HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-24 95-193 RESOLVECOUNCIL ACTION
Item No. 95-193
Date
Item/subject: Supporting Passage of LD 447 to Permit Expansion of
Sawyer Landfill in Hangtderi, Maine
Responsible Department: ExeCUtive/Legal
The Municipal Review Committee, Inc. (MRC) has requested titer cities and
towns utilizing the Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (PERC) Consider
endorsing LD 447. This proposed bill would allow the Sawyer Environmental
Recovery Facility to explore the passibility of expanding its operation on
land it presently owns adjacent to its Hampden site. Currently, Sawyer
provides for the disposal of ash and front-end process residue from PERC's
Operations.
The bill is not approval for the expansion of the landfill. It merely
allows the Sawyer facility to apply for a permit. Under current
ent State
law, they are barred from a applying for a permit because they did not
own the property prior to September 30, 1989. The bill would move the
September 30, 1989 date back to December 30, 1989, thus allowing for the
permit application process to proceed. The parcel became Sawyer property
in November, 1989.
New landfill capacity for front-end waste i ial a existing
disposal options at favorable disposal rates will probably end in the
fall. Without a site near the plant, costs for trucking and disposing of
the waste will increase significantly for all communities, including
Sanger.
, /Ami
Department Head
Manage 's Crnmments:
INI n XjNo J> *'Cilrow/ �r
nwur%{ijop>./»/
0j .2 t' nsr / X 14 1V/k'/ Cpl frr�l l✓
�/v�/ p O /I/ /n✓ qv //C /lf/I `O�
&)W City Manager
Associated
%rf+ik%7tion
0#W 1414'/nAl"I' kiw6j k -.!K
Finance Director
Legal Approval: (OVncdsr} COWn And Tyler
Um6,e a tnn%lits 4 !0"f on {Ws iNm.
Cicv solvc'[or
Introduced For
x Passage
First Reading
Referral to Muni Ops Page _ of
Assigned to Councilor Blanchette April 24, 199595-193
CITY OF BANGOR
NTLEJ �gl I Support ng pa aage oe LD 447 (117th Leg el tore,
�E$p ................. _. _._ _._... .______.
First Regular Session) to Permit Expansion of
Sawyer Landfill in Hampden, Maine
By de City Ccuma3 d all ofBanmr.
RESOLVED,
WHEREAS, the City of Bangor is one of 90 so-called "Charter"
municipalities which are parties to legally binding
Put -or -Pay waste disposal agreements with the privately
owned waste -to -energy solid waste incineration facility
known as the Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (FERC);
and
WHEREAS, under its agreement with PERC, the City of Bangor is
obligated to deliver or cause to be delivered some
27,000 tons per year of municipal solid waste to the
PERC facility in Orrington, Maine; and
WHEREAS, PERC incineration of Bangor's municipal solid waste
requires PERC t0 dispose of some 8,600± tons of
resulting ash and front-end process residue per year;
and
WHEREAS, an additional 60 communities also have similar long-term
contracts with PERC whose tonnage, when combined with
that of the Charter Municipalities, totals 200,000 tons
of the 248,000 tons processed at PERC in 1994; and
wHEREAs, the processing of waste at PERC requires the support of
ash and front-end process residue disposal facilities to
handle that waste which totals some 64,000 tons
generated by the charter and longterm contract
municipalities; and
WHEREAS, state law requires each municipality to provide for
disposal facilities for solid waste emanating from
normal c tial and residential sources within the
municipality; and
95-193
WHEREAS, known disposal options for PERC-generated front-end
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the City of
Bangor, by its City council, resolves to inform the legislature
of the needs of our residents and of our businesses and to
explicitly state that this Council supports the passage of LD 447
and believes the baseline criteria for considerations for any and
all proposed construction or expansion of solid waste facilities
are cost effectiveness and environmental soundness, and the
passage of this legislation works toward that end.
process residue are only available until October of
1995; and
WHEREAS,
it has been estimated that failure to find a cost
effective disposal solution for front-end process
residue will coat the 90 MatterMunicipalitiesin
excess of $1,000,000 per year; and
WHEREAS,
the State and municipal governments have a joint duty to
the taxpayers to provide cost effective meansof waste
management in general, and in particular the state
through the Maine Waste Management Agency has assumed
the duty of providing future ash capacity to be
potentially utilized by the State's waste -do -energy
facilities totalling a public investment of
$350,000,000; and
WHEREAS,
the existing disposal capacity for PERC-generated ash i
finite with about seven years of life remaining with the
current disposal option; and _
WHEREAS,
the Charter Municipalities have developed a cost
effective contractual arrangement with the PERC
facility, that facility represents a $100,000,000
investment, and cost effective means of ash and
front-end process residue disposal are a critical
variable in maintaining the overall cost effectiveness
of the PERC facility; and
WHEREAS,
we are familiar with the scope and content of DO 229, an
Act to Abolish the Maine Waste Management Agency and LD
447, as Act Regarding Expansion of Certain Waste
Disposal Facilities now pending; and
WHEREAS,
proximity to the PERC plant is a critical variable i
determining the overall cost effectiveness of a given
disposal option; and
WHEREAS,
the Maine Waste Management Agency maintains a overall
state waste management plan and is actively pursung the
development solid waste disposal capacity;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the City of
Bangor, by its City council, resolves to inform the legislature
of the needs of our residents and of our businesses and to
explicitly state that this Council supports the passage of LD 447
and believes the baseline criteria for considerations for any and
all proposed construction or expansion of solid waste facilities
are cost effectiveness and environmental soundness, and the
passage of this legislation works toward that end.
IN CITY COUNCIL
April 34, 1995
Passed
C a for 7yIer
�Abst`ained
CAN
Em
95-193
R E 5 0 L V E
Supporting Passage of LD 447 (117th
Legislators, First Regular Session) to.
