2000-03-13 Work Session
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 27
MINUTES OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WORK SESSION PAGE 810
MARCH 13, 2000
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Work Session on Monday, March
13, 2000, at 3:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North
Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present were Commissioner Buzz Birzenieks; Commissioner Charles R. Howell;
Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer; Chairman William A. Caster; County Manager, Allen O’Neal; County
Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell.
Commissioner Davis was not able to attend the meeting because of his court schedule.
Chairman Caster called the meeting to order and said the purpose of the Work Session is to
hear from an expert in the field of solid waste management about the systems of waste disposal that
are being used in other areas across the country. He introduced Mr. Charles R. Jeter, P.E., Vice-
President of Corporate Environmental Affairs, RMT, Inc. to open the discussion.
PRESENTATION ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Charles Jeter expressed appreciation for being asked to appear before the Board and he
presented a brief synopsis on his work experience. He advised that he was a native of South Carolina
with a Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering, a former Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency for the southeastern United States, and currently a private
consultant with RMT, an environmental engineering firm in Greenville, South Carolina. This firm is
comprised of 550 employees with major offices in Greenville, South Carolina, Madison, Wisconsin,
and Austin, Texas. The company specializes in full service engineering work, air pollution control,
wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and hazardous waste management.
Mr. Jeter reported that during the past 40 years, the question of incineration and/or landfills
for management of municipal solid waste has been a complex issue. There are merits for use of both
technologies whether incineration or landfills. With incineration, a landfill is needed to dispose of the
ash. There is no clear right or wrong technology. The best solid waste management approach is based
on individual location.
New Hanover County is in the enviable position of having the alternative of choosing either
landfilling, incineration or possibly a regional landfill to manage solid waste. All alternatives will meet
environmental requirements and accommodate the volume of waste to be generated now and in the
future. The County has a landfill that meets the General Subtitle D landfill regulations with required
liners, leachate collection, gas ventilation, etc. The WASTEC Facility is in need of upgrades to
comply to EPA regulations, which can be achieved. The cost of incineration based on tipping fees will
be approximately 20% of the original capital cost of $14,000,000. The Landfill should have a minimal
number of new state or federal requirements other than regulations regarding the collection of gases
released by landfill cells.
Mr. Jeter said that the purpose of discussion will be to facilitate the Commissioners through
an analysis of alternatives. He presented a chart reflecting the national trend on the use of landfills and
combustion/incineration. In the 1960's, the percentage of recovery/recycling use was 6.5%, the
percentage of landfill use was 63%, and the percentage of combustion use was 30%. The 30%
combustion figure is misleading because a majority of combustion was involved with burning of solid
waste in landfills. In 1997, the percentage of recovery/recycling use was 28%, the percentage of
landfill use was 55.1%, and the percentage of combustion/incineration use was 16.9%. In 2005, the
projected use is 32% for recovery/recycling use, 52.1% for landfill use; and 15.9% for
combustion/incinerator use. The trend is fairly stable in the area of landfills and incineration. This
is because many landfills had to be closed since they served as open dumps and did not comply to
environmental regulations. Incinerators were constructed in the early 1980's to take the place of
landfills. Currently, there is still discussion of whether the best method of solid waste management
is use of landfills or incineration.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 27
MINUTES OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WORK SESSION PAGE 811
MARCH 13, 2000
In North Carolina, the recycling is lower than the national average at 2%. The figures are as
follows:
76% of waste is landfilled
22% of waste if combusted
2% of waste is recycled.
There is still a problem in the southeast with recycle/reuse because the population is more
scattered than in the northeast, and there is a lack of facilities to accept recycled materials. However,
recycle/reuse as a philosophy is a good way to dispose of solid waste.
Municipal solid waste generation rates continue to rise on a per capita basis. Landfills are
expanding to meet this demand. Fewer landfills exist today than a few years ago; however, the
capacity of new landfills far exceeds the volume of the old landfills. Landfills and landfilling methods
have evolved into a feasible alternative for managing municipal solid waste.
Incineration has provided a logical alternative for municipal solid waste management for the
past 40 years. With installation of air pollution control technologies, incinerators are an acceptable
risk and are usually favored by the community. Incineration also offers the positive concept of
beneficial use.
