Solid Waste Alternative Study-Beaufort County

4
BE AUF OR IT COUNTY ,
Solid
Waste Alternative Stud y
DCM COPY
Please do not remove.
Division of Coastal Management Copy
INCINERATOR
• WASHINGTON
® LANDFILL
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP VAS FINANCED IN
PART THROUGH A GRANT PROVIDED BY THE FORTH
CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THROUGH
FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
ACT OF I972, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS ADMINISTERED
BY THE OFFICE OF COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Beaufort County
Solid Waste Alternatives Study
I. Data Base
Page
....Amount of Solid Waste ........................ 1
Composition of Solid Waste ................... Z
Landfill Location ............................ 3
Future Conditions ............................ 5
Toxic Material........... ....... 6
II. Analysis of Energy Market
Current Usage ................................ 7
Expected Demands...... ....................... 9
III. Analysis of Environmental Consequences
Current System ............................... 10
Future System Effects.... .................. 10
IV. Implementation
Financing and Operation... ..... ........... 13
Citizen Participation ........................ 14

Beaufort County
Solid Waste Alternatives Study
This report provides for Beaufort County a review of the
Neuse River Waste to Energy Feasibility Study and offers imple-
mentation strategies for the alternatives. The engineers study
was prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. for eight counties withirl
the Mid -East Commission and Neuse River Council of Governments.
The Malcolm Pirnie document offered a description of existing
solid waste disposal systems, quantity projections and composi-
tion estimates for the eight County area.
DATA BASE
Amount of Solid Waste
The determination of the amount of solid waste requiring
disposal is the first step in any waste disposal project. The
waste generated in the County was determined by making use of
generation rates developed by other units of government. A
generation rate is an indicator of the amount of solid waste
produced per capita. The estimated rate within the County is 3.5
pounds per capita. This rate is a compilation of typical rates
in rural and urban areas. Also included in the rate determina-
tion was the actual rate used in Craven County, which regularly
weighs trucks entering the landfill.
The use Of a generation factor in determining solid waste
disposal needs is used in conjunction with population estimates
Provided by the North Carolina State Data Center., Waste quantity
projections are:

Tons Per Day
County
1987
1992
1997
2002
2007
2012
Beaufort
79
85
90
96
101
106
Bertie
38
38
38
38
38
38
Carteret
92
106
120
134
147
161
Craven
147
163
179
195
210
225
Hertford
43
44
44
44
44
44
Martin
46
46
46
46
45
44
Onslow
227
247
267
285
310
320
Pamlico
20
21
22
23
25
25
TOTALS
692
750
806
B61
920
963
Before a final determination is made on a disposal alternative a
provision should be made to weigh actual waste quantities at the
landfill to insure the accuracy of the projects. Scales should
be used for several months to establish accurate weight records.
Composition of Solid Waste
Equally important as the amount of solid waste generated in
the County is the composition of the waste. The Malcolm Pirnie
study attempted to determine the composition through a survey of
landfill operators. Incomplete information and limited study
time prevented an accurate assessment of waste composition. The
engineers study used information gathered for other counties and
communities.
An examination of waste composition looks at waste genera-
tors and types of waste. Waste generation includes residential,
commercial and industrial sources. The County residential waste
comprises approximately 70% of the disposal needs, commercial
waste is approximately 25% and industrial waste is approximately
3%. The volume of residential waste is important as it could
become part of a recycling program.
2

