Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Incinerator Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sierra Club speakers urge Solid Waste Authority to pause incinerator plans and pursue recycling and pay‑as‑you‑throw
Summary
Two Sierra Club speakers told the Solid Waste Authority that a proposed large waste‑to‑energy incinerator would produce substantial toxic emissions and urged alternatives including expanded recycling, commercial composting, and pay‑as‑you‑throw pricing; they cited a study by Mike Ewell/Earthjustice Network.
At the public‑comment portion of the Solid Waste Authority meeting, two Sierra Club representatives urged the authority to reconsider plans for expanded municipal waste incineration and to prioritize recycling, composting and pricing reforms.
Linda Smith (Sierra Club Loxahatchee Group) said county recycling rates for aluminum cans (8–12% in recent years) lag best practices and urged the authority to expand commercial and multifamily recycling and to ramp up targeted education. She suggested pay‑as‑you‑throw as a possible alternative to building new incineration capacity, saying such programs can reduce household waste by up to 40% in some examples.
Gail Ladd (Sierra Club, Jupiter) cited a study by Mike Ewell (Earthjustice Network) that she said found a proposed 3,000–4,000 ton‑per‑day incinerator could become one of the county’s largest industrial air emitters of ammonia, cadmium, dioxins, furans, hydrochloric acid, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and greenhouse gases. “We fully support removal of REF1,” she said and urged the board to consider lifecycle‑cost analyses and expanded composting instead of large incineration investments.
Board response: Commissioners accepted the public comments; no technical rebuttal or new environmental analysis was offered during the meeting. SWA staff later noted that lifecycle‑cost analysis requests could be reviewed as part of future procurement work for the REF1R legal‑services RFQ and related project tasks.
What happens next: The board authorized advertising an RFQ for legal services for the REF1R planning tasks; public speakers asked that lifecycle‑cost analyses and alternatives be included or considered in future project work and procurement documents.
