HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 090408 Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
Attendance : Jan Sassaman, Bonnie Norwood, Linda Bowerman, Al Vickers, Remus
Smith, and Michelle Grunwald
Staff: Blair Pollock, Paul Spire, and Wanda McCain
1 . Adoption of Minutes from August 7 SWAB meeting Norwood moves to accept.
Vickers 2nd . Passes unanimously
2 . Board Member Comments Smith states that I didn' t want to say what I ' m about to
say at the last meeting because I didn ' t think it was appropriate . I remember when I
was about six years old, Durham was burning their garbage . I remember the things
came in a Model T or Model A truck and the men were shoveling it into the furnace -
just a steel single wall pipe in the early thirties . Also some 30 years ago Hillsborough
had a landfill . About every two years it would catch on fire by some mysterious way .
The downwind neighbors didn ' t like that.
The gentleman [on the recycling truck] that comes by every Wednesday does a good
job . I sit and watch him pickup about 4 or 6 different houses — he ' s hustling . Also, at
the SWCC north of Hwy 86, I ' ve been hauling stuff from my home and those three
men are as helpful as they can be .
Last week you [Gayle] mentioned that the New Hanover [waste combustion] plant
was going to close, can you tell me why?
Wilson states that the New Hanvoer County Board of Commissioners contains some
members who have historically been hostile to the incinerator . Inside sources indicate
that there are Commissioner relationships with private waste companies who have
lobbied that landfilling is cheaper, etc . and that the incinerator should be closed and
private landfills utilized . This issue has arisen several times over the past couple of
decades . Now it would appear to make even less sense to close it as the debt service
is being paid off this year I believe .
Norwood states that at one of the neighborhood meetings someone was complaining
that they could not get the SWAB minutes . Can you mail Rev . Campbell the minutes ?
Gayle states that we can mail him the last two and tell him how he can find future
ones on our website .
Norwood states that occasionally everyone [at the Eubanks Convenience Center]
disappears and one car will sneak into the SWCC and the guy will be sitting in the
office thinking he is safe and that person will steal everything they can get their hands
on because they think they are not being watched . So a heads up to pay attention to
1
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
the single car that comes in and goes right to the TVs and computers and takes
everything you don' t want them to have .
Wilson replies that that is good information and we will follow up on that.
Grunwald states that I go to the SWCC on Hwy 86 [Walnut Grove Church Road] two
or three times a week . The gentlemen that have been working there that came from
Hwy 57 are really nice . There is a gentleman there by the name of "Johnny " . He
refuses to tell me his proper name . He tells me off every time I ' m in there . I asked for
help getting some garbage into the dumpster he gave me a dirty look and replied " I ' m
not going to hurt my back for anyone, that' s on you honey " . He will not let me put
iture into the exchange shed . He said it is his job to keep the place
perfectly good furn
clean and if he says you don ' t put it there, you don ' t put it there . I haven' t told him
who I am . I don ' t know who he is, but I ' ve had a lot of people complain about him .
He has even made snotty comments to other employees working there about helping
elderly people . He ' s got everybody else sitting down . As far as he is concerned he is
God . I don' t know if someone needs to talk to him, he has got everyone cooperating
with him and people that used to help don' t help when he' s around . They help when
he' s not around .
Wilson states that we will follow up and speak with Johnny to let him know what has
been observed and reported and counsel him on how to improve his customer service .
Grunwald states that I ' ve seen him sitting in a chair watching a man so old he almost
fell over trying to get a bag of garbage into the dumpster . In a situation like that
aren ' t they suppose to help ? Isn' t it dangerous?
Wilson states that they are not required to because there are people that come out
there with extremely heavy things . How did they get it on their truck? We don ' t
require them, but ask them to help if they can .
Grunwald states that helping a man get a bag of garbage out of the trunk, there is no
reason for him not to get up . He has told many people " that' s not in my job
description, it' s on you . You hurt your back; go ahead, I ' m not going to hurt mine " .
Wilson states that we will have a talk with Johnny . Give us some more feedback after
a few more trips .
3 . Landfill Alternative Technology Assessment Final Report Wilson states that this
item was presented at our last meeting . A similar but briefer presentation was
supposed to take place this past Tuesday night to the BOCC but the meeting ran long
and they didn ' t get to it. We are trying to reschedule it. Jan thought that this group
may want further discussion on it or to see if the SWAB has any recommendation or
2
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
feedback they want to convey to the BOCC to , or not to, pursue one or more of the
alternatives, park it for ten years, or make no comment at all .
