HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 030509 Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
Attendance : Jan Sassaman, Bonnie Norwood, Doug Guild, Linda Bowerman, Al Vickers,
Remus Smith, Michelle Grunwald, and BJ Tipton
Staff: Blair Pollock, Paul Spire, Hary Howard, Mike Meagher and Wanda McCain
Guest: Lenoard " Rip " Ford - Draper Aden, Bonnie Hauser - Orange County Voice, Louis
Zeller - Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Greg Peverall - Waste Management,
and Peter Haviland - Wheelabrator
Audience / Speakers - Virginia Leslie, Carolyn Cole, Susan Dayton- BREDL, Richard
Eckberg, Chris Heaney, Peter Childres, Robert Campbell, Susan Walser, Chip Dodd, Bob
Sallach, Ernie Parker, Tony Blake, Tracy Kuhlman
1 . Open & Welcome - Sassaman states that there is a lot on the agenda and a lot of
guests here tonight. Thanks to those that have come to give presentations . To the
citizens here your interest is appreciated . For those that want to speak please sign in.
2 . Adoption of Minutes from February 5 SWAB meeting Norwood moves to accept.
Vickers 2nd . Passes unanimously
3 . Board Member Comments Deferred
4 . Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Program - Corrective Measures Public Meeting
Wilson states that there are a series of groundwater wells as well as [methane] gas
wells surrounding the landfills . They are a warning system in the event there is a
chemical release . Some chemicals have been detected . As a result we are required to
develop a corrective measures plan. Tonight Rip Ford with Draper Aden Associates
is here for the public meeting to discuss the nature of the issue and what is planned to
do to correct the problem .
Ford states that this is a fairly technical subject. When talking about the assessment of
corrective measures, it is the study to figure out what might we do to take care of the
groundwater contamination .
The active MSW landfill is on the south side of Eubanks Rd . , the active C &D landfill is
on the north side . We are interested in the old MSW landfill which is now closed and
located on the north side Eubanks . It started accepting waste in 1972 and served the
community for about 23 years . It stopped accepting waste in 1995 . Since then it' s
been a matter of maintaining the landfill cover and the other systems . When going
into one of these studies one of the first things we look at is geology of the area . A lot
of that work was done years ago . Every time a bore hole is drilled more geological
information is gathered . After that the attention is turned to the type of geological
setting and the water .
1
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5 , 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
When looking at a topographic map it shows the Old Field watershed, which means
when it rains and when there is more rain than soaks into the ground, the runoff goes
into the Old Field watershed to where it joins New Hope Creek . Precipitation that
falls outside the dotted line [referring to map in handout/ presentation, on the County
web site] goes the other way .
The State requires that there be a network of monitoring wells around the perimeter
of any landfill to find out if that landfill is contaminating the ground . The
nitoring program supplies different types of information, direction of
groundwater mo
groundwater flow, the velocity of the groundwater, and the chemistry . Groundwater
does not flow as fast as most people believe . The old landfill consists of a number of
wells . One of which is uphill, or upgradient, of the landfill . There is a suite of wells
located on the down hill/ downgradient side of the landfill . Every six months the
county takes [water] samples from all the wells and runs a chemical analysis on them .
In looking at the maps of the groundwater topography, it does not matter where you
are if it is at the old landfill [meaning the old closed segment on the north side] or the
new landfill [meaning the lined section on the south side] , [water] is flowing from the
west end of the property to the east end . They converge at a point along Millhouse
Road and it is moving about six meters per year .
What are we looking for in the groundwater ? Regulations from EPA says there are
213 constituents consisting of heavy metals and mostly manmade organic
compounds . Our concerns are with those constituents that have exceeded their NC
Groundwater Quality Standard . These are extremely conservative and very
protective of human health . Most of them are less and sometimes very much lower
than drinking water standards established by EPA . We don' t see too many of the 213,
but the ones we see are important. We are also looking at measuring very small
amounts of stuff . The unit of measure is parts per billion. The equivalent would be
one kernel of corn in a silo full of corn 45 feet high, 16 feet in diameter .
We are seeing mercury . It is difficult to determine the significance . One reason is that
metals occur naturally . There are five organic constituents that occur with some
regularity in different wells and exceed the standard in micrograms per liter, (parts
per billion) - benzene, 1 ,4- dichlorobenzene, cis-1 ,2- dichloroethene, trichloroethylene,
vinyl chloride . We look at this data over time . Benzene for example decreased over
time to below the drinking water standard and went back up then came down. In the
well closest to the waste, it was highest and decreased as it approached the property
line . You' re more likely to get a bigger dose of benzene pumping gasoline at the gas
station than from this groundwater . Ford explains the flozv of tzvo more of these chemicals
and their presence in comparison to the drinking zvater standards and ground zvater standards .
A lot of this study has to do with looking at these chemicals and their concentrations
around the landfill . The next step is who might be at risk of the groundwater going in
2
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
that direction at that velocity in this concentration. Risk has to be from direct
exposure through drinking, bathing, eating . To the northeast is a farm yard at 7300
Millhouse Rd . , which is the nearest potential resident. Several years ago the County
sampled this well and some other wells in the area to make sure they didn t find any
of these constituents in the residential wells . On the other side of the creek are
commercial properties on public water supply .
The corrective action program we will propose to the State includes a series of things .
• Institutional controls - controlled access to the site and it is fairly well controlled .
• Engineering controls include final cover, landfill gas vents . The cover consists of
three layers soil, 18 " infiltration layer, a cap and clay material to keep rainwater
from going into the garbage . The gas vents also draw moisture .
• Natural attenuation, we' ve seen evidence that there is degradation going on to
continue to break down the compounds [found in the groundwater] . This reduces
concentration of the chemical naturally . We could propose to the State and they
may accept to let nature do its course . We' d rather do more than that, like
enhanced biodegradation. There are bacteria down there using it as food but there
are compounds that can speed this up . Some may think it is not going fast enough
and propose using direct oxidation to inject compounds to speed up degradation .
to construct a couple of injection wells on the uphill side of
We are proposing
some of the wells where there is contamination and inject chemicals to enhance
degradation .
Richard Eckberg, I live about six miles from here and am a semi-retired industrial
chemist. I am curious about what gets injected to enhance the oxidation . Is that some
kind of peroxide compound?
Ford replies yes . Some people use hydrogen peroxide . I' ve tried that under some
conditions but the reaction can be so violent it can be dangerous . We prefer to use
potassium permanganate .
Eckberg asks if the potassium permanganate presents any environmental issues .
