Industry

Heartland Electric: To Burn or Not To Burn?

People in tiny Preston, Minnesota, have a lot of questions about a plan to burn 10 million tires a year in their town. After much delay, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has conducted a preliminary environmental review of the proposed Heartland Electric facility. Unfortunately, the contraversy continues, as the current Environmental Assessment Worksheet process is not the full Environmental Impact Statement requested by many souteastern Minnesota residents and elected officials, but only a much shorter review that could lead to a more complete EIS. Many residents fear that pollution created by the new facility will threaten their quality of life as well as the growing tourism and recreation industry that boosts the local economy in the scenic Root River Valley. A May 1st rally in Preston drew approximately 250 residents of SE Minnesota and the surrounding area to voice their opposition to to the proposed tire incineration facility. Although over 7,000 signatures have been collected in a petition to demand a full Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed plant, Governor Pawlenty has refused to acknowledge letters, certified letters, and phone calls from individuals and organizations concerned about the potentially harmful effects that the incinerator could have on the local environment. With allegations of political misconduct, intimidation, and nepotism surrounding Representative Davids' push for approval of the proposed tire incinerator, Governor Pawlenty's failure to accept the citizen's petition requesting an EIS or otherwise acknowledge the situation should raise some eyebrows. The Root River watershed is home to many of Minnesota's blue ribbon trout streams and is a popular tourist destination and an important agricultural resource. Pollutants such as mercury, lead, nitrous oxides, and sulphur in power plant emissions could threaten the quality of air, water, and fishing in this popular outdoor destination. Burning used tires will also reduce the supply of tires available for use in road surface aggregates and other applications. Monte Niemi of RT Aggregates in Anoka, MN says that their business is already faced with a used tire shortage. Several county road repair projects are currently on hold until a sufficient supply of tires can be acquired from Iowa, the Dakotas, and Canada. The burning of tires in Minnesota would divert a valuable resource from the profitable tire recycling industry. Moreover, the incineration of tires directly contradicts the long standing Minnesota state solid waste management hierarchy. Reduction, reuse, and recycling top the list of preferred management methods, with incineration weighing in near the bottom of the list just above landfilling. Go to www.semep.org for more information.

January 26, 2005: The MPCA Citizen's Board voted 6-1 to recommend an Environmental Impact Statement on the Heartland Tire Incinerator project.

March 8th, 2005: Bob Maust withdraws his proposal to build the tire incinerating plant in Preston, MN.

Kicking the tires By Guy Wolf -FightingBob.com- 3/27/05
State issues air pollution alert -Star-Tribune- 1/31/05
Citizens' Board recommends more study on tire burning plant By Gregg Aamot -Associated Press- 1/26/05
Tire plant opponents storm Capitol By David Krotz -Winona Daily News- 10/19/04
Proposed tire burning facility will likely end organic farming in area By Jim Riddle -Winona Daily News- 8/12/03
Burn Baby Burn By Mike Mosedale City Pages 1/21/04
Solid Waste Policy Report: A vision for solid waste management
Mixed news for tire-burning plant By: Dane Smith, Star Tribune 4/22/04
Tire Burning Fact Sheet
Tire-fire plan roils small-town Preston By Joy Powell Star Tribune 5/2/04 Requires Log-In
Preston tire plant foes protest By DAN SPRINGER La Crosse Tribune 5/2/04
Click here for information from www.citizensagainspollution.org
Southeastern Minnesotans for Environmental Protection www.semep.org

Mercury and You: An overview of mercury pollution and why we should be concerned.
Scientists have known for some time that mercury is toxic. Acute exposure can lead to nausea, blurred vision, excessive salivation and respiratory problems. Chronic exposure has been linked to memory disturbance, hypertension, vision problems, hallucinations, tremors and personality changes. Mercury exposure is of special concern to pregnant or lactating women and young children because it can cross the blood-brain barrier and affect brain development. Many states, as well as the US EPA, have issued fish consumption advisories specifically targeting these populations due to concerns over developmental disabilities in infants from mercury exposure. In a 2001 presentation, the US EPA said that 90 percent of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants (the primary human-caused source of mercury emissions) could be cut by 2008 through the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT). Implementing these control technologies to eliminate the vast majority of mercury emissions from power plants on an industry-wide basis is a realistic and achievable goal. However, the EPA, under Bush, has unveiled a set of “cap and trade” regulations that calls for a smaller (70%) reduction in emissions and postpones full implementation of these reductions until 2018. Many say that mercury is too toxic to be regulated under this kind of system. Several states have already decided that the federal plan proposed in the Clear Skies legislation is too lax. The similarity of the proposed rules on mercury to the wish list of the energy industry have spurred Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine) and others to request an investigation by the EPA inspector general into “allegations of undue industry influence in the rule-making process.” New Jersey announced in December that it will follow the MACT plan. Other states including Massachusetts, Iowa, and Michigan may do the same. Click Here to read the full article By David Wilson-UMBSN Staff Journalist