Permit Expansion of Sawyer. Landfill i
Renpden, Y�y(�P
95-193
117th MAINE LEGISLATURE
FIRST REGULAR SESSION -1995
Legisksive Dansmeot ... .. - - No. 447
H.P. 326 House of Representafives, February 8,1995
"Aap Rkgmdmgthe P.xpaosovoffiamio Waste Deposal Facilitin.
Received by the Clerk of We House on February 6,1995. Referredd to the Committee on
"
National Resources and ordered printed pursuant to Joint Rule 14 410-
OVJ SHPH W. MAYO, Clerk
presented by Representative GOULD of Greenville.
Cosponsored by Representeives: MARSHALL of Hbot, POULIN of Oakland.
e mmma..N
2
4
6
e
10
is
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 38 MRSA §1310-X, sub -§3, 113, a repealed and replaced
by PL 1991, C. 241, §1, i amended to read:
B. The department determines that the proposed expansion
contiguous with the existing facility and is located on
property owned On December 31, 1489 bythe licensee OR
6aP6ewbee-d0.--}9P9or by a gQ129ratJon Of other business
and
STATEMENTOFFACT
Currently, the Department of Environmental Protection may
approve Ua expansion of istingcnm. ial solid waste
disposal facility biomedical waste disposal- treatment
facility undercertain limited circumstances. To eider such
an expansion of a existing facility, the facility had to have
been licensed prior to October 6, 1909: the expansion must be on
lend contiguous with the facility and on property .awned by the
licensee on September 30, 1989) and Me expansion must meet the
needs criteria of the state plan regarding solid waste management.
This bill mends the current law by allowing the Department
of environmental Protectiontona
sider proposal for the
expansion Of existing facility if the expaisionrs to be
located c contiguous property owned by the licensee, r by a
corporation or other business entity under common Ownership o
control with the licensee, on December 31. 1989 rather than o
September 30, 1989. All other existing limitations onexpansions
well as the existing r ev and approval processes will remain
in place.
Page 1-LSO777(1)
L.O.44g
EATON, PEABODY, BRADFORD IS LEAGUE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FLEET CENTER -EXCHANGE STREET
TO, BOX 1210
BANGOR, MAINE 04402.1210
FAX CAR 942 30*0
R6lar0_23, 1995
MAP [ 4 1995
OR MANASSi'S OFRCE
Dear Town Manager/Municipal Officer:
95-193
I am writing you in my capacity as counsel to the Municipal
Review Committee, Inc., regarding proposed solid waste legislation
that is pending before the Natural Resources Committee of the Maine
legislature. ,
More particularly, the nine member Board of Directors of the-
MRC (with one abstention) passed a Resolve favoring the enactment
of L.D. 447, the effect of which would allow Sawyer Environmental
Recovery Facility (SERF) to investigate the expansion of its;. -
landfill capacity in Hampden. SERF provides disposal services for
the ash produced from the operations of the waste to energy plant
of Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (PERC) in Orrington. SERF
also provides for the disposal of front end process residue (FSPR)
from PERC's operations.
The reasons for supporting the passage of L.D. 447 are set
forth in the Resolution of the MRC Board and were amplified by my
testimony before the Committee last week. Copies of the Resolution
and By testimony are enclosed, as well as the testimony of Mr.
Sawyer. The bill is sponsored by the Committee Chairman,
Representative Gould of Greenville.
The Board weighed the interests of its 90 member communities
and considered the opposition of the Town of Hampden whose town
council voted 5-1 to oppose the legislation. Also enclosed are
copies of Hampden's Resolution and an accompanying letter from the
Town Manager of Hampden addressed to the Committee Co -Chairman,
Senator Lord.
The MRC Board concluded that it had a responsibility not to
stand on the sidelines. It views its membership as one large
community which generates 165,000 tons of waste annually which i
processed by PERC. The Board is charged with the responsibility of
interfacing with PRBC, monitoring its operations and assisting PERC
1111. 11
311111 A I.TlIH
""In 1, AMv
JOHN M, MONAHAN
'HOMES 0 AMI
FEARS AL DART
STIFFEN 9, MONALL
MEMO WELL
LIME MIAMI TONS
""'All 1. 1 'All"
GIONFUL A TELLS"
ALLISON CALMER LOSE
111. A, MIAMI
BLAME MEAN
FAX CAR 942 30*0
R6lar0_23, 1995
MAP [ 4 1995
OR MANASSi'S OFRCE
Dear Town Manager/Municipal Officer:
95-193
I am writing you in my capacity as counsel to the Municipal
Review Committee, Inc., regarding proposed solid waste legislation
that is pending before the Natural Resources Committee of the Maine
legislature. ,
More particularly, the nine member Board of Directors of the-
MRC (with one abstention) passed a Resolve favoring the enactment
of L.D. 447, the effect of which would allow Sawyer Environmental
Recovery Facility (SERF) to investigate the expansion of its;. -
landfill capacity in Hampden. SERF provides disposal services for
the ash produced from the operations of the waste to energy plant
of Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (PERC) in Orrington. SERF
also provides for the disposal of front end process residue (FSPR)
from PERC's operations.
The reasons for supporting the passage of L.D. 447 are set
forth in the Resolution of the MRC Board and were amplified by my
testimony before the Committee last week. Copies of the Resolution
and By testimony are enclosed, as well as the testimony of Mr.
Sawyer. The bill is sponsored by the Committee Chairman,
Representative Gould of Greenville.
The Board weighed the interests of its 90 member communities
and considered the opposition of the Town of Hampden whose town
council voted 5-1 to oppose the legislation. Also enclosed are
copies of Hampden's Resolution and an accompanying letter from the
Town Manager of Hampden addressed to the Committee Co -Chairman,
Senator Lord.
