Expert: Incinerator not needed
Citizens group votes against contract renewal
Charleston County doesn't need an incinerator to handle its household garbage, a consultant hired by County Council said Thursday.
Also on Thursday, the Green Committee, a citizens advisory panel on solid waste, voted against the county signing another 20-year contract with Montenay Charleston Recovery Resources, the company that runs the incinerator.
The Post and Courier
Based solely on cost, a consultant hired by Charleston County said he would recommend that the county increase recycling efforts and close its trash-burning incinerator off Spruill Avenue.
Many residents gathered in council chambers to hear recommendations to council's Finance Committee on whether to close the incinerator. The facility, which sits off Spruill Avenue in a largely industrial part of North Charleston, has been burning 70 percent of the county's household garbage for nearly 20 years.
The Finance Committee will meet March 25 to again consider the issue. Council must decide by April 1 whether to extend Montenay's contract for another 20 years, or to close the facility.
People on both sides of the issue feel passionately about it. Residents who live near the incinerator said they've suffered from the facility's smoke, ash and stench for the past 20 years. They want it to close.
Community leaders who represent the part of West Ashley in which the Bees Ferry Landfill now sits have said they're concerned about the negative impact of dumping more trash in that landfill, which is where the trash would go if the incinerator is closed.
"Garbage is kind of special," said Mitch Kessler of Kessler Consulting. "We all produce it, but nobody wants it."
County Council hired Kessler several months ago to help develop a 20-year plan for handling solid waste. His first assignment from council, he said, was to answer the question: "Do viable options exist to alleviate the need for the incinerator?"
The report
Such options exist, he said, including increasing recycling, sending more trash to the Bees Ferry Landfill, and sending it to landfills in nearby counties when the Bees Ferry site is full.
Kessler said he couldn't weigh in on environmental concerns, which he wasn't charged to study, or on local policy issues.
So although the county doesn't need the incinerator, it might want to continue using it, depending on where it stands on those issues, he said.
Councilwoman Colleen Condon asked Kessler if he could make a stronger recommendation on whether the county should continue burning its trash.
Kessler said that if the decision were based solely on cost, he would recommend the county increase recycling and close the incinerator. Burning trash, he said, is an expensive way to get rid of it.
Previous stories
Incinerator's contract extension at issue, published 03/08/09
Trash incinerator air quality backed; DHEC says it meets requirements; member of citizens' panel says other problems exist, published 01/31/09
Incinerator improvements hinge on contract renewal, published 01/08/09
Union Heights residents want incinerator out of their area, published 07/13/08
The county would have to spend $224 million to dispose of its solid waste over the next 20 years if it closed the incinerator and increased recycling, he said. The county now recycles 10 percent of household waste, but increasing that to 40 percent in five years is a realistic goal, he said.
It would cost $263 million to continue burning trash, even it met the 40 percent recycling goal.
The Green Committee comprises residents from different parts of the county, and some of them have expertise in certain areas of solid-waste management.
The committee voted 7-6 in favor of closing the incinerator, which is also known as the waste-to-energy facility because it converts trash to electric power.
Committee member Alec Cooley, a Mount Pleasant resident and a program manager for the National Recycling Coalition, made a presentation on the group's recommendation to the Finance Committee.
Cooley said the majority of the group voted not to renew Montenay's contract for three reasons: the facility's negative impact on nearby neighborhoods; the cost; and a sense that we "must move forward with a fundamental shift in how we handle solid waste in this county."
The group, he said, is called the Green Committee because it is charged with looking for the most environmentally sound alternatives.
Kessler also recommended that trash at the Bees Ferry Landfill be stacked to its permitted height of 172 feet. According to his study, stacks that high can't be seen from homes in existing nearby neighborhoods.
Kessler said that if the county closed the incinerator but increased recycling, the Bees Ferry Landfill would likely fill up in 14 years. If it continues to burn trash and increases recycling, the landfill will last 25 more years.
He said when the Bees Ferry site is full, the county could transport its waste to a private landfill in Dorchester County. That would require building a "transfer station" so local trash trucks wouldn't have to drive so far.
Kessler made clear to Green Committee members that he did not take into consideration health and human factors in making his recommendation.
"We did not do major health studies," he said. "It was not in the scope of what we were asked to do."
Reach Diane Knich at 937-5491 or dknich@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
cwmcpa (anonymous) says...