Sassaman states that Barry Jacobs asked the SWAB this past winter to look at the
alternative technologies for handling waste . Essentially this report was done at our
request in response to the request of the BOCC . I expected [at the Commissioners
meeting the other night] that the Commissioners would ask me what the SWAB
thought about it. I have my own ideas but I would like to throw it out to you all .
To summarize, the report indicates that there are two groups of technologies - those
that are currently in use today, particularly the Mass Burn, and the RDF [refuse
derived fuel] and then the emerging technologies, Pyrolosis, Plasma Torch, etc . In the
U . S . the only technologies that are working are the Mass Burn and RDF technologies .
However these technologies, because of the economies of scale, have an economic
tipping point that requires a lot more waste material than we produce on a tons per
day basis .
Vickers states that the report essentially states that demonstrated technologies would
not be economic for the town the size of Orange County . The report also indicated the
other technologies are being hyped again as they were hyped thirty years ago, but no
one made them work right in a real situation. It would not make sense for this
community to experiment and spend a lot of money on development of untried
technology .
Smith states that he is recommending to the Town of Hillsborough that they consider
a consortium for mass burning with the surrounding counties, starting with Orange
ill need this future process for years . No
County . Orange, Durham, and Chatham w
more than I know about it, I know the landfill is filling up . I also know that we will be
producing garbage as long as there are two of us left and we will have to do
something with it. Burning it is the only way with the strict clean air provisions
regulations we have . I ' m in favor of investigating it with some other help .
Hillsborough cannot afford it, Orange County can' t afford it, but maybe Orange,
Durham, Chatham, and Wake could afford it. '
Norwood states that they will only look at it because a lot of people are making the
comment about not wanting to dump our garbage on someone else but we don' t have
the land or the garbage to do it. We would have to seriously look at what type of offer
to make to chip in. You' d have to start by stating how much garbage you have, how
much would you supplement the building of it, who would want to build it? They
would need to start now to make any real impact.
Grunwald asks is it feasible for Orange County to get into a project that big with a
county as large as Durham without having control of the project. If we' re going to
3
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
start the project for the benefit of all the last thing we want is for someone to outvote
and outstrip us . Is it even enough, I don' t know .
Sassaman states that this is the very beginning of the discussion .
Grunwald states that it is an important consideration to move the discussion forward .
Do we have the strength to keep it equitable for all parties ?
Wilson asks how would you define equitable .
Grunwald states that I live in northern Orange County, this is Chapel Hill, and one
out votes the other every time . Does one county have the ability to make all the
decisions and run rampant over another ? Can this be created in a cooperative way ?
Wilson states that that is always tough . It' s tough enough to agree on library issues .
When you talk about multiple towns and counties, Durham doesn' t have a lot of
municipalities, when you' re talking about Wake you' re talking about twelve towns .
The waste quantity from there makes one of these technologies economically feasible .
Chatham is in the same boat as we are . I don' t know that Durham would do any
heavy lifting to pull it off, but if someone else advanced it, they might be interested in
seeing what' s in it for them . From a sustainable standpoint the logical place to put it
would be nearest the largest amount of waste to minimize hauling . Taking a step
back and looking 20 - 30 years forward, Durham will have been hauling for decades,
Orange for 20-30 years, Wake County' s new landfill will be closed in about twelve
years . When you look out 20 -30 years at what will people do with waste generated in
the Triangle, you come up with a very short list of possibilities . One is to ship it
further because the landfill in Virginia will be full . If you' re going to continue
landfilling, you' re going to be shipping it further . The only thing that would make
sense would be a technological answer . The answer is not pyrolysis . Only Mass Burn
or RDF is tried and true, but the politics of pulling that together are hard to fathom .
They don' t make a lot of progress on transportation issues . There are few success
stories on a regional basis and garbage is not on the list typically .
Grunwald asks would a recommendation be to say we are going to have to address
this in the future but now we will have to sit back and see what' s improving.
Wilson states that there is a vehicle to which the dialog could begin — the Triangle J
Council of Government, but they have, not too long ago, essentially disbanded their
solid waste section and expertise . They used to have a staff person dedicated to solid
waste issues but she' s been gone for five or six years now .