The MRC Board concluded that it had a responsibility not to
stand on the sidelines. It views its membership as one large
community which generates 165,000 tons of waste annually which i
processed by PERC. The Board is charged with the responsibility of
interfacing with PRBC, monitoring its operations and assisting PERC
95-193
Town Managers
March 22, 1995
Page 2
to meet its obligations to the MRC communities
PERC cannot function over the long haul without adequate ash
and REBA disposal capacity.
In our region, various towns carry various regional burdens.
Bangor provides water to s unities including Hampden. it
provides ewer to Hampden. communities
is the host of 160
communities via PERC. Bangor is host to 200communities via the
medical center and Bangor International AirporOrono is host to
the entire state when it supports and serves the University.
Since the advent of PERC's waste to energy plant, many of the
burdens or potential nuisances n Hampden as the host community of
the landfill have been alleviated. It no longer receives municipal
solid waste including raw garbage, which nos deposited inside
the PERC plant in Orrington for processing. Thenow a tient odors,
birds and other nuisance aspects of such a MSW landfill are
history. The trucks at the I-95 interchange going to SERF is only
1% of the total traffic cunt and makes up only ] 1/2% of the
traffic volume on the one-half mile stretch on the Emerson Mill
Road in Hampden - proximate to I-95. (Included in these counts are
logging and other non -solid waste haulers using SERF's scales.)
Basically, SERF concentrates on the needs of PERC. Both of
them concentrate on meeting the needs of the 160 communities in
Maine which they serve well.
SERF's volume is 99.5% from instate sources. PERC's volume i
99% instate. Much of the public does not appear to understand (and
some people do not want to understand) that the capacities of these
two private providers overwhelming in fact and i operation are
dedicated to the needs of the State of Maine so long as Maine
chooses to use them.
Remember Presently, the member c smunities have a coat
effective, cost preventative system which literally is paying
dividends (i.e. a rebate is due from PERC shortly). Tipping fees
at PERC are the lowest in the State. I£ PERC losses control of its
disposal costs, the increased testa will be passed through to the
communities.
Please do review the information contained in the MRC Resolve
and the testimony. Please note that L.D. 949 isnot an approval of
a landfill expansion. It simply allows SERF to apply for a permit.
An extensive review process and approval by the USE, Maine Waste
Management Agency and the Town of Hampden would be required.
95-193
Town Managers
March 22, 1995
Page 3
You are invited to contact Your legislators and members of the
Natural Resources Committee. A listing of the Committee members is
enclosed. If your council or board wishes to pass a Resolve, it
may want to use the enclosed Resolve of the Town of Levant as a
model and forward the Resolve, duly certified, to Representative
Gould, Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, at State House
Station 82, Augusta, ME 04333, as well as to the State legislative
representative of your municipality.
If you have any questions or comments, please call the NEC
President, Gerald Kempen (Orono Town Manager at 866-2556); Greg
Lounder (Clerk of the MRC at 942-6389) or myself.
Very truly yours,
Thomas M. Brown
TMH:np
Enclosure
Municipal Review Committee
M Sm 2579 • saaw. wm 04402.x5". POPP42 5x5 • s=90IP4z.asas
I' IELA.1i
Resolution:
to recognize the need for and to support efforts
to pursue the attainment of additional disposal
capacity for Front End Process Residue and
Incinerator Ash generated as by-products of the
waste -to-energy process at the Penobscot
Energy Recovery Company plant in Orrington,
Maine.
Merea3, the Municipal Review Committee Incorporated, acting through its Board of
Directors, serves as a representative of some 90 Charter Municipalities in the administration of
legally binding Par or -Pay waste disposal agreements with the privately owned waste tocnergy,
solid waste incineration facility known as the Penobscot Energy RecoveryCompany (PERQ;
Whereas, an additional 60 communities also have similar long-term contrach, with PERC
whosetonnage, when combined with that of the Charter Municipalities, totals ,000 tons of the
218,000 tons procused at PERC in 1994;
Whereas, 1M processing of waste at PERC requires the support of ash and front end
process residue disposal facilities to handle the that waste which totals some 64,000 tons
generated by the charter and long term contact municipalities;
Whereas, state law requires each municipality to provide for disposal facilities for solid
waste emanating from normal commerelal and residential sources within the municipality;
Whereas, Known disposal options for PERC generated From End Process Residue areonly
available until@Iober of 1995;
Whereas, failure an find a cost effective disposal solution for front end process residue will
cast Charter Municipalities an additional $1,000,000 per year,
Whereas, the State and municipal gcvemmenis have ajoint duty to the taxpayers to
pmvide coat effective means of waste manageracut in general, and in particular the some through
the Maine Waste Management Agency has assumed the duty of providing future ash capacity to
be potentially utilized by the State's waste-tocnergy facilities totalling a public investment of
$350.000.000;
Whereas, tM existing disposal capacity for PERC generated ash is finite with about oven
years of life remaining with the current disposal option;
Whereas, the Charter Municipalifiesmjoyarnsteffecaveprivatetpubbc relationship with
tM PERC facility, that facility represents a $IW,000,000 investment, and a con effective means
of ash and front end process residue disposal are a critical variable in maintaining the overall cost
effectiveness of the PERC facility; 95-193
Whereas, we are familiar with the scope and content of L.D. 229, an Act to Abolish the
Maine Waste Management Agency and L.D. 447, an Acs Regarding Expansion of Cement Waste
Disposal Facilities now pending
Whereas, proximity to the PERC plant is acritiW variable in determining the overall cost
effectiveness of a given disposal option; and
Whereas, Me Maine Waste Management Agency maintains an overall state waste
management plan and is actively pursuing the development solid waste disposal capacity;
NOW, TherefOre, inconsideration of the foregoing, the Municipal Review Committer,
Inc. Board of Directors resolves to inform the legislature of the needs of our member
communities, of our residents, and of nor businesses and to explicitly state that skis Board:
1. supports the passage of L.D. 447
2. views as being crucial, in the event that L.D. 229, the act to abolish the Maine
Waste Management Agency, is passed in some form that this Legislature clearly
reassign that agency's duties and functions to another appropriate catity to
perform at necessary tasks and meet all objectives in a timely fashion.