Ford replies no it just ends up with the free potassium ions and manganese oxide
which stains the aquifer black . It is highly approved by the State and EPA . Not
having any adverse environmental impacts . I was concerned that using an oxidant
would kill all the native bacteria colonies so that once you used direct oxidation, it
would be difficult to go back to natural degradation . There are studies that show that
is not happening . The bacteria will become dormant, but it' s not strong enough
3
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
oxidation actually oxidizing bacteria cells . I prefer to do something the bacteria will
enjoy .
Sue Dayton, I live in Alamance County, next to a landfill as well . Of the contaminants
listed, would any of those not be broken down by the method you described ?
Ford replies no . Most will be broken down by one or both . There are some
exceptions, like propane, but we don' t see that. Everything that we are seeing here is
very amenable .
Dayton asks of those containments how do you rate those for being degraded by this
method .
Ford states that among those 123 that include various herbicides, pesticides, PCBs and
a lot of things that are recalcitrant and harder to treat with these methods there are
other methods . We work with about 47 landfills and we almost never see herbicides
and pesticides that we can verify . I don' t know if these oxidants would or would not
oxidize these herbicides and pesticides because I' ve never had to deal with them .
Chris Heaney, recent graduate of UNC School of Public Health . Your status sheet for
natural attenuation is based on the decline you show of some of the materials but
some of the toxic compounds appear to be going up , is that the reason for the test
wells ?
Ford states that we anticipate the natural attenuation will ultimately take all the
constituents down to the NC Protection Standard given enough time . Rather than
wait, the County expressed interest in accelerating the whole process along the
eastern edge of the property to clean it up sooner rather than later .
Heaney asks if the injection wells is the response that will be proposed .
Ford states that it will be proposed and the next step will be to submit a corrective
action plan. We will have selected appropriate measures from the ones I went
through . Essentially we are selecting all of them saving direct oxidation for last in
case the other stuff doesn t work . That is the last step that will go into the corrective
action plan .
Heaney asks if there is a priority of the approach you mentioned . At what point will
you release information about a recommendation about whether it is natural
attenuation or the injection approach.
4
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5 , 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
Ford states that there is a certain amount of time to submit the corrective action plan
to the State and it is publicly available to look over . You will see everything in it that
we' ve talked about.
Heaney states that the second question deals with the groundwater flow . Some of the
original reports that were released or done in the 90' s by Draper Aden show that there
was different groundwater flow for the south facility versus the north facility . It was
a little different than what you show . Historically over time are there reasons for
changes in groundwater flow?
Ford states that the reason is when you get two different people to map two different
areas and where they come together things don' t always line up . Historically we
prepare a map of the north and then later prepare a second map for the south .
Recently we' ve done one map that includes the north, south and C &D as one
hydrogeologic unit.
Heaney states that you indicated that most of the [ground] water follows the surface
water trajectory which is to the east, but there is also a stream which seems to
originate near the landfill and goes to the west. You seem to indicate that boundary
lines are the best line where everything below that dotted line would go west and
everything north and east of that line would go east. It seems that residents in the
community might know the lay of the land more and understand it' s not just a
mountain where streams flow one way or the other but there is more of a flat area so I
am confused and my sense is other residents are [also] confused about the message
about groundwater flow .
Ford states that regardless of which side of Eubanks you look at the groundwater
unequivocally is not flowing from the landfill, either landfill, towards Rogers Rd . It is
all moving to the east, northeast. There may be variation in detail but essentially it is
all going *n that general direction. If I lived along Rogers Rd . I would not be
concerned about [this] . If I lived on Millhouse I would be interested in finding out
more about what is going on .
Heany asks when this report will be posted and made public .
it can be posted on the County web page .
Wilson replies that
Dayton asks how long do you continue to monitor for contaminants in years ahead .
Ford states that even if it is clean and you find nothing, you have to go 30 years post
closure . Now if we see something it will be monitored until it' s clean, by which I
mean it is less than the NC Groundwater Protection Standards, in all wells for at least
three years . And then the State says you can terminate post-closure care . There is a
5
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
mechanism built into the regulations for terminating groundwater monitoring
programs .
I took it upon myself during
Robert Campbell, Rogers Rd . Neighborhood Associ 1 lions to walk behind the
the last rain, while I may have violated
County landfill off Millhouse Rd . through the access road .�The water that was coming out of
the landfill running towards Millhouse Rd . comes back around and down Eubanks .
The water running out of the construction site (means construction waste landfill)
s a
next to the recycling facility was running down into Eubanks Rd . Thereowtraol the flow
collection pond on the side of Eubanks Rd . by the signs . How do thoe wa ? If water
of water when you are saying naturally the water is flowing the o y
is running out of the landfill and running down Eubanks Rd . across the street to the e
left side and flow towards Rogers Rd . , i out of th
t tells me that contaminants coming
landfill will also be in the surface water as well . How are you going to monitor for
contaminants if you don t test the groundwater and surface water?
Ford states that if there are contaminants on the surface of the ground and surface
water picks them up they will go whichever way the surface water flows .
Campbell states therefore the residents on Rogers Rd . should also be concerned . This
p 000 ft. ,
I a public meeting and I' ve asked once before you have to get out of that . I
[criterion] anything that impacts the quality of life and health of this community .
d . , Purefoy, Rusch, should be notified that map
are
think all the residents on Rogers R ll show on them
having a public meeting . [Staff requests that Robert Campbe p
where the water flow he found was and this occurs . ] Campbell proceeds to describe the
.flf ozv o water after the rainstorm and states it is tozvards Rogers Road . He states the leaves
in the ditch full of flowing water moved in the direction of Rogers Road .
Spire states that it was surveyed and we have the depths of the ditches . You are
welcome to come look at the data .
Vickers asked if NC DENR will hold a public hearing on the acceptance of the plan?
Ford states that their decision will be available for public comment.
Norwood states that regarding what Mr . Campbell was talking about the water ter at
collecting when we had all the ram is the same issue I told the animal she fills with
they are having a flood there where the new construction for the sewer linethe
water and that water goes over to the other side as well . Water is forced see it.
opposite direction when trucks cross the flooded area, you have to be there to to that
The new construction for the leachate pond that area filled up with water
and
tell them
water went on the other side because the trucks go off the road wherey
6
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5 , 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
not to . The water runs there and all it needed was enough force of the rain to clear the
hill and runs down. You have to be there when it happens .
Spire states that it does flood Eubanks Rd . but the water is not running
ng towards
it is going towards Millhouse Rd . The water flows across Eubanks Rd .
Rogers Rd .
from the south side to the east side .