In trying to determine the best method of solid waste management for New Hanover County,
the following questions should be considered:
1.Is the current waste stream sufficient for incineration after waste reduction, composting, and
recycling . Will this be true for the foreseeable future?
2.Is there a buyer for the energy and steam to be produced from incineration? Can long-term
contracts be established with these institutions?
3.What will be the impact of the deregulation of the power industry on the purchase of energy
from the incinerator?
4.Is there strong political support of one type of management over another?
5.What is the community’s opinion?
6.Can the siting requirement for a landfill be met?
7.Is the geology appropriate for construction of an adequately sized landfill?
8.What is the cost of conforming with new air pollution control requirements for incineration?
9.What is the useful life for the existing incinerator?
10.Does the useful life of the existing incinerator justify the cost established for the new air
pollution control requirements?
11.Is the existing incinerator’s capacity sufficient to manage future waste projection for New
Hanover County after waste reduction?
12.When was the last time or the next time that the incinerator will have to be retrofitted? What
is the cost of this retrofitting?
13.What is the maintenance history and the future maintenance of the incinerator? What is the
expected downtime?
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 27
MINUTES OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WORK SESSION PAGE 812
MARCH 13, 2000
Mr. Jeter requested the Board to consider the following items in determining how to manage
solid waste in New Hanover County: (1) environmental issues; (2) costs for the solid waste
management program selected; (3) method of collection; and (4) a fee based system or billed through
the property tax.
Mr. Jeter advised that after studying solid waste management for a number of years, he found
that costs associated with incineration exceed the cost of landfilling. Figures vary throughout the
country, but the average tipping fee ranges from $50 to $60 per ton for incineration with 15-20% of
ash that will have to be landfilled. The cost for landfilling is $35 to $40 per ton. In Charleston, the
average tipping fee is $59 per ton for use of the incinerator, which is a fee based system.
The Board of County Commissioners must consider if they are willing to pay more to have
control over solid waste management through incineration. Environmentally, the cost of operating a
landfill will not be as costly as retrofitting the incinerator to comply to current and future air control
emission regulations. When trying to render a decision, public support and preference should be
considered. The incinerator has the capability of reusing waste materials in a beneficial fashion, such
as producing electricity from steam. Recycling is a positive area in the industrial community, but not
with municipalities. Regional management of waste has always been considered positive, but the
major disadvantage is the cost of transportation. The Commissioners must determine if the costs of
operating two or more facilities is more costly than one, and at what point will the useful life of the
incinerator be reached.
Discussion followed on electric power deregulation. Chairman Caster noted that deregulation
has been a topic of discussion by the N. C. General Assembly for the past two years and stated it does
not appear that any action will be taken this year. Mr. Jeter encouraged the Board to closely monitor
deregulation discussions in the General Assembly to be aware of how this bill could impact the
incinerator and the generation of electricity in the future.
Director Church advised that if the WASTEC Facility was not limited to 7.5 megawatts per
day, enough electricity could be generated to provide power to the schools.
Commissioner Birzenieks spoke on the need for the Board to consider a long-term solution
to the management of solid waste, and he asked Mr. Jeter what should New Hanover County do today
to insure that solid waste needs will be met in 20 years.
Mr. Jeter responded that if New Hanover County had to select the best method of solid waste
management today, it would not be incineration because of the large costs involved with operating
these facilities. In 20 years, the incinerator will have reached its useful life, and the Commissioners
are now faced with the difficult decision of determining whether the useful life of the incinerator
should be used before closing the operation and going to landfilling.
Commissioner Birzenieks asked if the incinerator could be sold if the facility was closed.
Mr. Jeter recommended studying the useful life and value of the incinerator before closing the
facility. Developed European countries, such as France and Germany, would probably be interested
in purchasing usable components of the incinerator.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the 15-20% of ash being placed in the landfill could be added
to the incinerator tipping fee of $50 to $60 per ton to cover the cost for using landfill space.
Mr. Jeter responded that the 15-20% should not be added to the incineration cost because this
is part of disposing of the waste. The ash is a concentration of non-combustible products and is
usually comprised of heavy metals that will not burn. He said that personally he would not use ash
as a cover for the landfill because of risks involved with it becoming a hazardous waste product.