Pollock states that the last thing that segues from Gayle ' s point about regionalism is a
few years ago the counties in the COG [Chatham, Durham, Lee, Moore, Orange Wake,
4
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
not Johnston] said let' s put a letter of interest out and see if there is some County that
wants to be our partner, in a way where we ' ll capitalize and they site it on their land .
They said it makes sense to go within a 100 mile radius two hours one way by truck .
They didn' t get any responses from anybody within a 100 miles radius even though
they said ' we' ll capitalize it, pay you a host fee and all you have to do is allow the hole
there " .
One thing that I saw interesting in the report, two of the three really successful ones
they showed were right in the middle of cities less than 1/2 mile from where people
live, not just the factory districts and no apparent problems . The technology has
advanced further than the attitudes about the technology .
Wake County has a landfill for $22 per ton. Durham is shipping to Virginia and is not
concerned . Even if we were really ready to do the political lifting, there is no one to
lift with .
Bowerman states that it is a good idea to do it. We would need more counties . This is
not the time . I agree that it is something that eventually needs to be done .
Norwood states that because Orange County likes to be progressive, if I were going to
sit down and talk to Barry face-to-face, I would suggest mailing out information that
would explain that somewhere down the road this will be an issue and we want to
remind you of it. We' re thinking of it now and we have some good information we
can pass it on to you .
Wilson asks who is the " them " , the citizens ?
Norwood replies Durham, Wake, and Chatham . They could sort of remind them
every year so that it stays not on the top surface, but just under it and then Orange
County would look good by reaching out.
Vickers states that what I ' m hearing is that the SWAB endorses Mass Burn but doesn' t
feel that Orange County can do it on its own and needs to encourage the
commissioners to look for an opportunity for when the major players are ready to
play .
Sassaman states that there is a train wreck coming . There is just a little more track to
go on for now as there is some landfill space around . The current climate is not in
favor of landfills and this is what has started the concept of looking at alternative
technologies . One of the criteria we asked the. consultants to include was cost. The
cost is the stumbling block to Mass Burn and RDF for a facility our size . In Table A2
in their report the RDF plant takes up to 750 tons per day and the modular Mass Burn
takes up to 150 tons per day . The costs per ton for operating and maintenance for
5
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
Mass Burn and RDF run $50 460 ton . The real cost is the capital cost for the installed
unit. The facilities are expensive but there should be other factors that drive what we
do in Orange County other than cost. One of the best things to do with garbage is to
use it for something else . One of the things to use it for is to generate electricity . The
ash at the end of the incineration process is quenched in water and is typically a
sludge that has a water permeability that is less than concrete, when it sets up in a
landfill it does nothing . The bag house dust that comes out at the end can be treated
in such a way that it sets up like concrete . It is not a dangerous thing to have .
Grunwald asks if there is current research now in using the ash in actual cement.
Sassaman states that the problem at this point is regulatory .
Spire states that there is some fly ash in concrete . It is not a lot.
Grunwald states that prices may come down for this type of technology while other
prices go up .
Sassaman states to summarize what I think is appropriate is that we suggest
continued active evaluation of some of these technologies . One thing that comes to
mind was if we had the RDF processing unit, to put it on a train to the University and
retrofit the University facility would be a good solution. I don ' t know if it would be
feasible .
Vickers asked if the power plant could handle that much garbage .
Bowerman asks where fuel prices [for long haul] factor into the balance point against
building a plant.
Sassaman states that the costs are built into the contract to haul garbage but no one
talks about the carbon footprint or the risk to human health of having all these trucks
on the road . If you put enough trucks on the road, people will die .
Vickers adds that risk assessments show that transportation creates much greater
risks than other aspects of technologies .
Pollock states that the tipping fees for transfer stations in Durham that go to distant
landfills are $42 at Waste Industries and $40 at City of Durham which are far less than
the costs shown in the report to build an incinerator here .
Bowerman asks how much expansion you can do if you build this . Can you double
the tonnage and not have a problem if you need more capacity later?
6
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
Wilson replies it depends on which technology you are talking about.
Pollock states that one of the things they talk about is modular units which are smaller
and more costly, but you can essentially bring in another module . But when you
build big water-wall mass combustors the throughput can be low initially but you can
add more material to them . You can' t readily expand them like building a room on a
house .
Sassaman states that the modular ones are easier . In Orange County I' m not sure that
within reason the actual dollar cost should be the primary driving factor if we want to
be technologically in the forefront. Were doing recycling not because it' s cost
effective but because it' s the right thing to do .
