Incinerator likely to close
By Diane Knich
Charleston County will close its trash-burning incinerator, take more of its household waste to the Bees Ferry Landfill and dramatically increase recycling if decisions the County Council made Wednesday hold up for the rest of the year.
At a special meeting to review a consultant's report on solid waste, the council did not take a vote on whether to renew a contract with Montenay Charleston Resource Recovery, the company that runs the incinerator off Spruill Avenue in North Charleston. That move means a January 2008 decision against signing on for another 20 years of burning most of the county's garbage still is in effect.
The Post and Courier
Charleston County incinerator.
Council members did, however, vote in favor of following consultant Mitch Kessler's recommendation to increase recycling from 10 percent to 40 percent of the county's household waste.
And they asked county staffers to develop a proposal for handling the area's trash, and to make a presentation on disposal options to council.
Council members did not agree after the meeting on the implications that decisions, and indecision, Wednesday mean for the future of solid waste disposal.
Henry Darby, who represents the area in which the incinerator sits, said he doesn't think a majority of council members want to continue using the incinerator. And he thinks that after the meeting, "chances are much better it will close."
He also said he doesn't think county staffers will come back to council with a plan that includes the incinerator.
"I would be shocked if they did," he said.
But Ben Hagood, an attorney representing Montenay, contacted The Post and Courier after the meeting and said, "It's our understanding that we're one of the options" being considered. The company in the last few days submitted a proposal with "new contract terms," he said.
Previous story
Expert: Incinerator not needed, published 03/13/09
He thinks "the discussion will continue on these terms," he said.
People who live near the incinerator have said they want it to close because the smoke, odor, ash and truck traffic are ruining their quality of life.
Councilman Vic Rawl, whose district includes the Bees Ferry Landfill, said council members needed more time to digest a report that consultant Kessler presented to them earlier this month.
Staffers will come back with some proposals and council members will consider them, he said. But the process "could take months," he said.
Residents of the Bees Ferry corridor have said they are concerned that if more trash goes to the landfill, the stacks of trash will be higher and the odor stronger.
They're also worried about the impact of more truck traffic.
Charleston County's contract with Montenay expires at the end of the year. But company representatives told council members they needed to know by April 1 if the county was going to offer the company another contract. The company has an agreement to buy the facility from AT&T, but that purchase agreement expires April 1, they have said.
Councilman Dickie Schweers said the fact that council didn't vote on the Montenay contract simply means, "We're still exploring our options."
About Wednesday's meeting, he said, "We didn't accomplish a great deal, I guess."
Alec Cooley, a member of the county's Green Ribbon Committee, a citizens panel on solid waste, said he was pleased that the county voted in favor of increasing recycling.
Cooley, a program manager of the National Recycling Coalition, said his personal opinion is that the county should stop burning its trash in the incinerator, mostly because of strong opposition from the surrounding neighborhoods and because it's more expensive than other options.
He said also that closing the incinerator would push residents "to very aggressively reduce our waste."
And the Green Ribbon Committee can get started on a recycling plan, he said. That decision will "put the wind in our sails," he said.
Reach Diane Knich at 937-5491 or dknich@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
jdargonaut (anonymous) says...
What do we pay our councilmen for? It took a meeting to decide to icrease recycling? I WANT THAT JOB!
As far as for Cooley, he is in favor of shutting down the incinerator because it costs more? Recycling costs a lot more than planting it in the earth and hoping that it grows to something good.
JDA
March 26, 2009 at 6:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
We generate many tons of trash each week and it has to go somewhere. In the old days we burned most of it in the back yard and dumped the rest somewhere, usually on the side of some deserted road - we don't want to go back to that. I received my post card (see yesterdays article) and those folks object to the Bees Ferry land fill - where the hell are we going to put it if we close the land fill and the incinerator - you can't recycle everything.
March 26, 2009 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
voxpopuli (anonymous) says...
While in theory a good idea to increase recycling to 40%. How are we going to do this when we can only get 10% to do it now? Will be be hiring garbage police? And where are they looking at putting the transfer site that has been mentioned? Will North Charleston be trading an incenerator for a transfer site? Things to think about.
March 26, 2009 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
halfsheli (anonymous) says...
In Dublin, Ireland, households are charged for the amount (in weight -- kilograms) of non-recyclable trash that must be disposed of. Recycling and composting services are free, however. Each household separates their trash into three bins: trash, recycling, and organic waste. This encourages (almost requires) people to recycle. In fact, it rewards them for doing so.
March 26, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
Ireland sounds like they have it right!
We cannot continue to produce trash and not figure out "green" ways to dispose of it.....pretty soon Mother Earth is going to have enough plastic and not need us anymore.