The type of waste may include paper, plastics, textiles,
construction material, organics and other material. The type of
waste generated in the County must be considered when making a
decision on a disposal alternative, especially since the effici-
ency of many disposal technologies is dependent upon prior
removal of noncombustible and recyclable material. The amount of
paper and wood products will determine the level of success in
an incineration process.
In suburban areas, programs for point of generation recovery
of recyclable material have been demonstrated to be capable of
achieving upwards of 60% compliance levels. These levels,
however, typically drop to below 20% for both rural and inner
city wastestreams. This will be a major problem for the County
in 'developing solid waste management programs. Some ways to
address these difficulties include:
a) Where feasible, the utilization of manned collection
stations is disposal sites. Pitt County has initiat-
ed this at one site.using workers from Eastern Carolina
Vocational Center. This method can be very successful
if a monetary incentive is offered. For example, a
reduction in dumping fees (assuming one is charged)
for individuals bringing some pre-set amount (e.g.
5 lbs) of sorted recyclables. At unmanned sites, some
voluntary compliance can be attained through the use
of drop boxes.
b) The County may encourage the towns or private haulers
through financed or other means to develop monthly or
bimonthly collection of sorted recyclables. The
haulers may reduce charges based on a lower tipping
fee. Towns or cities may give an adjustment in a
garbage pick-up fee or be able to charge lower.taxes.
Landfill Location
The location of the Beaufort County landfill is on the west
side of S. R. 1334 in Long Acre Township. The closest surface
water is Duck Creek which flows into the north side of the
3

SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES STUDY
IIERTFORD ■ r11r11
IrlfllL
DERTIYI
■
MARTIN AM" V
nuwsrn
BEAUFORT
r/sruerlr
CRAYEN
IIr1111�
■M PAYLIC0 v
O
■
0 N S 1, 01r +I+IsllrluL ■
IL//r/1r ■ Landf i l l
CARTERET
♦ Transfer Station
* Incinerator
ry THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN
PART THROUCH A GRANT PROVIDED BY IHE NORTH
CAROLINA COASTAL MANACEMENT PROGRAM, THROUGH
FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COASIAL 70NE MANAGEMENT
ACT OF 102, AS AMENDED, 4"ICH IS ADMINISIERFD
BY THE. OFf10E OF COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,
uATTnuei _p r.Nj[ AND A7M1So MFRTr ens jqrqjgA,Tn

Pamlico River. The Creek is approximately 11500 feet from the
landfill. The landfill site is approximately 130 acres.
Approximately 60 acres are used for solid waste disposal. The
remaining 70 acres are used as a borrow pit for cover material.
Six wells are on the site to monitor leachate flow.
The County has recently been given a five year permit for
extending the use of the landfill. The permit allows the County
to dispose waste on top of the existing site. This will add
approximately ten years to the landfill life. Reduction in the
amount of waste as a result of changes in disposal methods could
extend the landfill life by several years.
Future Conditions
In preparing for the future of solid waste disposal Beaufort
County must project needs for the immediate future and long
range future. Projections must consider changes in federal and
state regulations, size of population, level of recycling and
amount of disposable waste. In addition, changes in the economy
and.technology must be predicted.
The previous section on amount of solid waste in the County
included a prediction of 1.2 tons per year increase over the
next 25 years. The steady growth in the tonnage of solid waste
requiring disposal will be the result of increasing population
and disposable material.
Population projections for the County as provided by the N.
C. Office of State Budget and Management is as follows:
Year
1990
1995
2000
2010
Estimated
Population
45,222
47,627
49,643
53,623
5

Toxic Material
The' generation, transportation, treatment, storage and
disposal of toxic waste within the County are currently monitored
by field representatives from the N. C. Department of Human
Resources - Hazardous Waste Management Branch. The facilities
that create the waste are divided into small and large genera-
tors. Small generators are facilities that create less than
1000 kilograms per month. In Beaufort County the facilities are
classified as follows:
1 Hour Valet
Charcoal Ser-
ice Corp.
Flanders Filters
Fountain Power
Boats
Hackney & Sons
Hamilton Beach-
Scovill
National Spinning
Privateer Mfg.
Singer Furniture
Stanadyne
Texasgulf
Chemicals
N. C. National
Guard
Small
Generator
X
►4
X
X
X
X
Generator
X
X
X
X
X
X
Transporter
Each of the generators must properly dispose of any waste.
The County is not prepared to accept toxic waste at its landfill.
This creates a need to dispose of the waste at sites outside the
County.
6

