Advertisement Eight Dairyland officials were on hand to explain why the landfill is needed and spent the better part of two hours answering questions.
The crowd gathered under a tent on the farm that overlooked one of two potential sites that remain from Dairyland's original list of 70 sites. Dan Volden, who farms with his brother, Carl, at the location, said the farm has been in his family since about 1898 and was certified organic five years ago. Volden said his family has worked hard to maintain the farm and take care of it with the best conservation practices and reduced chemical usage.
"You can imagine how we feel when Dairyland is talking about 225,000 cubic yards of contaminated waste in a dump site right over there," said Volden.
Volden pointed out across the valley at farms that would be gone if the proposed landfill is approved and built.
Dairyland has proposed the construction of the landfill because of the increased amount of waste that is projected to be generated when it installs new "scrubber" equipment on the smokestack at its Genoa coal-fired power plant. The cooperative made the announcement initially by contacting some of the landowners at the two potential sites and asking them for permission to come onto their land to do soil testing.
"When John Kennedy was killed I remember exactly where I was when that happened," said Carl Volden. "When the Challenger exploded I remember where I was then, and I know most of us in this area will never forget Sept. 19th. It was a real shock to us all."
Carl Volden said many of the landowners were "disgusted" that Dairyland chose the tactics that they did to develop the landfill plan in secret and informing landowners the way that they did. Volden pointed to the Touchstone Energy logo that depicts people holding hands and said "that handshake was broken."
Volden said many had gotten past the anger of that tactic and are now looking for ways to solve the problem without displacing landowners.
Volden said that many of the landowners realize the legislators handed Dairyland a problem when they passed federal legislation that requires it to remove sulfur dioxides from its emissions, but also asked Dairyland officials to find a way to deal with that waste that "doesn't take 700 acres of farmland out of production." Volden said the issue is not a "not in my backyard" issue but a "not in anyone's backyard" issue.
"We believe there are better solutions," Volden said.
New technology
Dairyland Power's Vice President of Generation Chuck Sans Crainte said Dairyland is committed to environmental controls and is investing $250 million in the new technology to reduce emissions. Sans Crainte addressed the issue of notification to landowners about the proposed landfill. Sans Crainte said he was asked about the new scrubber at the Vernon Electric annual meeting March.
"I was questioned about the scrubber and I did indicate there is waste in that," said Sans Crainte. "The question was 'What are you going to do with it?' The only answer I could offer at that time was that we have a consultant working on that and that was in fact the case at that time."
Sans Crainte said the DNR is the agency that will permit the landfill and it will take three to four years to complete the process of getting approval.
Sans Crainte said Dairyland has reduced sulfur emissions by about 70 percent since the 1970s through different coal mixtures and modification of equipment and the only way to reduce emissions further is to scrub the exhaust coming from the plant. Sans Crainte said Dairyland hired the engineering firm RMT to do a study of how to reduce emissions and they delivered a report to Dairyland in the end of June. Sans Crainte said the Dairyland Power Board of Directors did not accept the recommendation of RMT to proceed with a landfill until its Aug. 17 meeting.
Sans Crainte said the contact with landowners was initially planned for sooner but flooding delayed that process. Sans Crainte defended the decision to approach landowners rather than have a public meeting saying the procedure followed was the same as that used to install a power plant or high voltage line.
"In that case you approach the landowners first and follow it up with a public information meeting," said Sans Crainte. "We don't want landowners to find out about it from the neighbors or from the coffee shop… This contact with landowners is always an area of concern for us. I would be concerned myself. This is in many cases your home. You have a lot of pride in the ownership of your facilities. And we come in and unfortunately… we are a utility. That's a double-edged sword. We have the power of eminent domain."
Sans Crainte said eminent domain law requires utilities to inform landowners on contact that they are looking at potentially acquiring their land.
"It is a difficult thing," said Sans Crainte. "It looks heavy-handed. But if we didn't do that we would be in violation of the law."
Sans Crainte said Dairyland currently recycles about 80 percent of its ash through uses like adding the ash to concrete mixes and road aggregate, but the new process will make the ash unusable for reuse and the amount of ash needing to be land filled will increase by a large amount.
Sans Crainte said the proposed landfill would be constructed and operated in the same way as the Alma site that Dairyland has used for a number of years to dispose of its ash that cannot be recycled.