With our new administration passing spendinng bills more frequently than most people change underwear it might be a good idea to keep something on line that will burn money as fast as this government can spend it. I am sure if you ask Mr Clyburn he will earmark enough money to burn and keep the incinerator going. Only 2 contingencies though
1. only Mr Clyburn's extended family can work there 2. a requirement of 5 breaks a day so the employees can turn to DC, kneel and pray to the new mohammed, Mr. obama. a ritual that I am sure will be made mandantory sometime in the next 4 years.
March 13, 2009 at 6:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
burton (anonymous) says...
This is great news for the residents of Union Heights and Chicora that have had to suffer with the effects of this incinerator for the past 20 years!! Great news!!
March 13, 2009 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eatmorecollards (anonymous) says...
How much did the county spend on that study? I would have told them for free that its cheaper to stack trash up than it is to burn it.
March 13, 2009 at 8:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cwmcpa (anonymous) says...
Blue eyes do you live with your mommy, I thought so. Considering how Mr Clyburn's district was gerymandered it seems reasonable that North Charleston would be in his district. For facts though the lines changed in 2003 to allow more black votes for Mr Clyburn, and the map I view looks like Spruill is in the 6 th district. Blue -eyes I know maps are hard for you, but I fugured with all the colors it would hold your attention for 5 minutes, but I guess you were too busy looking at your life size nude photo of Keith Olbermann
March 13, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
watchdog (anonymous) says...
CWMCPA= MORON!
March 13, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
That was my thought too collards. I'm curious about exactly what he took into account though. Is this study going to be posted online so people can read it?
The incinerator generates funds by generating power. Trucking trash to the landfill means it takes longer to get trash from charleston and mount pleasant to where they dump, which means more man hours for their waste department staff and possibly a need to hire more personnel and equipment to maintain schedules, more petrol to get the trucks farther, more traffic past the incinerator, more wear on the roads to the landfill. And how much is that transfer station going to cost so they can truck it even further out in a few years, how many more trucks and people will have to be hired to accommodate that?
Also, recycling isn't exactly a zero sum game either. Is 40% of your trash realistically recyclable? Will municipalities have to purchase new trucks, buy more petrol, pay more insurance and hire more drivers if the recyclable load increases by 400%?
And finally how much is your local waste fee going to increase to cover those additional costs?
March 13, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wiseup (anonymous) says...
Getting back to the article...I dont think it is a good idea to count on another county accepting our trash indefinately. Dorchester County's site could vote anytime to cease accepting out of county trash. As far a uping the recycling efforts..this would require citizens involvement and as much as we would love to recyle everything that is recyleable I dont think we will get enough involvement to meet the 40% that Kessler Consulting is advocating. That leaves hauling everything to Bees Ferry and filling up the landfill which seems like a step backward. In 2009 i think we should be more high tech. Exclusivly using landfills is what we have be doing for decades.
March 13, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zekemire (anonymous) says...
STUPID! It is immoral to build these giant dumps like in Kershaw and Lee counties and others! These things look like Stone Mountain in Atlanta on the horizon, but, are nothing but trash dumps! Smell is terrible for miles! They are eyesores! WE SHOULD NEVER ACCEPT ANY WASTE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE, PERIOD! EVERY CITY AND COUNTY MUST BE MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT'S OWN TRASH!
March 13, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
There is another solution to the garbage problem. This is 2nd generation equipment and it makes incinerators obsolete. If you used a Pyrolsis system to alter the use of (MSW) municipal solid waste from garbage to energy. This system would convert MSW to recycled metals, oil to be converted to diesel fuel and gasoline, syngas for power generation and small solids like ash, glass,dirt and rock. There is no pollution because this system is sealed and the only emissions would be from the exaust from the gas turbine generator. Every ton of MSW would give about 90 gallons of oil, generate about 105 KW's electricity and decrease the volume going into the landfill by 90% and the weight by 75%.
March 13, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bstairley (anonymous) says...
I have never read about the 2nd generation equipment but I would like to.
My two cents on recycling -
A few months ago, we decided to see for ourselves how much our family would be able recycle instead of pitch. We did not change any of our buying habits. But we easily recycled half of our trash. The hard part is not the recycling, it is getting everything to the recycling center so that we do not have a bunch of trash sitting around.
March 13, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Whenever we buy anything, we pay for the packaging too. Why not just pay a deposit like we did for bottles when I was a kid. That was good money.
March 13, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
MY Friends...........