Norwood states that I' m not clear between all the water building up where the
leachate / sewer goes through where the water went from there and how it got to here
on the right hand side to the left hand side . It didn' t last long . It does seem to flow
towards Rogers Road .
Wilson notes the pipe under the road is too small there .
Campbell states that the one I' m concerned about is across from the driveway here
and there is a construction site across the street. There was question about it before 000
the water was actually running from that way and there was a collector of water
above the driveway that ballooned that way and ran across Eubanks towards Rogers
Rd . and went into the low lying areas .
Spire states that is correct but it is also on the other side of the red line [separating
watersheds on the map] .
Campbell states that the concern is what is it bringing out of the construction site [he
means the construction and demolition landfill and expresses concern about leachate
or runoff from that] . He requests that water flow be monitored .
Wilson states that Mr . Ford will take a look at that with Paul to check the surface
water to verify that it is going where we think it is . If it isri t we will talk about
what
we need to do .
Bowerman asks if there is a program for monitoring surface water .
S ire states that is done . The information can be obtained from our engineer . It is
p
required after certain rain events .
Wilson states that corrective measures action plan will be submitted to the State . They
ill be implemented immediately . I will ask Mr .
will eventually approve it and it w
Ford to get with our operations manager to investigate the surface water flows Mr .
Campbell has discussed .
5 . Alternative Waste Management Technologies Wilson states that the issue of waste-
to -energy (WtE) alternative to landfilling has come up several times over the pas
7
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5 , 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
twenty years of my tenure here . When there was a landfill site search back in the
early ' 90s there was a major interest in something other than landfilling that the
county should pursue . There were very serious investigations of alternative
technologies . None of them panned out for a variety of reasons . Over time some of
the technologies became better refined and additional research was done and today
there are a number of promising technologies that are in various stages of research
and development with the handling of waste and other materials .
As a part of the transfer station site process the BOCC raised the issue of doing
something else with our waste even, if it is transferred, other than send it to a landfill .
An expert out of Maryland was hired who conducted a feasibility analysis of the
current and emerging technologies . The report was presented to the BOCC in
September . The BOCC has asked staff and the SWAB to provide a forum and
opportunity to hear about the various technologies to see if any are suitable for
Orange County or Orange County and others to pursue as a short or long-term goal to
handle waste generated that can' t be recycled .
gin the discussions of various technologies .
This is the first meeting of the SWAB to be
We are trying to get a variety of opinions and facts to eventually make a report bac
to the BOCC of what was heard . Over the next several meetings numerous
companies will be invited to speak so we can see if there is any potential for Orange
County now or in the future . There are a few technologi
es that are fairly mature that
are functioning and environmental controls have been perfected . There is a long list of
other kinds of various technologies in various stages of development that may at
some point in the future provide various opportunities for use .
Orange County Voice Bonnie Hauser states that we know that WtE is not new to this
board . We' ve read the minutes and know this board raised the issue back in
September as an option the County should look at. Our comments tonight are based
on our own research in the area and an objective that we share with you and the
county for sustaining waste management solutions as environmentally, socially and
fiscally responsible . Our research says that WtE is not an option for the county in the
next two to three years . We do believe that working with other counties, business
ading waste and energy companies, that the county needs to
partners, the State, and le
in to look at this to define options and opportunities for WtE that include the
beg
discussion of sites and waste streams . The result of that project would provide the
basis for siting a waste transfer station for the county . Consulting a developer such as
Energy Answers could be a good partner for us to facilitate that effort.
We started researching the project last November at the suggestion of some residentss
from West Stockbridge (MA) who are now looking at shifting from their own landfill
operations to using a WtE facility, a Mass Burn facility in Pittsfield, MA next to a
paper mill where the US Currency is made . That community put us in touch with
8
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
Energy Answers who has helped educate us and provided us with some documents .
Greg Peverall and Chip Dodd of Waste Management have also helped educate us .
A summary of what Energy Answers has told us . The first question that we know we
have after we met with the board was about UNC' s co- generation plant. In talking
With Energy Answers about that they looked at the specs of the plan and they believe
it is not acost- effective option to convert that plant to WtE . Their comments were
based on this : It [using waste exclusively] would generate about 1/4 of the power that
the facility currently generates now . The second thing they were concerned with was
bringing a waste stream into the residential neighborhood would create
insurmountable obstacles that we don' t think you could get past. They said if you
wanted to consider an option for that plant it would be to look into technologies
were emerging to turn biosolids into coal-like substances and use that as an energy
source . They thought the community would be more receptive to having biosolids come in on rail cars than trash coming in on rail cars . Energy Answers has provided
documents on what they call an integrated resource recovery facility . It is essentiald y
an eco -industrial park WtE facility surrounded by recycling so the residual ash would
go into concrete companies or building materials companies . It wouldn t have to ship
the residual ash all over the country . The transfer station site in Greensboro was
perfect because it had all the recyclers right there . They said these parks generally
take about 20 acres, not 100 or 150 . They are designing 1000 tons per day facilitiesolo
using processed refuse fuel technology, it is a proprietary version of RDF techn gy
and it includes waste treatment, energy recovery and materials recovery which is the
recycling of the residual ash . They are claiming this technology is cleaner than Mass
Burn technology and produces less residual ash for recovery . They are working
toward a goal of zero disposal . They also have experience with rail cars used for
tipping and could help the county sort through options using our unique rail
network . Gershman pointed out that rail is used for long distance transport of waste
or ash but apparently there are unique opportunities to use our unique raid network in
our community .
To clarify the EPA, Energy Answers and others recommend siting this type of facility
on a true highway like I40 or I.85 with water and sewer, road infrastructure on the 0
power grid and near rail . Good siting helps to keep the costs within the $100 to $20
million price range . WtE complements and possibly enhances recycling goals and all
nities that have WtE have better recycling performance
the statistics say that commu
than communities that don' t. In addition to the RDF technology that Energy Answers
uses, there is the Mass Burn technology and there is also a rash of unproven
to market. Technologies from the steel industry are now being
technologies coming
applied to the waste to energy .
North Carolina does not classify WtE as a renewable resource . It does classify poultry
incineration plants that are highly polluting as a renewable resource . We believe that
9
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
is changing but certainly any study in WtE would have to consider the regulatory side
of it. We are suggesting please go forward and study WtE . It is going to take a little
time . It' s regional not just Orange County and would hope you would consider the
following factors -
Look at all the waste streams not just municipal household waste . Potential for
biosolids, tires, construction debris and other things could be converted to energy
and all the wastes streams need to be looked at. Plasma advocates claim that
y
can convert medical waste to energy .