3. requests that Us Ugislature insist certain that the present efforts to site Me on -
called Carpenter Ridge Special Waste Landfill in Penobscot County, upon which
several million dollars have been spent to date, continue to be adequately funded
and pursued to completion of the permitting process by an agency that bas an
advocacy role which is contingent with the Governors "Maine is on the move"
attitude.
4. believes the baseline criteria for considerations for any and all proposed
construction or expansion of solid waste facilities are cost effectiveness and
environmental soundness, but is currently neutral on ownership status.
5. is willing to artist the Legislature in conjunction with public service agencies such
as the Kesmebee Valley Council of Governments and the eastern Maim
Development Corporation in examWng the needs of and the cost to she public for
the availability of solid waste technical assistance services currently administered
by the Maim Waste Management Agency.
This msolumm was adopted by a vote of the Municipal Review Committee Im. Board of
Directors on March 9, 1995.
/e/
Gerald Kempen, President
/a/
Joshua Day
/a/
Flay Kamm, Vice President
/s/
John Giroux
/at
Robert Farrar, Treasurer
IS/
Dennis Cox
Abstained
Marie Baker
/s/
Lyle Dever
Laity Folsom
Attest, True Copy
Be ory A.IAorder
Clerk Municipal Review Committee, Tnc.
95-193
TOWN OF LEVRN
0 T
TP.O. Box 220 t Le t, bmine 04456 f 207A8L7660 f FIXd8b7237
March 7, 1995
Gerry Kempen, President
Municipal Review Committee
10 Franklin Street
Bangor, ME 04401
Dear Mr. Kempen
Please accept the following as an official objection from
the Town of Levant reference. the Board of Director's lack of
action on the part of a 90 member community regarding
Sawyer Environmental's request for the Municipal Review
Committee (MRC) to support L.D. 447 at the board meeting of
March 2, 1995. -
Succinctly stated, it seems inadvisable to Levant that the
Directors saw fit to put the personal agenda of one
community ahead of the long term benefit of the other 89.
In the past, Levant has felt it necessary to remind the
Directors of their primary responsibility to the member
communities in protecting the relationship with Penobscot
Energy Recovery Corporation (PERC). Presumed in that
responsibility is the relationship of appending interest for
all long term cost effective solid waste disposal issues for
that membership.
Given the above, Levant is incredulous that the Directors
felt the need to tie their decision to Sawyer's request to
the decision of a single town council. Hampden's "personal
agenda" contends that it should be the State's responsib-
ility to pick up the tab for future waste disposal sites,
however, Hampden's present preference not to host future
capacity should not be an element in the decision making
process at the MRC's Board Meeting.
Directors do not represent single municipalities at that
Board Meeting - they represent a 90 member c mmunityl
Again, let the Town of Levant punctuate the fact to the
Directors that the personal agenda of any single
municipality within the membership should not take
precedence over the long term benefit of the remainder of
the membership.
MRC Board of Directors - March Y, 1995 Page 2
In reality, that resulting impact of the Board's lack of
support of this L.D. may not be realized to the membership
in the form of greater transportation costs for some time.
It cannot be forgotten that the MRC Board had the
opportunity to support and encourage a local enterprise to
provide long term capacity but chose to allow a single
member to make that choice for than.
The Town of Levant has chosen to adopt a resolution
supporting L.D. 447 and further will participate in the
Public Hearing scheduled in Augusta on Monday, March 13,
1995. The Town of Levant will alsoencourage other member
communities to insist that the MRC Board of Directors -
fulfill their obligation to the entire membership wherever
and whenever opportunity arises.
THE LEVANT BOARD OF SBLECTMER -;
��,;
avid Cowallis, ai� pians Benson
Nanna¢ BOUSTe2 ,iisholm
Paul Nichols
cc: Sawyer Environmental Recovery Facility - Dort Meagher
Town of Hampden - Marie Baker, Manager
Rep. Robert Yackobitz
Rep. Julie Winn
Sen. Chuck Cianchette
95-193
TORN OF LEVANT
P.O. BOX 220
LEVANT, MAINE 04456
(207)884-7660
Resolve, Stating the Position of the Town of Levant in Regard to
L.D.447, Entitled An A n WSte
Disposal Facilities
By the Board. of Selectmen for the Town of Levant., Maine:
RESOLVED,
WHEREAS, The Town of Levant utilizes Penobscot Energy Recovery (PERC)�
for disposal of solid waste;
WHEREAS, PERC Utilizes Sawyer Environmental Recovery Facility for
disposal of combustion ash and Front End Processed Residue
(FSPR);
WHEREAS, It isin the interest of the future disposal needs for the
Town of Levant to encourage and support the development
of a current and very successful solid waste disposal
operation at Sawyer Environmental Recovery Facility;
WHEREAS, Location and capacity is a crucial component to the equation
for cost effective disposal for all types of municipal solid
waste;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN THAT THE TOM OF
LEVANT will, without reservation, officially support L.D. 447
by participating in discussion at the Public Hearing in
Augusta on Monday, March 13, 1995 as well as conversations
with other charter member communities.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT: Copies of this Resolve be forwarded
Senator Chuck Cianchette, Representative Robert Yackobitz, and
Representative Julie Winn to urge the support their
representation in Augusta may afford.
