot accept dry waste materials generated in the tri-county Metro area. But all I could think of was those hundreds of truckloads of household garbage that Metro-area haulers bring to Riverbend, with all manner of dry waste mixed in.

After the madness subsided, I decided to research the method. I learned about EDWRP, the Enhanced Dry Waste Recovery Program run by Metro in Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties. Here’s a thumbnail version:

Dry waste primarily is construction/demolition debris, but it also includes furniture and all throwaway items not mixed with putrescible wastes. Under rules in effect since mid-2009, all dry waste generated in the Metro area must be delivered to Metro-authorized material recovery centers for sorting out everything that can be recycled.

Riverbend, by agreement with Metro, will not bend that rule, as I learned the hard way. That same rigid policy begins March 1 at the Newberg Transfer Site when that operation officially becomes owned by Waste Management, Inc., Riverbend’s parent company.

I’m speculating that many Washington County residents take dry wastes to Newberg. After all, its dumping fees, like those at Riverbend, are far lower than costs at Metro landfills and recovery facilities. So, lots of people are going to experience that feeling of angry disbelief I had Monday morning at Riverbend.

Some will lie about the source of their trash; others will accept the legitimate effort to reduce what we put into landfills. Here in Yamhill County, until EDWRP comes our way, we’ll just keep taking our dry wastes to low-cost Riverbend.

Jeb Bladine is editor and publisher of the News-Register.

Waste makes Haste:

2010-02-25T09:07:00.000-08:00

In Canada, Waste Management (NYSE:WM) announced a strategic investment in Enerkem, as part of Enerkem’s new $51.5 million financing round, which included Rho Ventures, Braemar Energy Ventures and BDR Capital and Cycle Capital among new investors.

Enerkem uses a proprietary thermo-chemical technology (green gasification and catalytic conversion) to convert heterogeneous materials into ethanol. R&D is underway to produce Synthetic gasoline (syngas), Synthetic diesel, and Dimethyl Ether (DME). Among its research partners are University of Sherbrooke, LeHigh University, Mississippi State University and Alberta Energy Research Institute.

The new funds raised will be used to support Enerkem’s growth plan, including initiating the construction of its second waste-to-biofuels plant in partnership with the City of Edmonton and Alberta Innovates. Production of methanol and second generation ethanol will begin at its Edmonton municipal solid waste-to-biofuels production facility by 2011. The plant will produce 10 Mgy of ethanol. Enerkem signed a 25 year agreement with the City of Edmonton for the supply of 100,000 tonnes of sorted municipal solid waste to be used as feedstock. The Edmonton biofuels plant will be situated at the City’s leading Edmonton Waste Managed Center (EWMC).

More on Waste Management

The investment by Waste Management represents its third in the waste-to-energy space, after investments last year in S4 Technologies — a joint venture of WM and InEnTec, proving plasma gasification of waste into energy streams — and an investment in waste-to-energy developer Terrabon.

Terrabon ranked #47 out of more than 1400 eligible companies in the 2009-10 “50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy” rankings released by Biofuels Digest in December. Depending on chemical pathway chosen, Terrabon can produce mixed primary alcohols (a mix of ethanol, propanol, butanol, pentanol, hexanol and heptanol), mixed secondary alcohols (a mix of isopropanol, 2-butanol, 3-pentanol, 2-pentanol, etc), green gasoline, green diesel and green jet fuel. Terrabon, which is operating a 5-ton per day semi works plant using sweet sorghum as feedstocxk, has joint venture arrangements with Valero and Waste Management, and licensing arrangements for larger facilities (300 to 500-ton per day) using agricultural and forest residue, food scraps and non-food energy crops as feedstock.

WMlogoLast May, Waste Management Inc. and InEnTec announced a joint venture, called S4 Energy Solutions, that will produce renewable fuel, power and industrial products as well as to generate electricity, using plasma gasification. In plasma gasification, biomass is fed into a closed chamber and superheated to temperatures of up to 20,000 degrees fahrenheit. The intense heat transforms biomass into syngas, which is then reformulated using into ethanol and green diesel, hydrogen, methanol or methane.