We think today might not be the answer, it is going to take some time to do and
the technology is changing , huge investments [are] going into WtE so we would
hope that the county would say what is a good time for us to jump in , What has
historically happened with WtE is not what is happening today .
The size of the facility is important. We talked about highway, rail, power and
water and sewer . Also we would hope that the county would think aboutlove the
industrial areas [with] minimal impact on residential communities . We
eco industrial park model . Experts agree that 1 , 000 tons / day or lager is the right
size .
We hope you look at the environmental impacts . The WtE industry is claim We
that they' re burning as clean as natural gas or very close on most emissions .
would expect the county to retain environmental experts to come to our own
conclusions about that.
We hope that our rail system will be part of the solution . When we look at the the
economics, it' s not just costs, and our costs are getting up there . It is looking m
$ 60 + / ton for us to handle our waste . When we look at the economics it' s not just
dual
to build and operate the facility, it has to be the resale of the energy the resi
ash, incentives for renewable energy and potential revenue for Orange County .
We are not sure that this is a county initiative because looking at a $100 $
million capital investment this is what the big boys like Waste Management or
Duke Energy this is what they do for a living and if Orange County might haveant
better role of committing to a waste stream and saying this is something we w
to participate in rather than something that we build .
Finally there are the regulations would have to part of the study . As a final point,
we believe the County should discontinue all work on the waste transfer station on
the Howell site and in rural county . Instead we think the County should empower
this board to aggressively explore WtE and provide funding for expert opinion
and research . For our short-term needs, we suggest the County engage local
vendors to handle our waste disposal requiring no immediate siting decisions and
10
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5 , 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
savin the taxpayers millions of dollars . Orange County Voice would be happy to
g
hen with community ty education and other services that you think will be ep
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League - Louis Zeller : I have been on the staff of Blue
g many
Ridge Environmental Defense League since 1986 . I have worked Chas been in the
communities across NC and surrounding states . Most of our work management
area of waste, initially nuclear waste . In 1988 we began solid waste mana g
' because this was the time when EPA was putting in new rules and
investigations
ire liners under RCRA . Over the years we have
regulations about landfills to requ
worked at the local level, State level and Federal level on policy advocacy and
working with citizens groups all around on public health aspects as well as th k the
u a
economics of waste management. The title of my presentation, bete se bas� areas -
question we believe that WtE is not the answer . I will touch on three the bulk of the
background, history and status of the existing situation in NC , energy balance . I' ll
presentation will be on types of incineration, pollution and the
finish with touching on some of the alternatives .
Ove
rall the State has about 29 years of [landfill] capacity at the current rate of 8 billion
tons / Y incinerator ear . There are 41 landfills across the state and one operating MSW Sol d
located ion the Soln New Hanover County . In 1991 the General Assembly amended in waste sent
Waste Management Actin Senate Bill 111 and called for a 20 /o reduIti fact over that
to landfills by the 21st century . Unfortunately that did not happen*
p
eriod of time waste per capita has increased by 16 /o . From 1 . 07 to 1 . 25 tons per
person.
S assaman states that it did happen here . We have reached 50 % [waste reduction] .
Zeller states that Orange County is a poster child of how to do the right thing . T onl
is the leader among all counties . There a y
commend that effort. Orange County
be don
four counties that met that reduction rate . It shows that the right thing can
ev
en w ithout the kind of State support that counties should be able to have . In this
report the State talks about some of the impediments to recycling and waste
er
p gg
management has been increasing waste disposal by permitting more
ia so in of promoting better alternatives . One of the
commercial waste dumps the
reasons they cite is a Supreme Court decision which over the years has enforced es from
commerce clause in the U . S . Constitution in a way that would prevent decisions to allow
doing business in a practical way . Here he cites the recent flozv control des can control
publicly run facilities to exert flow control, meaning that publicly run face its
zvaste which is good nezvs in an otherwise gloomy picture .
' t have to tell this board anything I don about the upfront and backend costs of solid
waste management. Two aspects under full cost accounting for such programs would
include environmental costs and social costs, typically termed externalities . The
11
Minutes - Regular Mee a9
Solid Waste Advisory Brd
March 51 2009 April 2009
Approved Ap ental costs should not be sidelined
e League believes that social and envir accounting . We believe that back u
Defense g
ternalities but included in true human
cost
a, and international law to bat p
as ex
environmental justice requires it . I`herelaration of principles of 1992 stated think We
env the Rio dec
this principle . For example pollution and other environmental damages ,
compensation for victims of d States .
have a way to go m the Unit basic categories the
' ferent types of incinerators . There are two icall
There
are many different combustors . The older style were tyboiler , a
starved air incinerators and the excess air
or a rotary kiln or a waste feed air
excess air where there is essentially CO arc or pyrolysis
' In and ash comes out at the end . The p
lot of trash gong
into a rotary kiln others are plasm
asification units ,
combustion sometimes termed as g h temperatures which lead to mainte era e
units
Starved air combustion has very high
hearth jcinerators which also op
problems . These problems are shared by p U .S . as far
ro units also share some of these problems
hen
p Gasificaon
in a similar fashion. plasma arc or plasma torch do not exist in
temperatures exceed 2200F .
as I know .
excess air incinerators emit the same types
smokestacks from both starved air and 1 sis is on an annual basis for a 100 ran is
The The analysis
llutants, [cites chart handout] . r A tenth of a pound of dioxin and is an
of po 500 tons per yea
per clay incinerator , or 36 , mbustor . Mercury is present because it
p y
emitted from a modular starved air cc e presence of
ed by combustion• Oxides of nitrogen n s
element and cannot be destroy when you burn organic materials •could lower that.
dioxide of necessity must come er pollution control equipment
electrostatic precipitators or oth p combustion rates .
com aces annual emissions to daily
Vickers notes that the scale p per day would
in Orange County on a little over 200 tons p
An incinerator operating based on the facts developed by EPAe
have double the emissions ucin boiler .
Vickers asks if this
is for an incinerator , not a fuel prod g
r res onds that it is similar . Even the m
ost advanced technologie ould have
s w
Zelle p
such emissions * is wasted
' als energy balance: We believe thatk energy
reusing
mated
Let' s turn to the waste to [ waste . From EPA' s solid waste handba k to paper you
or burning solid wa or burning , with re
by burying g
than burying a er . The air
materials saves far more �o f�e energy that gOeS into mak 'hep water use is 58 %
are looking at a loss of ha additional air pollution,
° ° higher * water pollution is a third h g
pollution levels are 74 / g is also true in the. area of
higher . By burning
the materials you lose energy and create
Pollution and use additional amounts of water .
water pollu 12
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
burning these organic materials, paper or plastics , you will see the
plastics . If you are g
same es of pollutants as other organics
cs like coal or diesel fuel .
