Incinerator Report: Council to address a burning question

Charleston County Council members will gather today to discuss a consultant's report on the county's garbage-burning incinerator, and possibly to vote on whether to renew a contract with the company that runs it.

Mitch Kessler of Kessler Consulting made a presentation to council members earlier this month on whether there are viable alternatives to the incinerator, where 70 percent of the county's household waste is burned. Such options exist, he told council members, including increasing recycling and dumping waste in a landfill.

But, Kessler said, although the county doesn't need the incinerator, it may want to continue using it. He then presented two sets of recommendations, one for if the county continues to burn most of its household trash and another if it chooses not to renew a 20-year contract with the Montenay Charleston Recovery Resources, the company that runs the facility off Spruill Avenue in North Charleston.

Lee Bazzle, facility manager for Montenay, said the company needs to know soon if it will get another county contract. AT&T owns the facility; Montenay has an agreement to purchase it but must do so by April 1. The company's current contract with the county expires at the end of the year.

County Council voted against renewing Montenay's contract in January 2008, a decision some council members say was based largely on cost. Burning trash in an incinerator, also known as a waste-to-energy facility because it converts trash to electric power, is more expensive than dumping it in a landfill.

After that decision, residents who live near the Bees Ferry Landfill complained to council members about the impact that increased use of the landfill would have on their West Ashley community. In response, county staffers and council members decided to take another look at the issue and to develop a long-term solid waste plan that could include the incinerator.

People on both sides of the issue feel passionately about it. Residents who live near the incinerator have said they've suffered from the facility's smoke, ash and stench for the past 20 years. They want it to close.

Kessler's report raised many questions about the incinerator and the landfill. And many county residents are wondering what County Council members will do at special Finance Committee meeting today. Here are the answers to some of those questions.

Q: We've heard a lot about the incinerator in recent months. Will County Council vote Wednesday on whether to continue burning most of the county's household trash, and if so, will it be the final vote?

A: A January 2008 decision against renewing a contract with the company that runs the incinerator is currently in effect. Changing that decision would require a majority of council members, at least five of the nine, to vote in favor of negotiating another 20-year contract.

To bring about another vote on the issue, one member would have to make a motion to begin the renegotiation process, and another would have to second that motion.

It's unlikely that a member who supports renewing Montenay's contract would make a motion for a new vote if he wasn't certain his motion would get the required five votes.

If council doesn't vote on the matter Wednesday, the 2008 decision would stand. But the door would be open for council members who want to renew the contract to bring up the matter in the future.

Q: Are incinerators a declining method of disposing of trash?

A: The number of incinerators that burn municipal solid waste in the United States has declined from 186 in 1990 to 87 today. And it's been more than 10 years since a new facility has been built in the United States, according to the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.

Coastal Conservation League staffers said existing facilities often close when their contracts come up for renewal. The league acknowledged that the number of such facilities in Europe has grown in recent years. But European countries generally have much more comprehensive recycling programs than those in the U.S., staffers said, so the material being burned produces less harmful emissions.

Q: What do people who live near the Bees Ferry Landfill say about the possibility the county might stop burning its trash?

A: According to officials and neighborhood representatives, residents of the Bees Ferry corridor are concerned about the height of stacks of trash in the landfill, odor, the increased number of trucks traveling on area roads, and whether that increased traffic will interfere with a project to widen Bees Ferry Road.

Kessler recommended that the county stack trash up to 172 feet, the full permitted height, even if it chooses to continue to burn trash in the incinerator. He said stacks are not visible at that height from existing communities.

Q: If County Council doesn't renew Montenay's contract, could the company operate privately on the current site?

A: Jennie Davis, Charleston County's public information officer said, "The county is not aware of any rights that Montenay or AT&T have to operate the facility after January 1, 2010, if County Council does not renew the contract for the waste-to-energy facility." The county owns the land on which the facility sits, but AT&T owns the building. Montenay runs daily operations.

Q: Would it cost the county's cities and towns more to dispose of their trash if the incinerator closed?

A: Municipalities would have to transport their trash to the Bees Ferry Landfill or a possible future transfer station if the incinerator closed. If trash trucks have to travel farther, then the cost to transport trash would increase. The incinerator is centrally located in the Neck Area of North Charleston. So the cost to transport trash would increase for many municipalities if it closed.