Director Church reported that ash from the WASTEC Facility is tested every Monday
morning. Reports have consistently shown that the ash is non-hazardous and well below hazardous
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 27
MINUTES OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WORK SESSION PAGE 813
MARCH 13, 2000
waste limits. Only 25% of the ash generated at WASTEC Facility is fly ash, which is the most
hazardous type of ash. If it becomes necessary, the ash can be treated on site.
Discussion followed on the cost of sand as a landfill cover. Director Church stated that the
cost of sand is $4 per cubic yard, and he informed the Board that not enough ash was available to
cover the Landfill on a daily basis. An alternative cover will be budgeted in FY 2000-2001 to purchase
a material called Posi-Shell, which is a soft cement that is sprayed on the trash daily. The use of Posi-
Shell is about one inch compared to the use of 6 inches of sand and 3inches of ash as required by the
State when covering a landfill. Landfill space can be saved by using this product.
Vice-Chairman Greer commented on the use of mulch from Wilmington Materials to cover the
landfill, and he asked if this material source was still being used since this company has a supply left
from recent hurricanes.
Director Church responded that after Hurricane Fran, Wilmington Materials ran out of space
and the Environmental Management Department allowed the company to bring mulch to the Landfill.
The mulch from Hurricane Fran has been used and a majority of the mulch from Hurricane Floyd has
been used. Wilmington Materials still has 150,000 to 250,000 tons; however, the State has
reservations about using mulch, and Staff feels that mulch takes up additional space in the Landfill.
Vice-Chairman Greer commented on the new Clean Air Act and stated the upgrades on the
agenda for this evening deal with replacement of electrostatic precipitators with baghouses, an upgrade
of the constant emissions monitoring system; and installation of a carbon injection system, and he
asked if these projects would be costly.
Director of Environmental Management, Ray Church, responded that $1,500,000 has been
budgeted for the upgrades.
General discussion followed on the cost of retrofitting the incinerator. Mr. Jeter recommended
that a decision should be made by the Board regarding the incinerator before spending $1,500,000 in
upgrades. He suggested researching the possibility of selling valuable components of the incinerator
before making a final decision on closing the facility.
Further discussion was held on how New Hanover County is handling off gases from the
landfill. Director Church reported that an engineering firm is reviewing a collection system for gases;
however, the present amount of gases released from landfill cells is not sufficient for this to be a viable
project. State and federal regulations will require the County to collect gases once a certain threshold
is reached, which will be in a number of years. He also advised that the incinerator was upgraded in
1990 with a new unit coming on line in 1991 and stated the life span of the incinerator is estimated at
20 years.
Commissioner Howell asked if a figure had been determined on the cost of maintaining the
facility over a number of years.
Director Church responded that maintenance, including capital projects, is estimated at
$2,500,000 to $3,000,000 per year. When figures are presented on the cost of operating the
WASTEC Facility, these figures include all capital costs, maintenance costs, operational costs, and
salaries. The disposal of the ash does not show up in the incineration cost, but the transportation cost
of carrying the ash to the landfill is included. The ash disposal should be reflected in the landfill cost.
Commissioner Howell spoke on calls received from the public saying that approximately
$3,000,000 could be saved a year if the incinerator is closed, which represents 2 cents on the property
tax rate. He also commented on the fact that many citizens in the community do not want to close the
incinerator because they feel this is an environmentally safe way to dispose of trash. He said if the
future is landfilling and use of a regional landfill is placed in a nearby location, the Commissioners will
have to decide if $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 per year should be spent on incineration. Also, the
flip side to this issue is the cost of opening and closing landfill cells which continues to increase each
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 27
MINUTES OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WORK SESSION PAGE 814
MARCH 13, 2000
year.
Mr. Jeter responded that the current trend is movement toward large regional landfills. The
cost of operating an incinerator will be 30-50% more than operating a landfill. According to an EPA
Manual, the tipping fee for incineration will be $60 per ton versus a tipping fee of $30 per ton for
landfilling. These figures represent a cost differential. The Board must determine if the additional cost
of incineration is worth the extra money to the community. Also, the Board must decide on the
amount of control the County will have over any solid waste management system.