A secondary process can convert the base materials into other industrial chemicals. S4 Energy Solutions’ initial focus will be to process medical and other segregated commercial and industrial waste streams. The company’s future commercialization plans may also include the processing of municipal solid waste once the technology has been demonstrated to be economical and scalable for such use. The S4 technology is designed with unique advances in plasma technology that increase the lifespan of high-cost elements such as the refractories.

The S4 project grew out of a collaboration between InEnTec and WMI’s Organic Growth Group, a corporate venture unit. The venture focused on plasma, as opposed to straight gasification, because the higher temperatures of the plasma process produce an ultra-clean syngas that more fully utilizes and destroys potentially dangerous waste, and because ultra-clean syngas is more useful in the commercial activity of producing high-end fuels and chemicals. The plasma approach allows WMI to expand its service offering to its current customer base by making certain types of waste easier to handle. The technology will be based on a distributed generation module – rather than large-scale facilities aggregating waste from multiple clients the venture will focus on smaller markets with modules designed to handle 5 to 125 tons per day. The distributed approach allows WMI to offer an alternative to clients who have to long-haul waste, or whose waste is too toxic to safely transport. Clients are expected initially to use all of the power and fuel for their own use, but S4 said it expects that some clients in the future, especially for those producing large amounts of fuel, will seek to sell the fuels in the open market for added revenue.

Think residue, not waste

With the investments, Waste Management is moving towards meeting three of its sustainability goals: doubling its renewable energy production and tripling the amount of recyclables processed by 2020, and investing in emerging technologies for managing waste.

In December 2009, Enerkem was awarded US$50 million in funding by the U.S. Department of Energy for development of its planned Mississippi plant, a third project. Enerkem will build and operate the 300 ton-per-day biorefinery in Pontotoc, which will produce 20 Mgy of ethanol, as well as green chemicals, from sorted municipal solid waste and wood residues and will reduce the pressure to landfill. Enerkem signed a Memorandum of Intent for the supply of 189,000 tons of unsorted municipal solid waste per year, for use as feedstock, with the Three Rivers Solid Waste Management Authority of Mississippi. Since the announcement of its Mississippi project last March, the company has made substantial progress on the environmental permitting process and has further developed the project with its local partners, the Three Rivers Planning and Development District and the Three Rivers Solid Waste Management Authority. The project is expected to create 130 jobs. The company also intends to double the size of its Mississippi biorefinery plant by adding a second module, bringing the total production capacity to 20 million gallons.

Its 1.3 Mgy commercial-scale demonstration facility in Westbury, Canada, which was completed in 2009, has reached 1,000 hours of operation, and overall the company has completed 3600 hours of piloting and testing since 2003.

The investment in Enerkem complements Waste Management’s comprehensive waste services in the areas of recycling, landfill, waste-to-energy and landfill gas-to-energy.

Daily Biofuels Digest Feb 25, 2010

This could have happened here!

2010-02-24T22:49:00.000-08:00

Metro chooses new operator for transfer station which will create new jobs and benefits.

Metro announces new operator for Metro Central solid waste transfer station

Plans call for doubling recycling, robust sustainability efforts, new jobs and benefits

For the first time since it opened in 1990, operations at the Metro Central solid waste transfer station are changing hands. Metro and Recology Oregon Recovery Inc. have signed an estimated $38 million, seven-year contract that will signal considerable changes for the northwest Portland facility that takes in trash and recyclables from commercial waste haulers, businesses and residents.

Following a thorough evaluation by an interagency evaluation team, Metro determined that Recology had the best and most competitive proposal to manage Metro Central. The decision to award the contract to Recology was based primarily on its guarantee to double the rate of materials recycled, the company’s robust sustainability plan which includes reducing its carbon footprint, and improved opportunities for employees at the station - – all without significant increases in operation costs.