LEVANT BOARD OFF SEEELECTMEN DATE: MARCH 8, 1995
(�a Cn6rman �.
chrs of
D/�eane Benson Norman Bou
real Mirac t/��
March 9, 1995
The Honorable State Senator Willis A Lord
Chair, Natural Resources Committee
York, Maine
Re Legislative Docket 047, An act regarding the expansion of chain waste disposal
facilities.
Dear Senator Lord'.
The Town of Hampden, Maine has a commercial landfill called Sawyer
Environmental Facility located within its boundaries.
This S.E.R. F. conglomeration oflandfills has been in existence since 1974. On site
there is a conventional landfill, Secure I, Secure 11, Secure III and the possibility of Secure
IV.
For over twenty (20) years Hampden residents have tolerated garbage truck traffic,
sometimes 24 hours a day. They have seen an influx of seagulls, odors of all varieties,
(some extremely obnoxious), dust, clay -lined roads, trash being hauled in from every
coma of the northeastem part of the United States, state of the an technology in solid
waste only to be replaced by new state of the art technology in solid waste and
continuous concerns with private drimong wells, clean, healthy air and quality of life every
Maine citizen desires.
In the fall of 1991 the Maine Waste Management siting board held a public hearing
in Hampden regarding a proposed special wane landfill to be located in Hermon, just a
f miles from the Hampden town line and the SERF facility.
ett that time Hampden citizens testified they were outraged to think the state
would even consider siting another landfill in the immediate vicinity. By December the
proposed site was scrapped_ Now, in March of 1995, the state still hes no alternative site
for special waste.
95-(93
95-193
March 9, 1995
The Honorable State Senator Willis A. Lord
York. Maine
The Town of Hampden and its cltize s have made a good faith efl'on to contribute
to the states solid waste needs. Granted. we all need to look at the "big picture", but
sometimes it's too easy to say- let someone else do it, not in my backyard and so forth.
Hampden is doing it - a host community for a long term dump! Take a drive up
'95, your first sighting of Hampden is the Sawyer mountain. Community pride has its
limits...
Previously the State Legislature enacted laws providing for no additional
commercial landfills and siting dates for expansions thereof, now consideration for a
dramatic change exists. Think about it, there were deep seated reasons for the original
state laws and granted, government needs to downside but solid waste needs cannot be
swept under the rug or go back to the former way of doing business.
The Town of Hampden and its Town Council wish to go on record as being
opposed to LD 4,147; enclosed is a Resolution adopted by the Hampden Town Council at
their regular meeting on March 6, 1995.
Thank you for your consideration.
MGB/dww
Enclosure
cc: Senator W. John Hathaw
Senator Richard P. Pullin
Representative Roy L. Nckerson
Representative Debra Plowman
Representative Jam W. Said
Representative June C. Meres
Representative Ernest C. Greenlaw
Very truly yours,
Mrs. Made G. Baker
Town Mang"
Senator Mon Cfanchette
Representative Catharin L. Damran
Representative John P. Marshall
Representative Thomas E. Poulin
Representative Randall L. Barry
Representative David C. Shish
�e TP 9P Hn PGEH PAGE 9:
95-193
M.
HAMPDEN TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 38 M.S.R.A. :21310—E 13) 181
WHEREAS, the Town of Hampden has been notified of a
proposed revision to E.S.R.A. Title 38, 1310-A 13) (B)
regarding expansion of solid waste facilities; and,
WHEREAS, a commercial landfill facility has operated
in the Town of Hampden since 1974; and,
WHEREAS, under current state law existing commeral
solid waste facilities may expand Via DEP approval and r
certain and limited circumstances; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed revision could enable a com-
mercial landfill facility in Hampden to expand beyond ex-
isting boundaries.
NOW THEREFOR HE IT HERSEY RESOLVED, that the Town
of Hampden go on record through its town officials to state
its opposition to the proposed amendment to 38 M-S.R.A.,
8 1310-x (3) )B).
� t!pvsU
William AT/
- Town Council McYO
Attestf Vnli11] j2oGIA I]//W
Paula Newcomb- Town Clerk
Date• 3' FJ- e6
95-193
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS M. BROWN BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
MARCH 13, 1995
STATE HOUSE -AUGUSTA, MAINE
IN SUPPORT OF THE PASSAGE OF
L.D. 44'1 SPONSORED BY REPRESENTATIVE GOULD
Senator Lord, Representative Gould and Members of the committee
My name is Thomas M. Brown. I am an attorney for the
Municipal Review Committee, Inc. and a member of the Eaton, Peabody
law firm in its Bangor office. The committee, or MRC as it is
often called, is a non-profit corporation with a membership of 90
communities headquartered in Bangor. Charter members range from
Millinocket to Saileyville to Mount Desert to the Rockport -Rockland
area to the Boothbay Region to Greater Waterville to Guilford,
Dover and Dexter to Greater Bangor -- 165,000 tons of solid waste
s delivered to the Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (PERC) by
MRC communities in 1994.
Coat -tailing our membership are more than 60 other communities
with an additional 40,000 tons of trash annually who also have long
term contracts with PERC.
In a very real sense, the MRC has a $100,000,000 mission in
the form of a public and private investment in the PERC plant i
Orrington. This investment is the result of a truly fine
collaboration among many MRC communities, Sawyer Environmental
Resources Facilities (SERF) and PERC owners during the mid -1980's.
These three entities, meaning the non-profit MRC, PERC, and SERF
have accomplished much -- but ancillary facilities to support the
PERC plant must still come on line asexisting landfill capacities
to receive its ash and its front end process residue (FEPR) are
exhausted.