There are tradeoffs in terms of greenhouse gasses but there are advantages to
g
recY clip , creating less greenhouse gasses and more carbon sequestration .
' ves@ Orange County is doing a good job in terms of recycling . In Pitt
tt
The alternate g
NC the have established an East Carolina Vocational Center in 2003 .�e State
County , Y
un ' s annual per capita recycling rate was 714lbs . This was the highest
DPPEA
Co ty
and over six times the State recycling rate , in that same year of 1091 ere is a line of
a
has worked hard to bring about some of these types of facehtees . annually . This is a
tons of waste materials
eight people and they recycle over 30, 000 nd incineration .
viable economical alternative to Wt
We would recommen
d further investigation by your board during its deliberations of
the type of facility it would want, we would recommend a materials
how to pay for tY
recovery facility, without incineration.
aste Management Greg Peverall, director of market area development
Wheelabrator/CN g
for the So
uth Atlantic area and with Chip Dodd working in Eastern North en e in
and Peter Haviland of Wheelabrator Industries sharing with youMana our experience
is a $14
solid waste management and waste to energy programs . Waste Ma -gcommercial,
billion company . We started in 1972 . We serve 20 millionst-consumer processor of
industrial, and residential . We are the world s largest po aggressive oals to triple
America . We have WtE
recovered materials . We process 6 million tons and have Aress
that by 2020 . We operate 2831andfills throughout North but also energyrecovery at
plants. not only through [our] Wheelabrator subsidiary t 4000 homes from landfill gas
our landfills . We generate enough power for abou 600 000 homes .
and generate enough power from our WtE facilities for
- ing waste combustion plants for the last 15 -16 years;
Peter Hav eland I' ve been runn
are going to talk about today is how these plants work and the different11 the right
what we g g
aspects of the entire process . It ' a good decision for those folks that have who spoke
g
aspe p
things in lace . You have to have good tonnage, a good market. Those
to make the
g p
earlier [Bonnie Hauser] are right, you need all the pieces of the puzzle
uthng it
WtE facility work properly . At the end of the day all it es taking p
through a boiler that is able to take it, and generate steam *
t thin that happens is the truck will come in. We run facilities thaare eae s to
The firs g f
11 as 250 tons / day up to 2, 250 tons / day of MSW that we process . H days of
small y
pictures in his power point show . There are refuse pits that have furnace . Inside the
storage . The material is mixed well and is then dropp0000 F inside the throat of the
furnace there are the water wall tubes . It gets above 2
13
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5 , 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
furnace * that is im ortant in terms of being able to reduce the dioxin formation and a
p
lot of pollutants . It is the first stage of being able to make sure we are burning as
p ty
efficientlyas we possibly can . The material travels through the rest of �out to a
The steam that is generated comes out of the top of the unit which goes gas, o which has the
turbine generator that generates electricity . We take all the flue put throw h a
majority of the pollutants that are still are in the flue gas [and they] p g
d scrubber where we spray a hydrated lime slurry solution that is scrubbing
spray dry
out acidgasses .asses . From there we ' ve dropped out the vast majority of the acid gas takes out the
p
it is ut through a fabric filter, a very expensive vacuum cleaner . This e all that
vast majority of the particulates . We have to be 99 . 996 /o effic f lter before we exhaust
particulate and make sure we capture it at the bottom of the
out the flue gas .
With a ton of MSW we are able to displace one barrel of oil or a third of a ton of coal .
It is different because it i he MSW that we are most concerned
s the heating value of t
about. The more plastics in the waste stream the higher the heating value is going to
irt that don' t have a high BTU content then the
be . If there are more materials like d
heating content is lower .
It wa
s mentioned earlier that North Carolina does not consider WtE to be renewabl
energy at this point. However there are 24 states in the U . S . as well as the Department
gY
of Energy that clearly recognize WtE as being a renewable source of energy .ant to do is
big believers . I don' t want to come here and sell a WtE plant, what rehouse as
sell an entire concept of a waste management plan . Regarding
greenhouse
when you light a
emissions, there is some carbon dioxide emitted . That happens Y g
ch . Lookmi at this on an integrated basis, on what we consider to be a life cycle ,
mat g
there are three significant areas where we are able to [achieve] a positive net impact
a The
l .
on the overall greenhouse gas emissions . First is there isn t the use of oil or
non-
next thing is avoiding the methane . The last thing is recovering all ferrous the facility .
ferrous . These are all the metals that would come out at the back end ll es a
Looking at all three of those combined we are saying one ton of MSW actually gives
negative one ton on greenhouse gas emissions .
Though g
how h thin s have stopped in the U . S . in terms of building additional WtE facilitiesen
the have continued in Europe and Asia . Over the past 10 or 15 years there haste
Y
incredible progress made in Europe . There has not been a WtE sited or bu first one
U . S . in 10 or 15 years . Wheelabrator was awarded one recently . It will be
the built in the U . S . in the last ten years (in Maryland) .
Wheelabrator ' s first plant was back in 1975 in Saugus [MA] . It was the�fir tability .
commercial plant operable in the U . S . It is still operating today at 92 . 5 /o avail
e are
p three boilers and w
Availability means that this particular plant is three uni time . That fives a good
able to continue to have them run in excess of 93 /o of theg
14
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5 , 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
indication of
how well we are able to maintain these units and get them to continue to
run . We have 16 facilities that do WtE .
We looked at your particular assessment. We looked at the number of tons you have
a day, which is about 200 .300 tons / day .
s that only 160 tons are controlled by the County and its municipalii�e .
Wilson state y y
The re
st is collected by the nongovernmental entities and they can do whatever
want with it.
Haviland stat
es that that amount of tonnage a day it becomes very difficult to havea
our own plant. Typically we like to see 500 to 700 tons / day otherwise ita d cost
he cost
y p � [ ]
lot more a ton because of the basic infrastructure of building the facility
the
associated with it. With such a low number it would be difficult to we make these
economics work . Does it fit in with today ' s practices ? The way that ant amount of
ro ' ects make sense for the community is to remember the signif1 are getting
p l
money from the revenues you get for your power . Some communities hi he than the
Y
renewable power rates at 13 - 14 cents / kilowatt. That is si usuall yabout 50 % to
Y
retail rate because it is considered renewable energy . That ' s other comes from the
60 % of all our revenue comes from the sale of the power .WtE plant is to find manufacturing
tipping fee . To increase the efficiency more for t allows us to run at a much more
customers nearby that need steam or hot water it
higher efficiency on the overall plan.