Recology initially plans to employ 46 workers, but that number will likely rise to 59 as activities increase. The pay for entry level positions will be higher than current pay levels at the station, and Recology will provide health benefits as well as community service days for employees. The contract with Metro also requires Recology to work with vendors that are either local, third-party certified (such as the Green Seal for environmental standards) or members of the Minority, Women, and Emerging Small Businesses program.

While residents who have their garbage and recycling picked up at the curb will not see any immediate changes, and Metro expects little to no impact on disposal rates, modifications will be made to improve services at the station to allow Recology to double the current rate of recycling from 17 percent to 34 percent by the end of the first year of operations, and to 40 percent by the end of the contract in 2017. Stepping up the recovery of cardboard, wood and metal will make up much of that increase. Recology also plans to accept new materials at Metro Central, including asphalt roofing and clean drywall.

In the agreement with Metro, Recology has outlined aggressive plans to improve sustainable operations for the transfer station and to cut greenhouse gas emissions to become carbon-neutral by 2015. The plans involve:

· running the station solely on wind power purchased through PGE’s Clean Wind program

· implementing an energy efficiency plan for the facility

· reducing pollution generated by on-site equipment through the use of B5 biodiesel and diesel catalytic converters

· creating better traffic flow and material handling to reduce vehicle idling

· installing a high-pressure system for washing trucks to reduce water usage

· using the least-toxic solvents, oils, and lubricants for equipment maintenance.

Metro requires Recology to monitor and report on the progress of its sustainable practices through the life of the contract by implementing an industry-approved environmental management system at the transfer station.

Recology is one of three companies that submitted proposals to run operations at the regional solid waste transfer stations owned by Metro. Allied Waste Transfer Services of Oregon, LLC, the current operator of both Metro transfer stations, and GreenWaste ZankerAlso submitted proposals.

The agreement with Recology involves only operations at Metro Central. In the past both transfer stations were managed by one company, but Metro determined that since the two transfer stations are different in design and operation that it would be more effective to separate operations. Central’s size and layout offers more opportunities to recover and recycle materials, while the layout of Metro South makes it less flexible, limiting options to expand recovery at the site.

Congratulations SP Newsprint!

2010-01-26T10:11:00.000-08:00

Jan. 25 -- SP Newsprint Co. LLC´s paper mills in Dublin, Ga., and Newberg, Ore., have achieved certification through a trio of organizations. The recycled paper mills achieved Forest Stewardship Council, Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification and Sustainable Forest Initiative Chain-of-Custody certifications, the company said. The mills produce 836,000 tons of 100% recycled newsprint at the two mills annually."Having FSC, PEFC and SFI Chain-of-Custody certification at both our newsprint mills assures our customers of the company´s commitment to show responsible stewardship of environmental resources," said Christopher Brant, president and chief operating officer. SP Newsprint is the fourth largest newsprint manufacturer in North America. Along with the two mills, the company also operates 22 recycling facilities through its subsidiary, SP Recycling Corp.

Waste News, Jan 25, 2010

Solid Waste Advisory Committee

2010-01-18T20:13:00.000-08:00

Brian Doyle of Yamhill County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee has called on the Committee to play a larger role in landfill matters. Over the past year and a half, while Riverbend Landfill was pressing its case for doubling the amount of waste it can legally dump on the South Yamhill River, SWAC was ordered to play only a tiny, peripheral role, commenting on the projected appearance of the expanded dump. County officials and SWAC's own waste disposal industry members refused to let the Committee comment on the reasonableness of landfilling waste at this point in time, let alone the merits of Riverbend's specific proposal.

When SWAC was asked by the County to oversee the Zia study, which looked at alternative solid waste disposal methods, SWAC-developed criteria were ignored by the final Zia Report and the County Board of Commissioners didn't even ask SWAC or its members for their comments or recommendations.