Discussion was held on the use of the Charleston, South Carolina, model. Vice-Chairman
Greer stated, in his opinion, the Charleston model provides a plan that will allow the incinerator to
remain open because these expenses can be passed to the taxpayers. He asked Mr. Jeter if he was
aware of any other counties or cities that use models similar to the Charleston model.
Mr. Jeter responded that he was not aware of another facility.
Vice-Chairman Greer spoke on the constant battle to secure enough waste to keep the
incinerator burning at maximum capacity for efficiency purposes. With flow control being deemed
illegal by the courts, the County can use the Charleston model to skirt around flow control.
Mr. Jeter responded that in the Charleston and Lexington County areas of South Carolina,
people pay for trash collection through the tax system, which means the citizens will be more inclined
to appropriately dispose of garbage. This type of system provides for better management of the solid
waste in the community.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the Charleston model had shown a difference in the amount of
litter in Charleston since it was implemented.
Mr. Jeter responded that theoretically the litter should be reduced, but he could not report this
was the case.
Director Church noted that illegal dumping and litter are two separate items. Illegal dumping
is when trash is intentionally dumped from the back of a truck. Littering occurs when drivers throw
out trash from a window or when trash is blown off the back of a truck.
Chairman Caster referenced the incident that occurred in the 1980's when the County had to
close its landfill and could not find another landfill that would accept the waste. He said as a result
of this situation, the citizens are pessimistic about using a regional landfill because they feel in 15 or
20 years the landfill may refuse to accept waste and the County will be in the same situation.
Mr. Jeter reminded the Board that in most counties, the landfill life has ended and the local
government does not have a way to dispose of solid waste. New Hanover County has available options
and this places the burden of making a decision on the Board of County Commissioners. The question
to address is whether the citizens of New Hanover County want to pay more to operate the incinerator
that is perceived by the public to be more environmentally acceptable.
Chairman Caster suggested holding a public hearing one evening to receive public input on
the best way to manage solid waste.
Mr. Jeter agreed with Chairman Caster and said that information should be presented on the
operational cost of the incinerator, the life of the incinerator, and use of a regional landfill facility.
Commissioner Birzenieks requested Mr. Jeter to comment on additional regulations that will
be placed on landfills and incinerators in the future.
Mr. Jeter responded that very few regulations on the design of landfills should be required in
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 27
MINUTES OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WORK SESSION PAGE 815
MARCH 13, 2000
the future. Once the incinerator is upgraded in the amount of $1,500,000 to comply to the Clean Air
Act, there should be no additional requirements within a short period of time; however, in the future
more new regulations will be required.
County Manager O’Neal advised that New Hanover County would not be prevented from
participating in a regional landfill effort with the continued operation of the WASTEC Facility and
Landfill. If the County should participate in a regional landfill with a private company, liability could
be incurred by New Hanover County, such as the incident with carrying a small amount of waste to
Nash County and later the County being named as one of 800 participants in the lawsuit.
Discussion followed on the liability that could be incurred when waste is carried to an out-of-
county facility. Mr. Jeter explained that when a landfill is located in another county, the liability
becomes the responsibility of that county. In an EPA lawsuit, all parties that have disposed of waste
in a landfill become equally and collectively liable; however, the parties with the most money pay a
higher settlement fee.
Commissioner Howell spoke on having a 30-year projected life for the landfill and a 20-year
usable life for the incinerator and said with the lack of available land in New Hanover County for siting
another landfill, he felt the Board should consider transporting waste to another facility within a
reasonable distance at a reasonable rate per ton. The New Hanover County Landfill could remain open
and the WASTEC Facility could operate for the remainder of its usable life.
Commissioner Birzenieks agreed with Commissioner Howell and said a plan of this type would
be flexible enough to use the incinerator and save landfill space.
Vice-Chairman Greer spoke on the County spending twice as much to operate the incinerator
versus the landfill plus the additional $1,500,000 in upgrades that must be completed by November
for the incinerator to comply to the Clean Air Act. He said if the Board wants to decide on the most
economical and environmentally sensitive way to dispose of solid waste for the future, the County can
adjust the tipping fee at the Landfill and carry trash to a regional landfill facility that would save
millions of dollars and at the same time preserve landfill space. This system would be cost effective
and eliminate the cost of operating two or more facilities.