What
makes a successful project? You have to have local support. Make f re you
have zero discharge of water off the facility . There needs to be a source aste er
is bein generated,
Y
obviousl . You want to be close to where the majority of the wet to the WtE lant*
that way you reduce all the pollution in trucking the waste tosonsistently .
There needs to be enough volume to make sure the plant run
Public Comments/Questions
Hause
r asks with the new priority for renewable energy what do you expect t other
p
ha pen in NC in terms of WtE becoming a renewable ?energy resource .
waste streams would designed into that tonnage total .
states that a lot of solid waste] legislation was passed in 2007 . WtE was There
Peverall sta [
ed in NC le ' slation [on renewable energy] . It does include landfill g talk to their
included $i
lot of activity especially in some communities in the last six months to
to
is a tY
legislative delegation to simply appeal to them to have Senate Bill modified
include WtE incineration.
Hauser asks is
it possible that the Federal Government will come in and trump it?
15
Minutes - Regular Mee o gd
Solid Waste Advisory B
March 5 , 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
. e State legislative level here . Their
at it would be easier to work at th
peverall states � .
ears are tuned to that now
re than solar and wind . In regards to
states that WtE plants contributed more e do to
Haviland
s S racuse , NY and it was incredible m
your
second question, I ran a coal plant don' t apply the same standards
have from
plants
how [for] the emissions on coal field * When you look at the restrictions we
the Clean Air
A
WtE, it' s not on a level playing ore stringent than `"'hays
e Resource Conservation and Recovery
the U .s . EPA through the MSW are much
• s ' ven to us in burning ook at the emissions and kinds of
Act, the guideline given generate at a
given to a
coal burning power plant. So when
compared to what We g
one of the things that we did up there was o
Pollutants that come out of a coal burning p York in the
pollu e night and days
yVtE facility it is lilt g Environmental Conservation New allowed us to
of What they
convince the local Department le us burn alternative fuels . Whded and We saw a
Syracuse area that they should let and film products that were shred materials and reduce
do was take non recyclable paper adean
emissions went
because we were able to burn clea a e
20 % reduction in our sulfur h paper and film had less heat content,
our ash content. Even tho g p
down dramatically * have a huge problem with
we have 200 tons / day MSW ' we
Hauser
states that they materials are suitable for WtE .
iosolids , tires , and I don' t know if these o the facilities
b right now
to 10 %
for the newest boiler we are buil W bug they can take up
Haviland states that [ � that we cannot only burn MS
ent Plant
have become so advanced material from your wastewater
ater treatment is up to 70 %
ha The can take ma to 10 /o sludge th
sludge [biosolids] . y
They have a lot o
f water content but we can handl sup he have to be shredded first.
other thing We are able to handle is tyre
water .
The but the all have to be nonhazardous .
We like to see a lot of different materials
pp
Cole asks what
happens if the plant malfunctions?
air Pollution control equipment? I would
e
s that
' and asks do you mean a malfunction
There about 20 different thing control . As
Havel
• • the boiler , it would shut itself do no way to bypass the air pollution When you
its in There i jy .
cause the boiler to shut down• whole process shuts down pretty qhe boiler does not
soon as you take the air out, the s and it doesn' t take itself down, . s 9 15 % . We
condition all lants] 1
get abnormal operating from among p
hould . Our average availability L clown
react as it s
11 avoid those issues where we shut n�?
genera y olluta
Tony Blake asks when that happens is the smokestack still emitting p
16
Re ular Meeting
Minutes - g Board
Solid Waste Advisory
5 , 2009 down the internal fan also
March April 2009 itself to draw
Approved ou h when the boiler shuts
Although the it up so that its not trying
"aviland replies yes * to d0 is bO as we shut it down*
elf down What it is trying ost as quickly
turns its e unit We restore it aim ou mentioned
air through � Township � the presentati e U S � the last 15
To ermined In th
ckberg , resident of Bing s t d� licensed or p impressive improvements In
Richard E WtE facilities r
re is no new have also claimed very im do you attribute the ? act
that the which time you h etc . To Whatis technology .
years , during . . oils , reduction of emission t been receptive to this
operating Condlti e or Japan' has
that the U .S ,
unlike EurOp landfills make is so much
babl three answers . The ctures • The Carbone
states that there are prO Y ricmg str impossible to
ow all the various p ade it
Haviland ea er] . I used to Im flow control] decision mlant• Those
easier [ch p • sion regarding them to the waste to energy ears .
Supreme Court deci d direct the past ten to fifteen Y
[ e where the tons had tO g° an
regulate why WtE went away during
ma or reasons Y but lack Of access to trash
are the � failure
• t was not due to technology County
Points out 1 e County _ Alamance
Eckberg p orange I don' t
Oil the other side Of the e u YnY mind about WtEres onsible .
I live just olo ically p
' t ma p
Peter Childers , 'fill in Alain i haven whether it' s techn g
the Jan onsible [or] a renewable resource . The
line , near entally resp is the most
it is environm din why WtE is consideacce t that recycling lent,
know understan g we want to p efficient, if
I have a hard timeit s them energy
' t understand is sinking ' with waste , ost t which creates
other thing I don of dealing why a WtE p
entail positive way understanding
vironm Y a hard timetract You haVe to haVe 500 tons
en en I have the con
that is the Case fires waste t0 burn On not sure whae bo with 500
r which re r mum plant size I' oils / day but g Y
a monste lant. If that' s Your
that required a 1000
a small p at s nchroniZe with recycling
day as you
build something would] that Y
Would Y other 500 how [ the items you liked in WtEl so
build • ou found the u1 lieu of coal)
a until y that plastics was one of lion control �.
tons / d Y You said p ollu cle .
and reducing Waste * reuse and recycle .
at source that does a lot
to peduCe ,
burning of things we nee
e
because it creates g of why is it that I
you' re encour gm terms
ur second question In tonnage to feed it. I will
ere wasn' t enoughthe other
iland states that to
answerYOU lint if there her idea °f getting be
Hav and sell p I like h h tons to
wouldn' t Want to try
As Bonnie was talking you had enoug clip that are
you could make sure
always stand by ties so that Y sure you get the 50 % reCY g
60 % , It forces you
municipalities or Coun You plan it to make ball targeting o f tons, where
lint ini Y
able to keep the beast fedoo big, build thep a certain number
a , t build It t lints that recycle more
residuals • Don 'recyclinggoal • If I have to bring
o energy p
to get to y011r ties with waste
to try them? There are communi
will I get
than those without them .