Now SWAC member Doyle has suggested that SWAC become more proactive with regard to landfill issues. His proposal will be debated at the SWAC meeting scheduled for January 20, 2010, at 4:00 pm in Room 32 in the basement of the Yamhill County Courthouse, at 5th and Evans in McMinnville.

2010-01-13T14:17:00.000-08:00

Landfill critics file LUBA appeal

Land use — Appellants a coalition of opponents that includes industry groups and quasi-governmental agencies

Published: David Sale Newberg Graphic 1/13/2010

Opponents of the Riverbend landfill expansion, approved in November by the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners, have made good on their threat to appeal the decision to the state — and they’re not doing so alone.

In addition to neighboring property owners, the appeal’s backers include the Willamette Valley Wineries association (plus individual McMinnville-area winemakers), the chairman of McMinnville’s Chamber of Commerce, members of the Yamhill County Farm Bureau, Willamette Riverkeepers and the Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District.

“We have a fairly long history of commenting on land use and speaking against decisions that would adversely affect resource land,” said Tim Stieber, executive director of Soil and Water Conservation District. “That said, I’ve been here 10 years and this is the first time I’ve seen us take legal action over a county land use decision.”

The seven-member elected board of directors for the district (part of a quasi-governmental state agency with branches in each Oregon county) were moved to do so by the scale of the decision, Stieber said, after holding a special session on the matter.

“In this case, we just felt that the impacts were avoidable, that there are viable alternatives,” he said. “(Riverbend) has become a large industrial area, a regional landfill, but that wasn’t the vision sold to the public when it opened 20 years ago. A regional site deserves a regional solution — like shipment to Coffin Butte or Arlington.”

According to the appeal, prepared by attorney William Kabeiseman, the expansion approval ignored evidence detailing the negative impacts of landfill operations and ignore evidence that Riverbend is not the only viable solid waste disposal site available to Yamhill County, which (he argues) should disqualify the decision from meeting the necessary state land-use goal exemption to expand onto agricultural-zoned land nearby.

A similar view was expressed by Erin Rainey, a member of the county’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee, who also joined the appeal efforts.
“All these groups had valid reasons for opposing the expansion, but they were not taken into account,” Rainey said of the opposition to the land use decision. “Instead, we heard that the most important issue, from the commissioners’ perspective, was keeping rates low for businesses.”

Even at the risk of a rate increase, Rainey argued, the long-term benefits of developing alternative disposal outweighed the costs.
“We do not need to be responsible for accepting waste from other counties to keep rates reasonably low,” she said, pointing to last year’s alternatives study. “Why do we need to be a regional landfill site? The alternative technologies that are out there would be easier to implement for a smaller, Yamhill County-only waste stream.”

The appeal has been made to the Land Use Board of Appeals, a branch of the state Department of Land Conservation and Development. Such reviews are generally a lengthy process and supporters say it could be a year before the board reaches a verdict.

Riverbend’s parent company, Waste Management, in a previous press release, stated that the expansion is in the public interest, that the company adheres to state and federal environmental regulations and is confident the approval will withstand appeal.

David Sale

Landfill Should Never Be Expanded

2010-01-13T14:13:00.000-08:00

To the editor:

I am proud to be among the co-petitioners that have filed to appeal the destructive and unnecessary expansion of Riverbend Landfill.

I am a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, a commissioner-appointed group that voted to make environmental considerations the most important criteria of the expansion determination — a vote that was not considered by the Zia Report authors and thus ignored by commissioners Lewis and George when they made their decision to approve the landfill.
SWAC, the very committee created to advise the county on garbage policy and financing, was thus marginalized, ignored and inevitably eliminated from the county-decision making process, along with all the rest of us that testified in opposition including the county’s own planning commission.