Permit me to back up to the inception of this very creative
collaboration so that you will know how much has been accomplished,
how it has been accomplished, why it was accomplished and what we,
as various regions and as a state, must continue to accomplish in
order to avoid putting critical infrastructure at risk.
In the early 1980'x, the handwriting an economic and
environmental walls was clear -- without cost effective and
environmentally sound management and disposal of solid waste,
Maine's economy eventually would be savaged and the natural
environment would suffer greatly, as well.
In our region, the City of Brewer, through the leadership of
Rene Perry, its then City Manager, brought many of the communities
in the Penobscot wasteshed together. These communities pooled
several hundred thousand dollars. These sums were supplemented by
grants from the DEP. They hired a Connecticut engineering firm,
Eastern Maine Development Corporation and the Eaton, Peabody law
95-193
firm -- and they spent that money wisely on engineering studies,
demographic studies and assessments of various alternative waste
management approaches -- all Co the end of attaining the greatest
public good for the greatest number of communities.
This effort resulted in a decision that for the largely rural
area
under consideration a 20-25 megawatt waste to energy plant was
necessary. It also was desirable that the facility have a capacity
to Process annually upwards of 275,000 tons of the types of solid
waste which are suitable for combustion in a manner that would
enhance recycling and reuse efforts, as well as preserve existing
landfill capacity.
The next decision that was made by the 20 participating
communities was .that private enterprise should design, build, own
and operate the facility as well as site the facility.
Therefore, the engineers, the lawyers and the staff of EMDC
developed a Request for Proposals. In tandem, one of my partners
and I drafted legislation that became the Maine Refuse Disposal
District Enabling ACC in order to permitmmunities Co form
appropriate legal entities for all types of facilities for the
management of solid waste.
The next phase included the selection of Penobscot Energy
Recovery Company (BERC). Over a period of several months a
standard form of contract was negotiated which was to have a term
of 30 years in order to afford communities a long-term solution
with a predictable coat for the management of a large portion of
each community's solid waste.
The core communities proceeded to form their refuse disposal
district known as Penobscot Valley Refuse Disposal District while
PERC went about securing $86,000,000 in tax free financing with the
help of FAME.
In order to obtain financing, FERC had Co demonstrate to its
lenders that it would be able to obtain an adequate power sales
contract with a power company. Further, PERC bad to demonstrate
that it had enough tonnage under contract at a price that would
support PERC's financial projections.
The tonnage capacity for PERC was presold in two ways. The
initial District members signed contracts, each guaranteeing to
deliver to PERC a specified amount of tonnage annually and SERF
contracted for a large block of tonnage that it allocated among an
additional 50 communities. These contracts are commonly referred
to as "put or pay agreements", for if a community does not put
their guaranteed a ual tonnage, it still is obligated to pay the
tipping fee for the guaranteed amount of tonnage.
-2-
95-193
SERF also agreed to provide two other essential functionsit
contracted with PERC to see to the disposal of PERC's ash and to
the disposal of glass and grit, as well as other non -combustibles
that are not suited either for recycling or combustion.
I have outlined for you the evolution of the $100,000,000 PERC
Plant, why it ticks and what makes it tick.
The facility has been constantly in operation in Orrington
ince February 1988. 1 happen to live in Hampden across the
Penobscot River from the plant and use the stack as my windsock.
I have often said that what comes out of the stack is not a
problem. A very real problem for the economy of Maine would be
visited upon us only if nothing comes out of that stack.
As many of you are at least somewhat aware, a giant blip
appeared on the proverbial screen in August 1989. PERC announced
that revenues from power sales were significantly less than had
been projected and further that costs of operating the processing
lines were Ear greater than the original projections. PERC
documented its losses to date and presented updated projections
based upon actual operating history, as wellasconvincingly
explained that the owners were not going to pour more millions of
dollars down a hole.
To all appearances, the project was headed into a straight
liquidation under Chapter v of the Bankruptcy Code without even
stopping at Chapter 11 for an attempt at financial rehabilitation
under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court.
At this juncture, the only communities who were organized into
a trading or negotiating group was the now 30 member District.
However, ninety communities were being served by the plant in 1989,
one-half of them being so-called SERF communities.
The towns coalesced around the District and SERF. I borrowed
what became the overruling philosophy for the vast majority of the
98 communities from the booked entitled All i Need to HL.....
1,earmad in Kindergarten,namely, that the communities needed to
"hold hands and stick together".
The District and SERF promptly organized and underwrote a 9
member negotiating team consisting largely of municipal officials
selected from District communities, SERF communities and previously
non-aligned communities served by PERC. This negotiating committee
came to be known as the Committee to Analyze PERC or "CAP^.
CAR engaged my firm, staff from EMDC and a consulting firm to
assist in fact finding and negotiations. In addition, .SERF
volunteered its attorney to assist CAP.
_3
At the request of CAP, most Communities agreed to an interim
fee of $40 per ton which was
e than a 100£ increase in the
average contractual tippingfee. This approach stabilized the
plant for the next 18 months as most communities followed the lead
of CAP. CAP proceeded to evaluate the plant technology, debt load,
environmental performance, efficiencies and the like. -
The goal of CAP became one of establishing an equitable
arrangement between the private owners and area communities at a
stable cost to area communities. The plant essentially was a good
plant in need of significant modifications which could be made over
time. Those modifications could (and were) financed through a
$4,000,000 contribution by the designer and builder of the plant,
additional capital contribution by the owners and increased tipping
fees from the communities.
As negotiations progressed, a strong municipal monitoring role
evolved in order to assure the financial health and environmental
soundnessof the plant. This role continues in the form of
isersight by the successor to CAP. The C is this successor. It
MRnow a permanent fixture which works both to assure that the
terms of the renegotiated solid waste arrangement are fulfilled by
all parties and to assure that there are ancillary facilities and
services in place in order for PERC to serve the 160+ communities
sending waste to PERC every day.