17
s _ Regular Meetingd
Minute dvisory Boar
Waste A cled • Men I
Solidh 5 � 2009 to be recy
Marc 2009 that is goingthan a low BTU waste
A groped Apri12, , t want anything
p 1 don U waste m°r ottle *
r ding the plastics , rl 1 like a high BT one t w ant a plastic b
-Regard Ilea y
oke earlier 1 said I n1ore efficient but I lamance County if a
sp el s me be live in A What would the
because it help e County but 1 now ell like , ld the roads
e lived in gang unity what would it set
Beverly Kerr , I v e to MY
comet roperty , what w °u
ike ours cam do to the value of my p
fac�ity 1 y what would it be my concerns • e are
air look like , Those would lace Where w
me be hke In any e e talk with the host
aroundWould all be valid conc to make sure
looking
ou a lot of time
those w front W es pend
• and states that fi` end a lot of time upprocess is
Havil . ect we spend t their concerns are • the combustion p air
Ding d° a prO� nderstand wha the air that is used e draft that is suckin directly
gomnlunities and u the odor , all ors
e ardmg ere is a constant rleg sucking those Odors I lived
ow . g it area . Th it is our home ,
at � affic flken off of the p the units are rumm�ogf the value of y
1 to as erms ' es do a wonderful job
actual y so as long ental agenci
the building side the furnace . In t e things you are
them vironrn
into in lams , the en at all th
and burning mile of one of our p ents they look
W111 ithin a half
in ental assessor
the environm success
when doing o portunities and ho
ed about. you had ally Ifthis done *
If sow
concern asks have
B�ngharn Towns, es to work together to g
Susanwalser of d counts
Municipalitie ratnhe municipalities? We have
in getting with landfills a N er To the
runs it? Do you run it ° engaged
r as pically . and counties togeth
ccess h tym niclpaIjties
at our su gether
peverall states that toPo
w SuccesseS in putting ld be a new °pp o different
had fe aaded that is two
then the
E side for us M NC it w e ere just aw in one
Wt at
t the last protect tha d all the presentations l would argue that
states tha I/�Te di Look
Haviland . ck and Carroll• Corninissioners bo a° to d° the right thing '
ties _ Fredri it Board of folks that w
fieS , e
coon to get the given the o f municipalities or ° able to
other • W e had successful gi the group b
ator has been be owned by e table and then
eelabr would still se f olks to the
and the financing of
moons , siting • It essful in bringing those we build it and site
at t success where d
have been pretty answer • Now
agree it is the g
ht it? ht up before -
omments/Qti�estions that VVe broug
B C u something f so many varied and
SVVA to bring p possibility ° is Boar
that I would like two to
ou discuss the p I would like to see this
Grunwald states usion when y e into play • arks • We have
neral matey of co 0 sues of measure coin of benchm
a ge chnologies / is with a standardization
diverse be able to come up 18
somehow
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5 , 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
three years before the landfill is closing . We have heard ten years as provenheard twenty
ten ears as not proven as a new techno logy ,agree on some
technology in Europe, Y
years on proven
technology . Is there any way we can together technologies and
benchmarks fro
m which we can collectively measure the different
*der them or if they' re too new ?
whether we can cons
feasibility study that we were told what technolo Des were
Wilson states that we did a fea ty category *
five and which ones were still in the emerging g rY
currently viable and effective GBB .
They' re in the report from
Sassaman states we need one that' s ready in two years .
at mi ht be instructive is to ask Peter when the
Pollock states that one thing th g
Frederick-Carroll project began.
Haviland states that it took several years * Once you make the decision that it is 901119
r technologies that hasn' t proven themselves *
S .
f the eme gin htechnologies haven' t proven themselves .
to be Mass Burn or one o
The point was well made that the emerging
We continue even Waste Management to look at some of these new technologies we
that the are sustainable and feasible . I would
are not convinced at this point findingout what is reasonablee
encourage issuing an RFP and
t the eneration numbers of waste or what' s going
of
Vickers states that when looking a g
to be permitted, our curren
t waste has changed as we recycle more and more .easilyo
like paper [that] are good are out. Plastic bottles and bags
the recycled materials 1 p p
ut. When we talk about plastics it' s usually film
separated at the
recoverable ; they are o cess unless they are
which are difficult to handle in the recycling Pro the mid.80' s of what' s in the waste , it
source . If you look at the numbers present
is not the same as what is in
the waste today . The characteristics have change
the slide you showed of emissions one of the data
Sassaman states that to Blue Ridgeto
PA' s " Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors)
footnotes for AP42 (U .S . E
were uncontrolled emissions . It is important for p tie and
that you showed, those w if You want to
understand that
uncontrolled emissions don' t happen � incinera�ohtl y
The are controlled . You can control them pretty There are always
power plants y
into Dilution control equipment, most of the time *
put money p
down times .
Zeller states that in terms of that chart, all these data come from the EPA emissionsof
tors . These are the best data available for eachtors are
factors for mass burn comb us on lead for
these compounds . If you
look closely you will see that electrostatic pree it
these units and do show a reduced level of pollution data used by
installed on some of These
These are from the Office of Air Quality Planning •
example * 19
Minutes - Regular Mee a9
Solid Waste Advisory Brd
March 51 2009 April 2009
Approved Ap emission limits on units that might bCe but
NC Air Quality officials in developing air pollution
then data might be available on performance ,
constructed in North Carolina , other to issue permits . NC has a toxic Federal
these are the data that are used m
f these pollutants
others are covered y
program which covers some o p
standardso of toxics] *
one concern I have is cold formation [ through your
eelabrator o g
Sassaman states to Wh have with respect to dioxin precursors getting
What experience do you ha
system? Have you developed a technology to control that?
talked about earlier was the formation of
d states that the biggest issue we talk that [standard]
Haviland unction of] the temperature of the unit,
dioxin [as a f ve to maintain 200OF . The carbon injection
the stronger
es from the Federal guidelines * You a t how
coin s raycarbon into our units for the di wins we
e of sections in the pamphlet that talk considered
on p
we do helps with the dioxins • Wu 1en t
do it for mercury . There are a co p such that the dioxins ar
much
better we' ve gotten with the technology
an issue any in WtE plants . e end of the waste
County Voice you raised the issue at the now . As the
Sassaman states to Orange C ' the citizens of
el that that there is no reason to build oon
transfer station that you I ill I have to ask how you would envis
representative of Chapel H eir solid waste .