About the proposed sites
In response to questions about how the final two sites were chosen, Senior Project Engineer Curt Madsen said his firm took into account a number of criteria including DNR setback regulations, slopes, proximity to the Genoa site, wetlands, surface water, wells, archeological resources, endangered species, potential construction costs and access to roads. Madsen said all that information was put into a "complex graphical information screening system" and incorporated topographical maps. From that information 70 potential sites were identified as candidates for the landfill. All of those sites were within 20 miles of Genoa, Madsen said. That list was eventually narrowed to 10 sites and after further investigation narrowed to the two current sites.
Landowner Scott Leum asked why landowners were not all informed up front about the plan and only certain landowners approached initially. Leum said he was not among the first landowners approached, but according to the maps provided by Dairyland it appears his land is included in one of sites.
"It seems like you just wanted to bite little chunks off rather than take on everybody at once," said Leum
"What the real estate right-of-way agents were specifically tasked with was to come out and approach the landowners where we need to install the wells and the borings," said off site project manager Wendy Berndt. "In our minds they were the only ones physically being impacted at this time, so that is why we decided to approach the landowners where we needed the wells and borings."
Berndt said that one or both of the sites may be eliminated as possible sites if the testing is not favorable to a landfill.
"How can you say the local landowners won't be affected at all?" asked Carl Volden. "We believe those close by the project will be most affected."
"I understand when a site is chosen those close by will be affected," Berndt said.
Berndt said the initial contact was with those in the impacted area and surrounding landowners would be informed when the Oct. 17 public meeting took place.
"How can you say I am not affected when I have that circle drawn around me?" asked Leum.
Leum said he was not among those initially contacted even though he is now inside one of the projected sites and he and others learned the overall site could be 600 acres from local media.
Berndt said the line on the map is "tentative" and can change based on how things proceed.
"There are no 'for certains' at this point," Berndt said.
Leum said the whole community will be impacted by truck traffic, property values and groundwater concerns.
"I think those are all legitimate concerns and that is what we will be spending a lot of time talking to you about and to the community about," said Dairyland's Director of External Affairs Brian Rude. "We know that everyone from here to Genoa will be affected.”
Local land owner Craig Peterson asked what the timeline would be to test the land and actually start purchasing land. Berndt said no land purchases would happen until after the DNR permit process is completed which could take between three and five years. When asked about cost, Berndt said the landfill site is estimated to cost about $26 million to purchase and construct.
Leum asked what the total truck traffic would be if the projected increase in the amount of waste to be land filled rises from 20,000 cubic yards to 165,000 cubic yards or more. Leum said that would equal 64 trucks per day not the estimated 8-20.
"Why we really aren't sure is because the scrubber itself is still in the design phase," said Berndt. "We have never operated one of these before at a Dairyland plant. We are using our best estimate on how much waste will be produced."
Landowner Pete Strachen said he estimated that if there is a need to haul 50 loads a day that would mean a truck would be loaded and on the road every 15 minutes. Strachen asked about the impact of that truck traffic on Genoa. Rude said Dairyland will work with the Genoa Village Board to develop a route with the least amount of impact.
Pollutants discussed
A number of landowners asked about the potential to reuse the waste material. Don Huff is Dairyland's Director of Environmental Affairs and said Dairyland has been very successful at reusing the ash in the past, but the process that will be used to remove harmful material from the exhaust makes that waste more difficult to reuse.
Huff said the process Dairyland is using is a "dry" process that injects lime and the waste is less usable than the "wet" process. Huff said the main reason the wet process can not be used at Genoa is that the plant is land locked and does not have the room.
When asked about documented groundwater contamination incidents at the Alma site, Berndt said those incidents occurred on phases of that landfill that were operating under old liner and protection requirements. Berndt said the proposed landfill would be under new standards that are stricter.
"That brings me to my worst fear because we know what is going to be going into this site is more contaminated…," Landowner Jim Bomkamp said. "I guess I perceive that 15-20 years down the road the next group of people you are going to be talking to you are going to say 'Well we didn't know any better back in 2007.' Every landfill we read about whether 1950, 1970, 1990… well we did the best we could, we followed the minimum standard and it's a problem."
"All we can tell you is we know what we know now," Dairyland's Waste Water Treatment Manager Bill Kowalski said. "I wish I had a crystal ball, but we are sending stuff (to be tested) and looking at how this stuff reacts."