The communities served by PERC and SERF encompass more than
254 of the Population of this State. You may then add all of the
trash and other solid waste generated by our tourists.
The Board of Directors of the MRC have passed a Resolution by
a vote of 8 to 0 with one abstention. The abstaining member is the
Town Manager of Hampden. Hampden is the host community for SERF's
special waste landfill including the ash capacity for PERC.
This Resolution which I deliver to you today guynorts the
passage of LD 447. However, the MRC Board realizes that the
passage of LD 447 does not assure the development of additional ash
capacity or of additional FEPR capacity by SERF. It is necessary
that SERF have an opportunity to explore, test and otherwise
investigate an expansion of its existing facility.
Not only is the State stalled in its obligation to locate,
replacement ash disposal capacity, but known disposal options for
cost effective disposal of FSPR in Maine are only available into
October of this year. Then, life will become very expensive - we
get to ship 35,000 tons of FSPR out of state for an additional
$1,000,000 expense to the communities each year at a minimum. Such
is money that can be put to better use by the communities.
95-193
The MRC Resolution also addresses LD 229 and the need for this
state to continue its efforts to site the so-called caxpenter Ridge
Special Waste Landfill in Penobscot County.
At the hearing on that LD, the Vice Chairman of the MRC Board,
Elery Keene, will testify as to the concerns expressed in the
Resolution.
Maine has 4waste to energy plants representing an investment
of $350,000,000. Each must be supported by ancillary facilities.
They are a very critical part of this State's infrastructure and of
this State's well being -- just as are roads, bridges, airports,
water, sewer and the University system.
I respectfully suggest that the Legislature heed the advice of
the MRC communities and their partners and pass LU 447.
One final note of caution: PLEBES do not assume that by
lifting the general prohibition against the development of new
commercial landfills by private enterprise, you would successfully
address the problem -- you will not] We tried that in 1989 at a
place in Washington County known as Township 30. The three private
developers who were encouraged to do so by the PERC communities
spent $600,000 apiece and failed. PERC, SERF and a third partner
were burned badly.
This episode made it eminently clear that state government is
the only realistic answer over the long haul for siting landfills.
The State can always hire private enterprise to build and operate
them.
I submit 16 copies of the Resolution and my prepared
testimony, as well as materials pertaining to MAC membership and
the MRC President's Annual Report to the membership.
PERC, SERF and the MRC Board invite you to tour our facilities
in Orrington and Hampden.
For years, I have been concerned that the residents of Maine,
including legislators, know too little of the portion of their
State which lies North and East of their hometowns. But, now that
you have recently returned from your bus tours, I feel more at ease
in this respect.
The MRC Board would like to be involved in the work sessions.
Thank you.
wiwresyni
5-
LD 667 AN ACT REGARDING THE E RMSIGN
OF CERTAIN wA5TH DISPOSAL FACILITIES
TESTIMONY OF R. TON SAMYER, SR., pRSSIDENT
SAMFER ENVIROM ENTAL SERVICES
95-193
senator Lord, Representative Could, members of the natural
Re®eurces Committee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today
in Support Of LD aav, AN ACT Regarding the Expansion of Certain
waste Disposal Facilities. my nape is Tom Sawyer, and I am
President Of Saner Environmental Services in Hampden, Maine. As
any of you may know, sawyer Environmental Services has been a
key player in addressing Maine's wants management needs for over
30 years. In general, our company provides services involving
the transportation of solid waste, the recycling and processing
Of items such as tires, paper, metal, glass, and weed debris, and
the operation of a commercial sanitary landfill, licensed by the
Department of Environmental Protection, to dispose of ash and
nen-hazardous special wastes.
Our company anticipates playing a role in Maine's solid waste
disposal issues for the decades to come. we firmly believe that
the private sector, working with appropriate governmental
oversight, has a strong and positive role to play in resolving
Maine's solid waste needs. In ostler for our company to engage in
the kind of long range planning that is necessary in order to
make the most economic and environmentally sound decisions, we
are here before you today to address one aspect of the current
law which we believe is unnecessarily restrictive and should he
changed.
95-193
Before discussing the specific elements of LD 447, I would
note briefly that you are scheduled to consider this afternoon,
LD 229, AM ACT to Abolish the Maine Haste Management Agency. I
understand that part of that bill includes a provision which.
would entirely remove the limitations or moratorium on the
development or expanaien of commercial solid waste disposal
facilities. To the extent this Committee and this Legislature as
A whole should decide to pace LD 2290 which would lift the
current moratorium on commercial Solid waste disposal facilities,
the iSenes raised by LD 447 become moot. If the Legislature
decides it is not prepared to completely lift the moratorium; I
believe LD 447 provides a reasonable alternative, in that it
maintains the moratorium on new commercial facilities, sad the
limitations on expanding existing facilities, while allowing for
a reasonable opportunity to address Maines future waste capacity
needs.
"der current law, the Department of environmental protection
may license an expansion of an existing come ..Jai solid waste
disposal facility under certain limited circumstances. After
September 30, 1989, the law prohibited the Department from
approving any new commercial solid waste disposal facilities
within the State of Maine. Again, under current law, the
expansion of an existing commercial solid waste disposal facility
can to considered and approved by the Department of Environmental
if:
1.
The facility had
been
previously
licensed
prior
to
October 8, 1989)
2 -
95-193
2. The proposed expansion is contiguous with the existing
facility and is located an property owned by the
licenses on September 30, 1999) and
3. The Department and/or Maine Waste Management Agency
determines that the proposed expansion is consistent
with the pravicions of the State waste management plan
by meeting the capacity needs and being consistent with
the needs identified in that plan.