Chapel Hill dealing with th
ct it as it is now and when the landfill
Hauser states that they would continue to colle Durham or Waste Management has
is
closed go to a vendor transfer station either
two or Waste Industries .
' Oran e County . The interlocal agreement
County
aman states that they are not located mataon of Chapel Hill that orangeorange
Sass contains] the
that we operate under [ h expectation to dis pose of their solid waste withine for
will rovide a place for Chapel Hill ill and the other Towns are responsib
p
County . By the same token Chapel
collection of their waste .
designed when we had a landfill that
Hauser sta
tes that the interlocal agreement was o says that mere are in changes in
operating . The interlocal agreement also y
to
we are p wns have to be notified . I am still try ll not do
that you wl
costs to dispose of their waste the ° ears ago and
f it b . a letter from Moses Cary stating signed � n Y
understand the context o Y ns to say ` What' s our best
but put it in our landfill. It woaWs �
anything with your garbage and the T
certainly
it would make sense for those County market at twelve year low that certainly
way
? " and I would say in 2009 with the stock
the
economics of the decision is [important
20
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
Sassaman states that one place that you should be talking to are the Towns and see if
[they and] the BOCC wish to revisit the interlocal agreement.
Wilson states that since a WtE facility hasn ' t been permitted or sifted in NC in 25 years
or more what is your expectation on time to permit construction in NO
Peverall states that there has been a BCH plant in Bladen County permitted in 1997 or
1998 . It was a two year process to permit that WtE facility . That was a RDF facility
[VEDCO] . It has been ten or twelve years since that. It could . take five years . It is a
very difficult process, especially when you are starting at this juncture and building
local support. The permit phase could be two to five years .
Wilson states that it is likely that there will be fraction of the waste stream that is not
going to be recycled and going to require some other alternative means of handling .
Whether that is 50 % or 30 % or 20 % , I predict that in my children ' s lifetime there will
be waste that has to go somewhere . I ' ve heard it stated that the WtE should be located
close to where the waste is being generated . One would presume from that it
wouldn ' t likely be Orange County given that we generate the least waste of any
community around us . Therefore if there were a WtE facility, waste would have to be
transferred to it. Thus some means of transfer would be required . Given the fact that
there hasn' t been a facility located in 25 years except for VEDCO (in Fayetteville) , it
appears that one should not put all your eggs in one basket hoping that WtE happens .
The local public interest in the environment is extreme as demonstrated with the
knowledgeable and dedicated people u1 this room . The county is full of them and I
am not sure that you could ever get a majority of them to agree in a reasonable period
of time to go with WtE . Waste is coming in every day and wishful thinking is not the
solution to what to do with it. There have been many regional attempts in the past
twenty years to do recycling, processing, landfills and alternative technologies .
Wake County has 25 years of landfill capacity . Alamance County has 50 years landfill
capacity . Person County has 25 years of landfill capacity . Who are the partners that
will be ready to jump in the next two years on the WtE bandwagon?
Smith moves to adjourn.
Tipton states that we should at least adjourn by 10 : 15 . A motion was made and
seconded by Norwood that we adjourn at 10 : 15 .
Pollock asks for clarity from Peter . You stated several years for the Frederick-Carroll
plan. I just wanted a starting point of when they came to Wheelabrator and said they
wanted to do something until 2009, up until when it may do something.
21
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board •
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
Haviland states that I don ' t know the date but I could get that to you . About six
months ago we put our proposal in, about six months prior to that they did the RFQ .
They must have had the concept to go with WtE before then . I can give you the
timeline for how long it is going to take to get through the formal permitting and then
the notice to proceed and build the project, remember it is two years to build it from
the time the first shovel is in the ground . Plus perhaps two years of permitting .
Unknown : One of the things that I hear we haven' t been able to do it yet and therefore
we can' t have it. That kind of mindset to me is not a very creative mindset. It doesn ' t
allow innovation or change . I see that we are all in huge creative change now where
there are some imperatives that are greater in some way than are miniscule daily
things and even sometimes costs . Someone on the SWAB, I don ' t know who, said that
cost isn ' t the highest thing we need to look at, that we need to look at the bigger
picture . Maybe we have hundreds of years left of landfills but we don' t have
hundreds of years left to create methane fumes in the air, to violate the environment
in that kind of way . Maybe it is wishful thinking but what I also hear is that these
technologies are not new, they have been around for a long time . They just got
squashed through some administration . They are here . They ' ve been in Europe .
They are working. To me we need to think differently . It is imperative for a bigger
picture than just the way we have been doing it and the way it will work .
Dayton asks if dealing with privatized picture where firms are out to make a lot of
money . Looking at the map of the U . S . , in every city if you guys were successful in
putting in one of the things that generates 500 tons or more waste a year I am curious
as to how many tons of toxic air pollutants will be in our air . Our health is the most
important thing .
Campbell states that this question is for Waste Management. I heard Waste
Management say that when they get ready to build a facility they want it [ as] close to
a densely populated area as possible . In doing so how much input do residents have ?
From what you have heard tonight from all the residents from Orange County and
Alamance County what would your decision be regarding a WtE facility or a transfer
station, given the life span of the different facilities that Mr . Wilson spoke about? If
the life of one of these things is twenty years and another fifty years, then what do we
do after the twenty years . You' d be looking for another site to build . What would be
the best way to go - WtE or transfer ?
Peverall states that obviously a waste transfer station is inevitable in the short-term .
Zeller states that Orange County as all other counties has to enact franchise
agreements when they make contracts with waste companies . That will be the first
opportunity . . . because that decision is made by your county I suppose with the
recommendation of this Board .
22
Minutes - Regular Meeting
Solid Waste Advisory Board
March 5, 2009
Approved April 2, 2009
Sassaman states that is true for the County operations not the Town' s operations .
Zeller states that beyond the county operations, which is what I recommend publicly
owned and operated as I stated in my presentation, that court decisions now favor
publicly owned and operated facilities of all of it. They allow fees to pay for those
facilities . The rules are different for commercial operations . A franchise agreement in
a single county operation or a regional consortium would have to be put together
where each county would have to agree and those have pitfalls . For example where
would the incinerator go between Durham, Orange, and Chatham . Where would it go
is a big questions
Sassaman states that is now 10 : 15 and the Board agreed to adjourn at this time . You
are welcome to stay and continue the discussion .
6 . Program/Service Update - Deferred
Joint Landfill Gas Recovery Project Agreement
Solid Waste Budget Issues
Additional SWAB Meeting - Parallel Track Issues
Other
7 . Other Business None
Adjourn: 10 : 15 pm
Next meeting : April 2, 2009
Solid Waste Administration Building
23