Follow these links to learn more
MERCURY AND HEALTH
FDA ANNOUNCES ADVISORY ON METHYL MERCURY IN FISH
Environmental factors affecting methyl mercury accumulation in zooplankton Kim Westcott and Jacob Kalff -Scientific Research Paper
NESCAUM Executive Summary on Mercury
Mercury debate energized in Illinois town Gannett News Service 2/21/04
Fishing groups find common ground on mercury pollution By David Steinkraus The Journal Times 2/25/04
Controversial Mercury-Emissions Rule Poses a Test for EPA's Leavitt By Christopher Smith, The Salt Lake Tribune 3/17/04
Don't Eat That Fish High mercury levels in fish have prompted a new nationwide advisory: The species you bring home could make you sick. By Hal Herring Field & Stream 3/29/04
Take A Stand Against Mercury Pollution
Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming By JENNIFER 8. LEE May 28, 2003
A Perfect Storm: Mercury and the Bush Administration By Lisa Heinzerling and Rena I. Steinzor ELR News & Analysis
Study Finds No Health Risks for Above-Average Mercury Levels By James M. Taylor Environment News-The Heartland Institute 8/1/03
Misuse of Rainwater Mercury Data In National Wildlife Federation’s Cycle of Harm Report--Center for Science & Public Policy
White House Minimized the Risks of Mercury in Proposed Rules, Scientists Say By JENNIFER 8. LEE 4/7/04 Log in Required
Mercury pollution provides quick read on administration's intentions By PAUL KRUGMAN SYNDICATED COLUMNIST 4/7/04
EPA's Mercury Lingo Altered CBS News 4/7/04
Rising Mercury Standards Bangor News 4/5/04
E.P.A. Says Mercury Taints Fish Across U.S. By MICHAEL JANOFSKY -New York Times (Log-on Required)- 8/25/04
Protections used to be bipartisan By Russell Train -Star Tribune- 10/3/04
Group: Mercury cutback is cheap By MEREDITH GOAD -Portland Press Herald- 10/20/04
Reducing Mercury Pollution: Workable Solutions for Minnesota's Waters -The Izaak Walton League of America- 10/25/04

Minnesota BlueGreen Alliance
Many labor and environmental leaders are fed up with politicians dividing Minnesotans for political gain and have joined together in the Blue Green Alliance, a grassroots organizing effort designed to strengthen Minnesota's economy and safeguard its air, water and land. This new alliance is a response to increasing economic and environmental threats to the quality of life in Minnesota and challenges the common misconception that environmental integrity and economic development are incompatible goals. “For years, we've let politicians pit working people and environmentalists against each other,” said Minnesota AFL-CIO President Ray Waldron. “The choice between good jobs and a clean environment is a false one. We need to work together to get both.” The Blue Green Alliance builds on over ten years of efforts by Minnesota labor unions and environmentalists to oppose unfair trade policies and encourage corporate accountability.
The Blue Green Alliance’s forward-looking practical action plan includes:

• Challenging the “environment vs. jobs” myth that has been used as a wedge to divide working people and environmentalists/conservationists.
• Promoting our shared goals of fair trade, corporate accountability, workplace health and safety, workers' rights, and environmental protection;
• Developing a policy agenda focused on growing the economy, creating jobs while protecting the environment; and
• Advancing the right of all people, and their children and grandchildren after them, to enjoy the outdoors in recreational
  activities such as hunting, birding, hiking, fishing, and canoeing.

Minnesota BlueGreen Alliance
News Release 7/13/04
Blue-Green Alliance: A Definition

[Ed. Note: Can't find something you thought was here? Articles and links from this column move from here to "Archived Feature Articles" in the UMBSN "News Archive" menu. You should find what you are looking for there.]