OCR Text |
Show Laytoia Council 'to discuss Bum Plant again The idea of a solid waste recovery recov-ery plant started in 1979, when the Wasatch Front received an EPA grant to study solid waste disposal. According to Richard Harvey, Director of the Davis County Environmental En-vironmental Health and Labortory for the Health Department, many ways of dealing with garbage were looked at. Salt Lake decided they had adequate landfill for many years. Weber County tied in with the Tellidine waste disposal group. Tooele and Morgan had no real involvement. in-volvement. In Davis County, a committee of elected city and county officials including in-cluding mayors and councilmem-bers councilmem-bers formed an interlocal agreement agree-ment to look at alternatives to solid waste disposal. The conclusion of this committee was to look at a resource re-source recovery project. Subsequently, a special Solid Waste Management District was organized consisting of II Davis County cities and the county itself. The Environmental Health Department De-partment had a statutory responsibility responsi-bility to this District, which is the same as the Department's responsibility respon-sibility to the NARD and BARD groups, to see that the health standards stan-dards were met. The Solid Waste Management District bonded for a solid waste disposal (burn) plant, secured land in unincorporated Davis County and maintained a $3 million dollar reserve for up-grading the landfill. According to Chairman Palmquist, this reserve must be committed to use by the end of 1986. Today, the Solid Waste Disposal Plant is 40 percent complete. Plans are to start testing in January 1987 and to begin operation by July 1987. Continued on next page By DONETA GATHERUM LAYTON - On Thursday, Aug. 7 at 7 p.m. the Layton City Council will hold a public hearing to discuss the possibilities of joining the Solid Waste Management District and participate actively in the operation opera-tion of the burn plant, or to pursue other options. . City Manager Bruce Barton says . there are two main reasons for the public hearing: 1. To give the coun- ,-. cil the opportunity to re-evaluate - their position since the last public ; meeting that was held in February; '. 2. To bring the public up to date on the options that are open to Layton regarding disposal of solid waste. -' Traditionally, Layton has been-opposed been-opposed to the burn plant. Origin- ally, the opposition started be-'J cause of the site choice. The "pond site" which was first considered was in Layton City's boundaries near a residential section of the city. Opposition also centered around the cost of the plant, bonding, bond-ing, management, financing, sale of steam and plant technology. Now the questions that need answering are the law suit, the role of NARD and the management of the landfill. Clearfield has also remained out of the special Solid Waste Management Manage-ment District and has maintained opposition to the burn plant. Bountiful, the third city in Davis County that has not joined the special spe-cial service district, has other reasons for not belonging. According Accord-ing to Solid Waste Management Board President Robert Palmquist, Bountiful operates their own pickup pick-up service rather than contracting to private haulers like most cities except Clearfield. Bountiful recently re-cently made a major investment in the latest pick-up equipment. Bountiful also is interested in having hav-ing the District build a waste transfer trans-fer station at the south end of the county to cut the expense of hauling haul-ing their waste to Layton. Another possibility is that Bountiful might someday build their own waste recovery re-covery plant and use the steam byproduct by-product for their city owned electric elec-tric company. Layton to discuss Bum Plant special service district that included in-cluded the stipulations that representatives repre-sentatives of the NARD Board be made by population, and that Layton and Clearfield could contract con-tract with the service district to burn garbage at the same rate as other entities outside the district (Morgan County and parts of Weber We-ber County). The District would 'pay the same rate as other users to dump ash in the landfill. Meetings were held starting the first week of May between elected officials from the two cities and representatives of the special service ser-vice district, along with city managers mana-gers and attorneys. Clearfield and Layton seemed comfortable with the three points in the proposal they had developed. Continued from previous page Layton City Manager Bruce Barton Bar-ton and Clearfield City Manager Don W. Baird, agree that if the two cities remain outside of the Special Service District, ownership of the landfill must be determined. All agree that the landfill needs to be brought up to EPA standards, which includes incorporation of a system that covers garbage every day. At the beginning of 1986, the Solid Waste Management District again invited Layton and Clearfield to join the district. Mr. Baird said Clearfield City received a letter from Mr. Falmquist stating the city had until January 31, 1986 to join the District or "stay out forever." The Clearfield Council replied that they were not interested in joining the Special Service District, Dis-trict, but they would like to talk about contracting for garbage disposal. dis-posal. Layton's answer was that they would leave all options open, including in-cluding contracting for garbage. Clearfield hired Dr. Lynn P. Wallace, a Professor of Civil Engineering En-gineering from B YU, who received a doctorate in solid waste management, manage-ment, to conduct a feasibility study of the NARD landfill. This was completed in April. Mr. Baird said Dr. Wallace suggested sug-gested five options: 1 . One party in the controversy (Clearfield and Layton) buy out the others and operate op-erate the landfill as if it were a business; 2. Operate the landfill in dependently. Impose restrictive fees. Restructure the Board by population; 3. The District and other communities would sell to the Clearfield-Layton Collition and buy their own landfill; 4. Clearfield Clear-field and Layton would join the special service district and operate the plant and the landfill; 5. Partition Parti-tion the landfill. Dr. Wallace said of this last option, op-tion, "the landfill cannot truly be divided without finding a way to divide responsibility for waste that has already been deposited. It is not practical to extend a wall or barrier underneath the proposed property line to separate waste onto one side or another. Without such a barrier or separation, how could anyone determine who would have liability for any leechate or ground water pollution that could possibly occur as a result re-sult of buried waste?" Mr. Baird noted that a law suit now being prepared by the service district proposes a partition of the landfill. Mr. Palmquist explains NARD "just grew." It would be very difficult to determine ownership. own-ership. "Each member would have a deeded portion of the landfill." Clearfield gave copies of Dr. Wallace's study to the Special Service Ser-vice District and to Layton City. The District recently commissioned commis-sioned the Dames and Moore Engineering En-gineering firm to conduct an engineering en-gineering study to determine: 1. What the District could reasonably expect to acquire at the present landfill; and 2. What property adjacent adja-cent to the landfill could be used by the District for landfill purposes. Mr. Baird explains the recent developments de-velopments in negotiations between be-tween Layton, Clearfield and the Special Service District. The Councils of both cities agreed to have their city managers and city attorneys meet to talk about resolving re-solving the situation. A combination combina-tion of options were discussed, and later a three-point presentation was made to representatives of the |