Lake County seems to be backing away from incineration option

A push for more recycling would be preferable to burning garbage as an option in Lake County's solid waste plan, some county board members hinted Wednesday.

Members of the public works and transportation committee, who considered the matter at length, opted to make no recommendation pending further research.

An update of the solid waste management plan, originally scheduled to be considered by the full county board on Dec. 8, also was indefinitely tabled.

Opponents of incineration as one alternative to using landfills in the five-year plan struck a chord with elected officials.

"If you don't have incineration, you put focus on other alternatives," said Bonnie Thomson Carter, a member of the public works committee.

"We need to make a statement that Lake County waste stays in Lake County.

Mass incineration has been included in the updated plan approved by the Solid Waste Agency of Lake County, which oversees all aspects of municipal waste.

"Our landfills are starting to fill up," Executive Director Walter Willis told the committee. "We cannot bank on (landfill) expansion happening. We don't want to get into a situation where our backs are against the wall."

Members of Incinerator-Free Lake County, an opposition group, will be providing committee members with research and other information.

"We felt they listened fairly and openly and were willing to learn," said Barbara Klipp, a Grayslake resident and instructor at the College of Lake County who spoke on behalf of the group.

"I think we changed the way the group was thinking."

In an overview of the plan, Willis said incineration is a proven technology that has improved in the last 20 years and emissions of mercury, cadmium, lead and other toxic substances have been reduced substantially.

He noted that any proposed incinerator would face a series of conditions and layers of scrutiny and approvals, including by the host community and the county.

"There's no agreement, there's no project," he said.

Willis stressed the agency wasn't pushing for an incinerator but wanted it included as an option if or when an alternative to landfills would be needed.

Klipp contended that even the most modern incinerators spew toxic pollutants that would affect areas 50 miles away and create a variety of health concerns.

They also are poorly monitored, expensive, waste energy and would have an adverse impact on attracting business, she said. Reviewing an incinerator proposal could cost the county $500,000, she added.

Reducing the amount of waste being put in landfills would be a better option, she and others contended. They also oppose other "waste to energy technologies" included in the plan.

County board member Pat Carey, who is not on the committee, said she was "absolutely opposed" to an incinerator and that reducing and controlling waste was the goal.

"We want to be a leader," she said. "Putting these in, even as options ... that takes our eye completely off the ball of where we should be concentrating, which is reduce, reuse and recycle."

Willis said after the session that trying to cut down the 40 percent of landfilled waste that comes from outside Lake County would be a tough issue.

"I felt it (incineration) was a very important component of the plan," he said. "Is the plan hamstrung if it's taken out? No."