Nonetheless, the coalition that has come together to appeal the expansion, anchored by Waste Not, gives me great hope. It includes the entire Soil and Water District, whose unprecedented vote to oppose the county they are elected to protect was not an easy one; the Yamhill County Farm Bureau; the 200-plus member Willamette Valley Wineries Association, which includes three of Oregon’s oldest vineyards — Erie, Panther Creek and Yamhill Valley Vineyards; Moe Momtazi, whose vineyard is known world wide for its bio-dynamically grown grapes; and Wayne Bailey, the owner of the beautiful Youngberg Inn and current president of the McMinnville Chamber of Commerce.

The list also includes Travis Williams of Willamette Riverkeepers, who heads Oregon’s most esteemed waterway advocate and protector; and Ramsey McPhillips, whose 150-year-old family farm I have personally witnessed being destroyed by landfill gas, noise and site pollution.
But by far I am most proud of two co-petitioners, Shannon and Haley Cox, my daughters, whose fight to save all our farms, land, water, air and garbage rates for future generations is the real reason the landfill should never be expanded in this bountiful place we call home.

Erin Rainey, McMinnville

Landfill Expansion Appealed

2010-01-05T07:36:00.000-08:00

On January 5th, 2010, a coalition of Yamhill County organizations and individuals, led by Waste Not of Yamhill County, filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) to overturn the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners' approval of Ordinance 849. Ordinance 849 rezones EFU-80 (Exclusive Farm Use) land to accommodate a major expansion of Riverbend Landfill on the South Yamhill River near McMinnville, Oregon.

According to William Kabeiseman, attorney for Waste Not, the Findings for Approval adopted by the Commissioners ignore evidence detailing the negative impacts both the existing landfill and the proposed expansion have already had on County residents, farms and businesses and ignores evidence that Riverbend is not the only viable solid waste disposal system available to Yamhill County. Those Findings, Kabeiseman says, do not support setting aside state Land Use Goals to allow for expansion of the landfill onto high-value farmland.

Waste Not is joined in its appeal by the Yamhill County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Yamhill County Farm Bureau, Willamette Valley Wineries Association, Willamette Riverkeeper, and fourteen other local businesses, organizations, and individuals.

Waste Not and its fellow petitioners anticipate a favorable ruling from LUBA that will protect the farms, jobs, air, and water of Yamhill County.

Yamhill County Commissioners Approve Landfill Expansion

2009-11-09T18:52:00.000-08:00

Although we are disappointed by the vote of the Yamhill County Bd of Commissioners to approve Riverbend Landfill’s land-use application, we are not deterred from our mission to stop expansion of this outdated unnecessary use of farmland and floodplain. We will be reviewing our options with our attorney but we fully expect to appeal this decision.

Ironically, as this legal process moves forward, neither Waste Management’s landfill expansion nor an alternative waste disposal method will be advanced in the County. Had the Commissioners denied the application, the County could have opened a competitive process to identify the most beneficial solid waste system for Yamhill County while Waste Management Inc., operator of Riverbend Landfill, sued to overturn the decision. Now, Yamhill County’s solid waste policy will be stalled and neither a landfill nor an alternative will be pursued until the courts have had their final say. When that day arrives, we will find ourselves behind the rest of the region, which will have moved on to alternatives. Yamhill County will have lost its chance to direct the region’s waste flow into a greener solid waste resource economy and will once again be beholden to outside forces.

Waste Not is determined to preserve the County’s farm lands, including the river, drinking water aquifer , and tourist corridor, from the obsolete process of land filling. Like the Commissioners, we hope, Waste Management will shift to the solid waste alternatives they promote in other jurisdictions, and that WMI will move on from this unnecessary landfill expansion to a solution that favors the County’s long term economic and environmental health. We are concerned that approval of this expansion has removed all incentive for WMI to implement modern solid waste practices.

Waste Not Of Yamhill County is dedicated to the pursuit of alternatives to our solid waste problem. We will continue advocating for reduced waste generation and for disposal methods that are safe, fair, cost effective, and sustainable.