More good NEWS is coming............
the BAD NEWS is that the citizens are not being EDUCATED by this Council or this NEWSPAPER.......
Well.....Maybe the MARCH of DIMES is all we need...!!!
OUR Local CEO's of our Industry may try to remain SILENT but maybe their CUSTOMERS will start thinking differently...!!!
Tell everyone YOU know to read and LEARN at www.startech.net or read about what the CITY of Ottowa in CANADA is doing..!!! Whenever you hear the WORD ...transfer Station ....think PLASMA Converter LOCATION...!!!
Are we going to let the SPANIARD hoard come in here and PLUNDER our AZTEC ...ENERGY..!?!? (GOLD)
Educate yourself.......and spread the information. The OIL attorneys and pimpers were out in FULL force last night in disguise...!!! Our County COUNCIL...MUST ...NOT...BE ...MISLEAD...!?!?!
Are we going to have MORE trucks traveling UP I-26 to BERKELEY County or Dorchester or down to Parkers FERRY on 17 to DUMP ...!?!?! Methane Tapping does NOT close the LANDFILL......!!!!
EDUCATE YOURSELF and spread the NEWS...!!!
March 13, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
R_U_Kidding_Me (anonymous) says...
I have a question. How many of the residents around the incinerator have lived there more than 20 years? Was it there when they moved in? Do you buy a cheap house next to an airport and then complain about the noise? I suspect there are a few that have actually lived there since before the incinerator. For them I have simpathy. As for the polution, can't that be corrected by throwing some more money at it?
March 13, 2009 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cntyemp09 (anonymous) says...
For those who don't know the consultant got paid in the ball park of $300k for his input! What a waste!!! I'm sure that from Colleen Condons reaction of wanting a stronger recommendation she'd probably agree with me! Of course I never saw the point in paying someone to tell you what to do anyway. I will be very interested to see what the final verdict will be!
FYI majorjohnson all recycling is handled by the county. Municipalities have nothing to do with it.
March 13, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CaptKick (anonymous) says...
TRASH TO ELECTRICITY MAKES SENSE TO ME. You will never satisfy the enviromental wacos. Either way they will fuss. If we keep listening to them and the socialist in Washington the most endangered soecies on the planet will be home-sapiens!
March 13, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigDukeSix (anonymous) says...
the consultant based his concept of "cheaper" on sending our garbage to a facility out of the county. he just called around, and found that a Waste Management facility would take it for $19 a ton.
let me ask the county council this: when the incenerator is closed, and bees ferry fills up, do you think the cost will remain at $19 a ton??!! think... think... think... uh, maybe Waste Management will notice that charleston county HAS to send them their garbage. maybe they will notice they have us over a barrel, no? THEN the price will be whatever they want it to be. $50 a ton? $85 a ton?
this "consultant" is leading charleston county down a path of no return.
this is a long-term, terrible $300 million dollar mistake. i hope the council will reject his bad idea.
March 13, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...
The problem is that trash is full of toxic materials which end up in the atmosphere or the ash when it is burned. The more you try to clean it up, the more it costs. Sorting through the trash is expensive and requires a lot of labor. Attempting to filter it out or extract it with precipitators isn't free or cheap either. Electronics, certain types of batteries and certain plastic materials are full of toxins.
If we knew we were just burning paper, wood and food scraps it would be a completely different problem.
Burning anything to produce electricity isn't simple either. My wife used to work for Santee Cooper and she worked in the lab at Cross Station. When your steam is at 1100 pounds of pressure running through a turbine turning at thousands of RPM, it isn't like a reciprocating railroad engine of 1910 running at 60 psi. If the PH of the water gets a little off or some silica gets into the steam it will tear the turbine apart very quickly. Turbines aren't cheap and replacing parts is very time consuming and expensive, millions of dollars. Such facilities need to be able to operate for years between turbine maintenance. The forces involved are enormous and tiny errors can destroy the equipment.
We spent the first six years of our marriage married to Cross Generating station with a pager. "It can wait until Monday" wasn't an option.
The age of cheap and simple run by stupid is over.
Forty years ago, we just dumped trash into the marsh all over the county at little landfills, but we had a far smaller population. We dumped raw sewage into Charleston harbor, which smelled and looked like a septic tank. The fish were inedible. People just accepted it. Very few people sailed because nobody wanted to risk going into the water off a small sailboat. The smell was incredible when the tide was low. The marsh and pluff mud was covered with a thin layer of excrement. Toilet paper, condoms and tampons washed up everywhere. You never touched the water.