March 26, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
citizenmom (anonymous) says...
I have mixed feelings about the decision. Very happy for the neighborhood, but worried about increased landfill usage, too.
Obviously, Charleston is going to need to reduce its municipal waste stream. There are ways to do better at both the individual level and at the county level.
At the individual level, people need to be more motivated to take the extra effort to reduce their household waste. I lived in a city where our garbage was weighed at pickup. We moved before they started charging, but I'm to understand that recycling increased enormously. Economic incentives could help, but an awareness that we are polluting our own backyards needs to be there as well.
The county would also have to start recycling more plastics (of 46 varieties, I think we only recycle two) and have more frequent pick-ups. Whatever happens, it is clear we need both individual and structural change.
Down the road we should look into the plasma gasification plants that are scheduled to go on-line in other cities soon. It isn't clear that they will be as clean as their proponents promise, but it is certainly worth investigating. These are expensive systems, but if they are as clean as we have been told, this could be a good alternative to burning or burying our waste.
March 26, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
amembersid (anonymous) says...
All of our yesterday council people from 20 years ago until now knew that a 20 year contract was going to expire in 20 years. Now, 19 years later, the sky is falling. You got some splannin' to do Lucy. Oh, how all our councils shine. It is but sad.
March 26, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TLG87 (anonymous) says...
Shutting down the incinerator and putting more in a landfill just sounds stupid. I'm all for recycling more and helping the environment, yadda ya, but just piling more trash in a land fill isn't going to help anything either.
Oh and I bet real estate by Montenay is dirt cheap, and anyone who's purchased property there in the last 20 years knew what they were getting into. Just like the whiny people who get a house by a race track dirt cheap, knowing its there, then complain until it's shut down.
March 26, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ffwife (anonymous) says...
the program in Ireland is probably a "pay as you throw" program. Google that phrase and you will find any number of articles/info on what it means. There are some city's that sell a particular bag or tag to put on your garbage bag. This then replaces that "solid waste user fee" you find billed on your yearly taxes. It means people are truly paying for what they throw away.
Although I think this is a good idea, it does create it's own set of problems. One of which would be a possible increas in "illegal dumping".
People really should think about just how much they pay (or in this case don't pay for their trash service). Most areas have a 90 gallon roll cart that is picked up once a week - 52 weeks a year. If your user fee is $99 per year, that means you are pay $1.90 per week for the place that "houses" your trash - be it the incerator or the landfill. Because that's what the fee is for. The pickup of the trash is paid for in your city taxes (if you live in the city) or by the fee you pay directly to your trash hauler (if you live outside city limits and have to contract it yourself). Even that fee is relatively low considering that for about $100 a year you have someone pick up your trash and yard debris at your curb. Additionally, most services have some type of once a month "bulk pickup also". Again, that's less than $2 per week. Try having the postal service, UPS, FedX or any other pickup service come to your house and cart that much stuff away. How much would that cost?
March 26, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Now, we didn't get this stuff out of thin air, so it probably isn't a good idea to burn it all up and put it there. I suspect that we got most of it out of the ground. I think that we ought to dig a big hole and put most of it back in the ground. We might have to do something special with the poisons. The earth doesn't care about having to hold a plastic bottle for awhile. It holds everything all the time.
March 26, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
theronce - I agree with the "Now, we didn't get this stuff out of thin air, so it probably isn't a good idea to burn it all up and put it there."
But have issue with "We might have to do something special with the poisons. The earth doesn't care about having to hold a plastic bottle for awhile. It holds everything all the time."
Plastic water bottles NEVER break down. And we do not recycle enough of them as is. If our system was set up to encourage recycling we would be in much better shape. Or at least separate stuff out.....organic stuff in the landfill....after a season it is compost and we can sell it. Not to mention using the methane as an alternative fuel source. Recycle glass and plastics will greatly open landfill space and all metals should be recycled...goodness just look at what cooper is going for.
March 26, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
BTW - the Bees Ferry landfill was there long before they cut down all the trees and started putting in Grand Oaks and all the other developments.
So, they are in the same shape as the people who bought by the Incinerator.
March 26, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lloyd007 (anonymous) says...
THANK GOD.!!!!
March 26, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
20goodearth (anonymous) says...
Most of what I have heard and read over the past several months sounds more like personal opinions, selfish opinions and comments based on a lack of Knowledge and Fact, be it financial or scientific.
Why has the Green Comittee only focused on recycling? What about some attention to the good the incinerator does.