"How close would you feel comfortable living next to this then?" asked Bomkamp.
Berndt said the Alma site, that uses the current standards and latest liner technology where waste has been placed since 2001, has had "no indication of groundwater impacts there whatsoever."
"But before there was," said Bomkamp. "In 1996, you had an unfavorable report for groundwater."
"That's a different cell totally (in the landfill)," said Berndt.
"But it's still the Alma site and you were dealing with what you what you knew then and you did the best you could then when Alma was built and you realized you may have made some mistakes there and changed the way you have been doing things and hopefully corrected it, but we don't know at this point," Bomkamp said.
"We have corrected it," said Berndt. "The landfill that is currently in operation is constructed in compliance with current Wisconsin DNR landfill construction permits. We have no groundwater impacts."
"Yes, but previous cells that were constructed to the DNR standards had problems and this potential one we are talking about today has a more contaminated product going into it, correct?," Bomkamp asked.
"No," said Berndt
"We are taking pollutants out of the air and the fly ash will be more contaminated than the fly ash than you are currently recycling," Bomkamp said. "That's the whole problem you can't recycle it because it's more contaminated."
"The sulfates that are collected in the scrubber with the lime cause the material to be expansive and that's why it can't be used in concrete anymore," said Berndt.
"Because it is precipitating the contaminant onto it," said Bomkamp. "The only reason you are atomizing the lime with it is because you want to take the contaminant out of the air. It is going to be in the lime and in the fly ash now instead of the air. We are trading one pollution for another, correct?"
"That's correct," said Berndt.
Rude addressed the same issue later.
"Essentially that is what policy makers did," said Rude "They said we want to get the mercury out of the air, we want to get the sulfur dioxide out of the air and they know that in Wisconsin, 80 percent of electricity on the state is produced by coal-fired power plants and we can't overnight turn that around.”
Rude said Dairyland has to keep providing power to the 600,000 customers it serves.
“This is not something we just love to do, this is something we have to do to get that power plant going in Genoa for the next 30 years, " Rude said.
When asked how much life is left in the Alma landfill Berndt said that facility is projected to be open until 2017. Berndt said the proposed Vernon County site would be designed to handle 30 years of waste which is the life expectancy of the Genoa plant.
Bomkamp asked why the Dairyland accepted asbestos waste at its Alma facility if it was designed as a "monofill" site.
"So, basically when you designed it (Alma) that was a monofill and you got an exemption (from the DNR) and now you do put asbestos in that and you could do the same thing here?"
"I think that was a one-time thing." said Berndt.
"If we have something small, if it is permitted, we will do it, but then DNR says you have to encapsulate it, it has to be in bags, triple bagged and mark the location of where it is at,” Sans Crainte said.
"But you told us earlier that ash was only being dumped at the Alma site, and it hasn't been the only thing dumped at the Alma site." said landowner Kim Strachen.
Any other solutions
"I don't know where that information came from," said Sans Crainte.
Landowners asked about the possibility of using an existing landfill for the ash. Dairyland officials said the La Crosse and Vernon County landfills were eyed, but they were considered too costly.
When asked about sending waste back on trucks or rail cars to coal mines or lime pits, Huff said those are options, but there are a lot unanswered questions about that. If there is no liner at those facilities Dairyland would be hesitant to create another potential issue somewhere else. Huff said it may be possible to "mine" the waste material from the landfill later if a beneficial reuse is developed.
"It is too late for the farms at that point," said Myrna Peterson
Several landowners compared the situation to the La Farge Dam project that displaced landowners then never moved ahead.
"If we can develop the technology tomorrow to recycle all of this stuff, wonderful," said Rude. "We are happy to do that, but for different reasons we are never going to be able to get rid of 100 percent of the product. Maybe down the road we can have a brighter day, but we feel we have obligation to start this process because the scrubber goes online in late 2009 and we are going to have to deal with that material everyday."
Carl Volden asked the officials to band together with other coal facilities and find a solution that can be used statewide and nationwide.
When asked about the use of eminent domain, Rude said he hopes voluntary agreements could be reached with landowners but the "greater good" sometimes outweighs the resistance to a project. Dan Volden asked the officials to turn around and look out over the valley behind them and said "turn around and look and tell me that a greater good for that land is that landfill… That is all productive farm land. There are families attached to that farmland and I can't stand here and have you tell me there is a greater good to covert that all to landfill."
Advertisement 