Fortunately a bunch of bleeding heart socialists decided to clean it all up and wasted millions of dollars in tax money and fees doing so. Now our marshes, rivers and beaches aren't filthy.
March 13, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lou9 (anonymous) says...
Consultants are paid to tell their clients what they want to hear. Now that coucil has been told that they don't need the incenerator they have a barganing chip against the operator. They can force them to take less money to keep running the incenerator. I don't believe that council has any intention of shutting it down.
By the way, Mr. Kessler, when the Bees Ferry landfill is full keep your trash to yourself. Dorchester or Berkeley has no need for it.
March 13, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnS (anonymous) says...
They will say they don't need it but then they will say they can't afford another option at this time.
March 13, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jdargonaut (anonymous) says...
1. Everyone needs to read the report to see what it really said. It doesn't say the words that the incinerator should be shut down. (hint for those of you who don't pay attention to detail: there is a link on the article)
2. Zoomie I am tired of your BS, you need to check out the Ottawa site. It isn't what you think. It only uses plasma to refine the gases, it doesn't use it to destroy the waste. On a side note, I wish that you weren't so ignorant and could actually read and do research. My personal belief is that you are investing in that company and since it is only trading at 29 cents a share you want it to go up. Good luck with that.
3. I would be torqued off if I was a Dorchester County (well over $100) resident since I would be paying more for my trash pickup than Charleston County ($99) people who use the same landfill.
4. Diane Knich, the big lady that she is needs to look at ALL the facts especially since she can probably fill up the landfill on all of the McDonalds waste that she throws away.
5. Nobody wants to deal with the trash. At least with the incinerator the smell isn't there. I drove by it last Saturday and stayed in that park right next to it for almost 30 minutes and didn't smell anything AND I didn't get sick!
6. Keep the incinerator, that is our best solution for now.
JDA
March 13, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cinnabar (anonymous) says...
Zoomru.
Questions from the Startech site...
1) Why does Startech need all those pollution capture elements (ie, scrubbers and SCR, etc) and where does the waste from these elements go? I thought the plasma zapped these away?
2) How can Stratech get rid of elemental contaminants, ie arsenic, mercury, selenium, etc. Plasma does not split atoms...
3) How much energy does it take to heat refuse to 30,000 degrees? (more energy than you can recover from the refuse, I'll bet)
Supply these answers to help sell your idea. Better yet, take all your savings and buy stock in the company and support the idea to the max...
March 13, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
Hey argonaut. That isn't a consultants report. That's a powerpoint slideshow. I want to read the report, including methodology. I can make a powerpoint slideshow for you that shows sending your household trash to mars is cheaper than putting it in your kitchen trash can.
March 13, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CaptKirk (anonymous) says...
I wish that Diane Knich would put the facts in her articles instead of what she thinks Joe Q. Public should hear to further her agenda. The 'Green Committee' actually voted 6-6, with 2 abstaining. jdargonaut hit the nail on the head. zoomru needs to realize that most of the technologies to which he refers are probably decades away as far as practical uses in the real world. Sending Charleston County trash to another county is not the answer. Besides, if the people of the other surrounding counties are smart, they will say a big NO to outside trash. If the incinerator is shutdown, guess where the transfer station will be put? The same scales, cranes and pit can be utilized to move the trash from the local haulers to the transfer trucks and the smell will be a whole lot worse because there will be no fans to suck the air from the pit to be used in the combustion process. Ken Burger is another 'reporter' that needs to get his facts straight. Steam, by it's very nature, is NOT toxic. The toxic elements in the ash come from the things that people put in the trash that shouldn't be there in the first place. Things like batteries, mercury thermostats, electronics and a host of other items contribute lead, zinc, mercury, cadmium, etc. Remove those items from the trash stream and you remove the toxicisity from the ash and the exhaust of the combustion process. And if we don't want coal plants to produce our electricity, why not burn trash and create some power to power the things that cool your home and light up your rooms and reduce the trash to a more manageable volume?
March 14, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LittleFish (anonymous) says...
If I was Berkeley or Dorchester County, I'd lay low... wait until Charleston makes the committment to one of the facilities in their county... and pass an "impact fee" of $20 for every non-county garbage truck that uses facilities in their county.
THAT would get some councilmen re-elected!
March 15, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.