Vice-Chairman Greer advised that if the Board decides to allow the incinerator to remain open
and approves the $1,500,000 upgrades, how can the Board be assured that another upgrade of this
type will not be required within another year. He said he felt the incinerator should be closed with use
of the County Landfill and transporting waste to a regional facility.
Director Church advised that the problem is not just deciding on whether to close the
incinerator. He presented a graph reflecting the reduction of the waste stream, and reported the
State’s goal was a 40% reduction and the County’s goal was a 10% reduction by 2001 and a 15%
reduction by 2011. If the County continues in the wrong direction, it will not be able to meet the 10%
reduction goal by next year. The performance measures this year were negative 56% from the 10%
reduction goal. Unfortunately, recycling is not profitable, but in order to reduce the waste stream,
this program needs to be expanded. The County has not had a problem with securing markets for
recyclables. The situation that occurred with burning recyclables is because of the lack of space.
Vice-Chairman Greer said unfortunately the County at times has to burn recyclables, which
cannot be denied.
Director Church responded that the waste stream is approaching 300,000 tons per year with
only 3,000 tons per year being recycled. A Construction and Demolition Processing Facility needs to
be constructed so these programs can be fully implemented to assist with reducing the waste stream.
The problem is how will these programs be funded. The Charleston model funds administration, ash
disposal, the landfill, the incinerator, household hazardous waste programs, compost and mulching
programs, debt service, curbside recycling, and a materials recovery facility to encourage recycling and
drop off sites. These programs are paid by a user fee based system. Currently, when a hauler carries
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 27
MINUTES OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WORK SESSION PAGE 816
MARCH 13, 2000
waste out of New Hanover County, revenues are lost. The County is dependent upon the tipping fee
revenues to operate the Environmental Management Department. In response to one hauler carrying
trash out of the county, the other haulers will have to do the same in order to remain competitive.
This means the funding resources of the Environmental Management Department have been lost.
Director Church commented on landfill space and presented a map showing the current use
of the landfill. On September 20, 1999, a six-acre landfill cell was constructed at approximately
$2,000,000 with the expectations that it would last for two years. At the current use, the cell will not
last one year. Another 10 acre cell will have to be constructed 10 years before it was scheduled.
Commissioner Howell expressed concern for running out of landfill space within the next 30
years, and he asked if use of the incinerator was saving landfill space.
Director Church explained that currently the incinerator is saving 2.73 acres per year in landfill
space. There are 130 acres of property that have been purchased by the County, but this land has not
been permitted as a landfill site. If the incinerator is closed, the current landfill space will last 22 years,
but if the incinerator remains open, the current landfill space will last 44 years. If a Construction and
Demolition Processing Facility is opened, the current landfill space will last 66 years. Incineration
does save landfill space.
In closing, Mr. Jeter informed the Board that a Construction and Demolition Processing
Facility was needed because the requirements are much less stringent and a tremendous amount of
landfill space can be saved. He noted that New Hanover County was in good shape and the
Commissioners have a difficult decision. The decision made will be a policy issue that will involve the
difference in costs of landfilling and incineration. He encouraged the Board to include the public in
the process.
Vice-Chairman Greer expressed appreciation to Mr. Jeter for the presentation, and he stressed
the importance of the Board making a decision on this issue. He said that public input has been
received, committees have conducted studies and made recommendations to the Board on the best
solid waste management system, and it is not fair to the employees at the WASTEC Facility to
continue to defer action on this issue. An agenda item has been deferred to approve a $1,500,000
upgrade to the incinerator that has to be completed by November to comply to new regulations, and
it would not be appropriate to spend this money if the WASTEC Facility is going to be closed. He
requested the Board to move forward with making a decision.
Director Church spoke on the need to implement a plan similar to the Charleston model which
includes the recycling, construction and demolition recycling, incineration, landfilling, and composting,
which will allow the County to reach its waste stream reduction goal.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Caster expressed appreciation to Mr. Jeter for an informative presentation, and he
thanked the WASTEC employees for attending the meeting. He called for a motion to adjourn.
Motion:
Commissioner Birzenieks, MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Howell, to adjourn.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Caster adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board