Grunwald asks if there is an environment now politically that would be open to the
higher cost of this . It is not cheaper [than landfilling] but we are running out of
landfill space .
Sassaman states that our role is to look at what is technically feasible, look at the
economics of it and what might be the right thing to do . The political decision would
be made by the elected officials .
Norwood asks why it would be attractive to UNC to refit their plant. Would they
make a profit from the County ' s garbage or would the county have to chip in for the
refitting? What would be the driving factor for them to do that?
Sassaman states that that would be the thing we would need to investigate . That is
why I asked if there would be a carbon offset benefit. The carbon offset is what made
the landfill gas so attractive to UNC . Is it better to burn coal?
Pollock states that Harvey Gershman and I took a walk to the coal plant; he stated,
politics aside, one could do this, physically accommodate it. You could bring garbage
into a coal bunker, if they wanted to do that. From the perspective of the carbon
footprint issue of garbage vs . coal there is a politically driven split. The report GBB
did for us they are saying yes it is a major carbon offset. By burning the garbage you
are going carbon neutral against coal . There is another report funded by a variety of
groups including the Global Anti Incinerator Alliance, where their conclusion is the
opposite because of all the up stream energy that is embodied in making the things by
burning those things you' re doing worse carbon wise than coal . There are grounds
for debating the carbon footprint. That is not so with landfill gas everyone is in
agreement that is a carbon offset. The world is changing regarding the evaluation of
carbon offsets .
7
Minutes Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
Wilson states that the cost of a rail transfer facility is exorbitant and for the amount of
waste we would have to deliver for 2-3 miles using the landfill as the source I don' t
think UNC would allow all those trucks on to campus with the waste . You have to
have some serious volume, one car every three days is not enough . Rail haul for the
quantity of waste generated in Orange County is not realistic . Regarding construction
of a siding and transfer mechanism, Durham looked at this 10 years ago with four
times the waste we have and it was twelve million dollars .
Science and cost are not the main drivers . The science is irrelevant. Incineration is
looked at unfavorably and would be a tough sell . You don' t hear of any modern
landfills in the state polluting anything . They' re pretty safe but if you mention the
landfill they will run you out of the room .
Long term the only option [for smaller areas like this] is regional cooperation . The
State regulation is pushing for several large landfills in the state that everyone would
use . The carbon footprint of that would be very negative . You can ' t ignore the
hauling . I do believe they would receive carbon offset by burning garbage . They
might be willing at some point to look at some stand- alone facility in Chapel Hill
North . I don ' t know how feasible that is within the structure of the University, but
they may want to talk about it as they may achieve some carbon offsets .
The Sharon Harris nuclear facility probably vents enough heat in a day to burn all the
garbage in a 5 - 6 county area . You would think they could zap a little garbage while
they do that. That may not be technically feasible or politically feasible . Or maybe,
since they own a large piece of property that is very secure, that could be the site for a
regional burn facility . In the short-term, there are no short-term possibilities other
ith the University and we should get our waste
than some quiet discussions w
reduction and recycling house in order through the work group and get the transfer
station sited and focus on that before we move on to long term issues . But do convey
the sense that long-term the County is going to have to look at some of these
technologies .
Bowerman states that since we are at the far end of this generating energy, is there a
way to work with an energy company and have them use the energy ? They get
energy from lots of other sources so why not garbage ?
Pollock states that in the [GBB] report, the big RDF plant they look at in Minnesota is
a consortium involving the public power entities . There is a plant where they' re
making the garbage into a fuel where you buy the coal from one and the RDF from
another .
Vickers states that one issue that Gayle alluded to even if you make the RDF here our
quantity would be a major issue . He also makes the point that the State tried to be in
8
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
the lead on a hazardous waste incinerator and a low level radioactive waste site that
were disasters .
Pollock notes that the companies who might have used the hazardous waste
incinerator found it cheaper to eliminate hazardous wastes . The economics of
reducing waste may become more favorable than burning it too . One point that
Gershman made is that you should make less garbage rather than invest in an
incinerator .
Vickers states that if building and operating the transfer station affects the tax rate
they may pay more attention .
Sassaman states that the question is still what sort of answer if any do we wish to give
to the BOCC .
