Spokane7
49°
December 28, 2010 in City
City, air agency could settle fine, upgrade incinerator
Mercury pollution detected at waste facility
Spokane would have to pay a $5,000 fine and upgrade its regional trash incinerator under a proposed deal being considered by Mayor Mary Verner.
The settlement, proposed by the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency late last month, is in response to a violation related to mercury pollution in June at the Waste-to-Energy Plant.
Under the deal, the full fine would be $9,217, but $4,217 of that would be suspended. The city would also have to run an existing pollution control system that uses carbon as a condition of operating the plant and install monitoring equipment to help ensure that the process is working.
April Westby, an environmental engineer who oversees the permit for the air agency, said the agency is willing to reduce the fine because the city has agreed to upgrade pollution control at the plant.
“We were more interested in trying to ensure that this type of violation wouldn’t happen in the future,” Westby said.
The air agency issued the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, which owns the incinerator and is run by the city of Spokane, a violation notice on Oct. 27. Under the agreement the city would admit that the plant violated the permit. That’s a reversal of the city’s earlier position.
Spokane has long operated a carbon-based pollution control system at the plant, which is extremely effective at reducing mercury emissions. However, during annual testing, the plant turned off the system during one set of tests in order to prove that it could meet requirements without running it.
Three measurements were taken and averaged to determine if the plant meets the rules. In the mercury test this year, one of the three readings was more than twice the limit. The other two were within the standard, but the average was above the Environmental Protection Agency requirement.
The plant also tested emissions with the carbon system running, and results showed pollution well below limits. City officials had earlier argued that because the plant easily met standards while the carbon system was operating, it didn’t violate the permit.
Air agency officials argue that no one required the plant to test without the carbon system and that turning it off meant plant officials were taking a chance that could result in violations.
Russ Menke, director of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, said it will cost the system about $40,000 to upgrade the plant in response to the mercury violation. He said the carbon monitoring system will be installed in January.
He said the change won’t make much of a difference since the solid waste system already was committed to using the carbon system.
“We’re just going to monitor it a little bit more,” he said.
Menke said plant officials have been unable to determine what caused the spike in mercury emissions during the test.
“There was obviously more mercury in the waste than we’ve ever seen before,” Menke said.
Mayor Mary Verner has until Monday to decide if the city will accept a settlement proposal.
City Councilman Richard Rush, a member of the Solid Waste Liaison Committee, called the proposed settlement “generous” and questioned why the city bothered testing the system without the extra pollution control.
“Why we would want to turn it off for a test when we have (the system installed) is mystifying,” Rush said.
MAC faces angry crowd 
polistra on December 28 at 5:56 a.m.
Unlike the vast majority of environmental nonsense, mercury is a serious pollutant. It’s worth spending money to control it.
Coffee on December 28 at 9:04 a.m.
What a load of bureaucratic bull. Were the agency official present when the test were conducted and at the time they were run did they step up and say NO, if they were and they did not then they are the to blame not the city.
Seem to me that April Westby just wants to shift the blame to the city to protect her job.
liarsinnews on December 28 at 9:38 a.m.
I remember a few years ago, when the incinerator received a load of stuff from Canada and burned it in the wee hours of the morning. They got caught, but not much was done about it. A decade or so ago, I tried to find out what the incinerator was charging for the electricity generated. I gave up, after hitting my head on a brick wall. My guess is they sold it for next to nothing to WWP, aka, AVISTA.
Dazzeetrader11 on December 28 at 11:34 a.m.
dick..exactly what happened. Correct. Someday the citizens who paid for and built that mess will come to understand who actually pockets the money from the “Waste to Energy” plant.
All you well intended ones…investigate that one. You might be surprised what you find.
greenlibertarian on December 28 at 2:40 p.m.
That plant was quite a massive boondoggle, however there’s no mystery whatsoever about who’s buying the electricity that’s produced:
“Since it was built in 1991, Spokane’s plant has sold its power to Puget Sound Energy. That contract expires at the end of 2011, Menke said.”
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/feb/24/bill-would-turn-waste-energy-plant-green/
” Question: How much electricity is generated?
Answer: In 2005 the waste to energy plant generated 178,017 megawatt hours of electricity from 277,196 tons of Spokane County trash.
Question: Where is the energy sold?
Answer: The electricity is wheeled through Avista Utilities Washington Water Power Division and Bonneville Power Administration lines, and is eventually sold to Puget Sound Energy Corporation. Avista had, and still has, a power surplus and would only resell the power to other buyers. Puget Sound Energy Corp., on the other hand, had a need for more electricity and was willing to sign an attractive long-term (20 year) power purchase agreement. “
http://www.solidwaste.org/sub10ae.php?id=5100
MrNatural on December 28 at 3:07 p.m.
Well…”A Waste Is A Terrible Thing To Mind”…
Rather that it be processed through a waste-to-energy plant than landfilled…easier to scrub the air emission than to clean up contaminated groundwater…
liarsinnews on December 28 at 8:03 p.m.
Green: I hate to be such a cynic but the source you use might be questionable. Sorry.