In general, LD 447 would maintain all of these current
restrictions an the eapaaedon of a commercial solid waste
disposal facility, The bill before you would modify current law
alightly by amending the limitation that a proposed expansion
would have to be on property owned by the licensee on September
30. 1989. The proposed change would require that the licensee,
or a corporation or other business entity under common Ownership
or control of the licensee, would have to have owned the property
by December 31, 1989. All the other restrictions regarding ne
expansion would remain in place.
In the spring of 1999, before the current law which I just
described to you had even been enacted, one of the Sawyer
companies was in the process of negotiating for the purchase of a
parcel of property contiguous to its sainting facility.
Negotiations proceeded throughout the spring, summer, and fall of
1989, Culminating with a purchase and sale agreement being signed
on October 3, 1989. The closing for the purchase of this same
parcel (commonly referred to as the MCGuff I Parcel) occurred On
November 3, 1989. A copy of the McGuff I Parcel in shown on the
site plan sketch which I have attached to my testimony.
3-
95-193
The McDuff I Vernal is approximately 15 acres. Although no
extensive hydrogeologital testing on the McDuff I parcel hoe been
conducted, Sawyer Environmental Services believes this parcel
could be an environmentally sound site for future waste disposal
purposes. However, because this parcel was not owned by the
licensee On September 3o, 1989, it cannot even be considered for
Potential disposal development under the current restrictive
Provisions in the law. LO 447 would merely allow this Mcguff I
Parcel to be considered as a poeeible site for the expansion of
Sawyer's commercial solid waste disposal facility. Obviously,
before this Site could actually be approved for solid waste
disposal purposes, it would used to go through the extensive
application and approval process by the Department of
Environmental protection, the Maine paste management Agency, and
the TO" of Hampden.
Long before this bill was printed in LD form, our company met
with officials from the Town of Hampden on numerous Occasions to
inform them of our plans to promote this proposed legislation, as
well as share with them some of our company'• long range planning
Heals- These meetings involved a positive exchange of
information which we da a company welcome, and look forward to
continuing in the future. Despite hearing our arguments with
regard to this legislation, last week the Hampden Town Couwwdl
voted to oppose this legislation. Although I anticipate you will
hear directly from the Town with regard to the position it is
taking on this matter, I think it is worth noting that the
Council's position in opposition was not unanimous, and that
-a-
95-193
there were Only three residents who spoke in opposition to the
bill at last weeks Town Council meeting. Tt is also worth
noting, that despite being requested to do no, the Town Council
for the neighboring Teen of Hereon refused to oppose this
legislation.
Although local concerns must be taken into consideration, we
believe that the regional, even statewide, needs and policy
considerations involved with this issue must outweigh the
Potential local Objections from the Town Of Hampden. These
regional concerns will be presented to you in more detail through
the testimony of the Municipal Review Committee. The Municipal
Review Committee is made up of go municipalities within the
central and eastern Maine area, organized to address its member
municipalities' solid waste needs. The Board of Directors for
the Municipal Review committee voted unanimously (with the Town
Of Hampden'• representative abstaining) to support W 447.
Again, the Municipal Review Committee's position will be
presented in greater detail in testimony which will follow my
The issues relating to this legislation which we believe have
statewide policy implications, or at the very least regional
implications, include the following:
1. The determination whether the privets sector should
continue to have a role to play in the resolution of
waste management needs in the State of Maine;
- 5 -
95-193
2. The regional need for the capacity to handle
construction and demolition (C6b) debris and front End
Processing Residue (FSPR) debris is becoming more
pressing;
3. The impact on municipalities which need to dispose of
these wastes, as municipal deep sieve become unavailable
or are required to close, by requirement of state and/or
federal law;
6. The need to maintain regional and statewide capacity to
handle spatial waste, Sika ash from the regional waste
to energy facilities; and
S. Whether the current date restriction regarding ownership
Of the property inadvertently would result in a lees
environmentally sound site being approved.
We believe that the proposed change contained in Lb 667
provides the oovortunity to address the policy issues enumerated
above. Without making the proposed Change, this Legislation is,
by default, refusing to address very real solid waste issues
which simply will not go away oa their om.
In summary, there is no sound public policy reason for
maintaining the limited restriction this bill attempts to modify.
The September 30, 1989 deadline for acquiring an ownership
interest has no spacial significance other than the fact that
that was the date on which the laws enacted during that
Legislature became effective. Septmmber 30, 1969 was not a date
Which was consciously c110een by the Legislature at the time that
law vau enacted, or a date which holds any particular
- 6 -
95-193
significance tachy. In fact, since the original enactment of
this law in 1999, the Legislature has already modified this same
eeptember 30, 1989 deadline as it related to another limitation
on the expansion of onamarcial solid waste disposal or
bio -medical waste disposal facilities. That earlier modiligatian
changed the September 30, 1999 deadline to October 5, 19a9 in
order to accommodate a commernial bio -medical waste disposal
facility which was licensed on October 5, 1989, five days after
the previously cat statutory deadline Of September 30, 1999.
LD 497 would Out change the overall intent of the law which
was passed in 1989, or eliminate the restrictions to an axpencian
Of an existing commercial solid waste disposal facility. on the
contrary, this legislation would allow for thoughtful and
comprehensive evaluation Of the potential expansion of existing
commercial solid waste disposal capacity within the strict
regulatory processes in place. Without this proposed legislative
change, that evaluation itself would not even be possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you, and I would be
happy to attempt to answer any questions you might have.
7 -
4Iwpll11
�.
+.! 9f
`a\
a J
i
.a
-c-
f'n:'.:"e'"..aeg
95-193