-all trash incinerated is reduced in size by a factor of 9
(extends the life of landfills by many years )
-all plastics,styrofoam etc. are burned to minute cinder
(plastics take about 400 years to decompose)
-all paints, solvents, etc. that the community discards are burned destroying all toxins and chemicals
(toxins and other bad stuff will leach into soil and ground water)
-incineration of community waste does not have Methane gas as a by product
(Methane gas at land fills have a low flash point, are explosive, are harmful to the atmosphere and must be burned off)
-the incinerator burns community waste to create steam that runs a large generator...end result is electricity we can all use.
(landfills only produce Methane Gas, odors, and ughly piles of garbage)
If we need to spend extra money to protect our enviornment than so be it
March 26, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
No one has even bothered to respond to the obvious 800-pound elephant in the room: energy costs. This incinerator generates a substantial amount of energy, which is supposed to be the "greenest" way to create energy using waste. And go figure, these greenies would prefer more TAXES like Ireland and forcing people to change their habits, rather than address the problem with a smart solution: relocate the incinerator to a more industrial area like near the Navy base or the Westvaco plant.
All I constantly hear from these stinking bureaucrats are INFERIOR ideas coupled with more strangleholds on individual freedom. I guess these sheeple are OK in being government drones and lemmings....
....for ze glory of Mother Earth! Seig heil, comrades.
March 26, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
icb - now now...no need to be ugly. Some of us "greenies" are just trying to look at all the options.
20 goodearth actually educated me on somethings. Rather than be mean you could share what you know that we could all use to make Mother Earth a better place for all her inhabitants.
If we are forced financially to reduce what we send to the landfill, I bet we would all get on board and in the end we could actually save money.
March 26, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ln1959 (anonymous) says...
If the upkeep of the incinerator was done, then there wouldn't be a problem. But when you continue to run a place into the ground and gas start seeping out and getting into the environment, you're going to have complaints.
icbmman has a great solution. Relocate the incinerator, or build a new, more efficient one
March 26, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
Luna, I understand that you and other environmentalists want to consider other options, and that's fine. However, IMO, there are some options that should definitely never be considered, primarily when they intefere with the individual's freedom, or at least have the potential to do so.
My biggest concern is that closing the incinerator down with using Bees Ferry for the extra trash leaves no consideration for the increase in electrical power costs that the entire Chas area will incur. WA will receive more truck traffic, and that is a concern as well.
It just seems that many bureaucrats are not thinking of the big picture with their actions and are literally bowing to the wims of a group of minorities.
March 26, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
devilsadvocate77 (anonymous) says...
So great, close the incinerator so about 18 people that live around it can breathe better. What about the hundreds of thousands in Charleston that will now fill up the landfill at a much quicker rate then before. In 15 years the council will be trying to figure out where the next landfill will have to located as the first one nears capacity. Then it will be NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)!
How about the people that live in the vicinity of the incinerator get paid a good sum for their property and move out. Then knock down the little homes and make an even larger buffer around the incinerator. Lets face it, its not very scenic down there to live with a towering smokestack and trucks all the time. And if the incinerator closes it will still be there. Its not like someone will be there the week after it closes and start tearing it down.
This towering hulk will just there while someone figures out what to do with and dispose of the pieces. Ironically the pieces will end up in a landfill.
March 26, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnS (anonymous) says...
The area is zoned heavy industrial. In a few years the same people will be complaining about all the trucks at the new SPA shipyard port located right behind the trash burner. It won't be any better for them.
Buy the residents out at a fair price or move them to a public housing area. Tear the houses down and build an industrial park.
March 26, 2009 at 10:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Looming (anonymous) says...
Yep sounds like we are thinking of just the few and not the many when it come down to it! Let put more trash into the ground that will put out a lot more harmful gases than the Waste to Energy Plant. That sounds real Intelligent to me know how about the cold hard fact that this is the same way Charleston / SC lost the Navy Base small thinking with no one looking at the big picture. Every body should start calling this plant by it true Name Waste to Energy the fact stands it is an asset also it takes the plastic that can not be recycled and turns it into electricity. I know it a small thing to think about until your lights go out. How about that job thing that the Waste to Energy plant provides to it's employees and contractors no big deal they will just add to that 11% we are at in South Carolina for unemployment. I just figured you might wont some cold hard fact to look at not just the few ho have never made a sound in 20 years about where they live.
March 28, 2009 at 7:27 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. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
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!
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- Missing woman's fiance found dead in his home
- Isle of Palms wants to patch beach
- Veterans Job Fair set for Feb. 22 in North Charleston
- Advocating for cyclists
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Facebook posts may cost you a job
- Boeing powering up first local jet
- S.C. State mum on possible firings