Grunwald states that we need a lot of future discussion but right now there are too
many very important issues that need to be finalized . We are almost in an emergency
situation with the transfer station we don' t need to be wondering off on things that
wi11 come up 10 - 20 years from now . We have to stay focused .
Vickers states that the Commissioners have to know that there is no immediate
solution other than doing the transfer station for the next 5 - 10 years . We cannot say
' the sky is falling' when it' s not. The time is not right, now .
Sassaman asks how long it took the landfill gas issue from first mention to get serious .
Pollock replies 1997.
Sassaman states the first issue is do we recommend that this issue of alternative waste
processing technologies stay on the table ? Or take it off and let them take it up again
ten years from now ?
Norwood states that because of how long it takes to teach us or the commissioners
things, since it is going to be the issue down the road, the more we expose them to this
[idea] , the more easier and educated they will be . I think we should keep it on the
table .
it stays on the table the next question is do we think Sassaman states that assuming
the glitzy technologies may become viable and the way to go by the time we are going
to need to do something or do we focus on the tried-and-true like Mass Burn and
RDF?
9
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
Vickers states that we should not eliminate technology but say any technology down
the road that they decide to go after should have to be demonstrated and proven in at
least one or two major facilities not a demonstration unit.
Bowerman states that it should state here is the best of now and barring some huge
improvement in any of the others, at least measure it against this .
Sassaman states that the next issue is, is it more appropriate for Orange County to
strike out on its own or do we want to go in with a joint jurisdictional group . Is
Orange County in the lead ? Should we build it and hope they' ll come . We ought to
suggest an approach . We won' t have enough garbage ourselves to make it go .
Spire notes that if we become the taker of the product, then we become responsible
whether we' re operating or not.
Bowerman asks what happens in the small area site, like the one in downtown
Arlington .
Sassaman states, they take it only from themselves, not others . The economics are
better if they take garbage from others .
Vickers states that even with a transfer station, landfilling is not a long term solution
and it' s something they need to think about. The small size of our waste stream is
important and affects the economics .
Pollock notes that the transfer station may be needed even if we' re transferring to an
incinerator .
Wilson states that it seems that you are saying [we need] to focus on short-term
priorities now while at the same time pursuing any opportunities that may come up
in the meantime and perhaps initiate some preliminary discussions with the
University to examine any potential . Then refocus on these issues in three or four
years once the priorities are taken care of . Should we re- examine the tried-and-true
and set aside those proven not to work? Have some kind of Triangle Regional Waste
Summit and try to examine this issue and bring it to the forefront and we know this
crisis is coming and we should examine our possibilities and try to get some
motivation .
Norwood sates that that wording is good . We should say to the commissioners we
will keep our ear to whatever is going on, but this is what you need to do - try to get
someone on the same page with us so others in the area have the same information
and someone with money and land wants to fund it, someone may want to set up this
Triangle Regional Waste Summit.
10
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
September 4, 2008
Approved October 2, 2008
Smith states that the Hillsborough representative to the COG may be interested in
this . I would think the Chapel Hill representative might too .
Sassaman states that there are a lot of ideas . I don' t think we need to have a [formal]
resolution . What I would like to have is a very brief memo ready for the
commissioners when they finally deal with it at a meeting where it' s presented . What
I ' d like to suggest is to have staff to condense this portion of our discussion into a
page or so with some recommendations and pass it around electronically and see if
we are happy with that.
Norwood moves to ask staff to do as Jan suggests in developing the summary memo .
Vickers 2nd with the understanding that staff will do a summary of our discussion of
the interpretation of what the report means as a one page item to the Board .
Motion passes - 6- 0 .
4 . Solid Waste Management Plan Work Group Process - Detailed Status Report
Pollock states that the next meeting [of the Work Group] is September 18th at 11 am .
There are two things that will be on the agenda . The future of the SWCCs and drop
off sites and the way that intersects with the unincorporated area waste collection by
franchise . I will talk more about the next six to nine months of the solid waste plan
then .
5 . Programs/Services Update -- Deferred
Solid Waste Operations Center
Transfer Station Siting Process
Landfill Gas Recovery Project Wilson states that at the next meeting the University
will come and make a presentation on the landfill gas project.
Landfill Leachate Sezver Project
Comprehensive Plan
Other
6 . Other None
Norwood moves to adjourn .
Smith 2nd ,
Adjourn : 9 : 10pm
Next meeting October 2, 2008
Chapel Hill Public Library
11