The current regulations do not require facilities that
generate less than 100 kilograms per month to report their
disposal needs. They must dispose of any toxic waste in a
proper manner, but the method is not traced.
The acceptance of household waste at the County landfill
will normally include small amounts of toxic waste. Items such
as .cleaning fluids, batteries, and paint may accumulate in
sufficient quantities to create a problem. The mixture of the
toxic waste with putrescible waste at individual homes make -sep-
aration at the disposal difficult, it not impossible. The
easiest way to remove household toxic wastes from the waste
stream is to not let it in at the start. The education of the
general public on source separation should be part of a disposal
plan.
ANALYSIS OF ENERGY MARKET
The economic success of any waste to energy system requires
the participation of an energy buyer. Energy products include
steam, electricity and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). Primary users
of the energy include industry, military installations and
electrical utility companies.
Current UsaQe
The final product of the waste to energy facility would be
a partial determinant in locating a disposal site. The genera-
tion of steam would require location of the facility generally
within two miles of a buyer. The buyer could be an industry
such as National Spinning Company in Washington or military
installations such as Cherry Point MCAS and Camp Lejune MCH.
The purchase of steam would allow the buyer to avoid the repair
or replacement of boilers.
7

The generation of electricity for sale to an electrical
utility company, a municipality or an industry will require an
extensive set of agreements. Utility companies such as North
Carolina Power or CP&L are required by federal guidelines to
purchase electricity generated from waste to energy facilities.
The minimum rate paid by the power companies is set by the North
Carolina Utilities Commission. This rate may not be satisfactory
to the local governments as it is designed to protect the power
companies. Waste to energy plant operators should attempt to
generate electricity at times that are most favorable to the
power companies. The generation of electricity at peak hours
will permit the negotiation of more favorable rates for local
governments.
The purchase of electricity by a municipality will require
a special agreement with their supplier. The supplier normally
demands an extended notice for any anticipated change in the
purchase of electricity. The North Carolina Eastern Municipal
Power Agency and CP&L require an eight year notice for any
change in power supply agreements. The municipality must be
very certain that a new source of power will be available on a
constant basis. A reversal of plans could be a costly mistake.
Industry and other major users may also purchase electricity
from a waste to energy facility. The purchaser will require
assurances that electricity will be available when needed. The
revision of. any agreement between a user and supplier may result
in a higher rate for the user.
The counties should remember that entering the electricity
business is not a temporary function. Rates paid by utility
companies will be based on regular availability and amount of
electricity generated. Municipalities and industry will rely on
the County for all or part of their electricity. This may
require the county to use fuel to generate electricity.
8

Expected Demands
Population variation within the County and the surrounding
area can be expected to create a change in the demand for
energy. An increase in the cost or availability of traditional
sources of energy may lead to' the use of alternative sources.
One source of additional energy could be from the waste to
energy product known as RDF. This process will involve the
creation of a product that can be delivered to another site for
burning. RDF products are in a form, such as pellets, that are
easily transportable. This will eliminate siting restrictions
caused by cogeneration. RDF will also eliminate the County's
responsibility for ash disposal. Recycling is an integral part
of RDF processing. This can also provide additional income for
the County.
However, RDF facilities are not the perfect solution to a
county's disposal problems. A market for the RDF must be found.
Buyer's may require a BTU level that will be difficult to
obtain. Pricing of the RDF must be low enough that it will be
an attractive substitution for conventional fuels. Recycling
may,not be a complete success due to fluctuations in the scrap
market.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Beaufort County must consider the environmental consequences
of the existing disposal system or any future system. The
disposal methods chosen will have varying effects upon water
quality. Ground water and surface water, could be adversely
affected by a poor choice. The approval by the Division of
Health Services and Environmental Management Division of any
change in disposal method will require a review of the effect on
aiaie-r gixa`1 i ty'r
9

Current System
The environmental integrity of the area surrounding land-
fills is closely watched by the Division of Health Services
representatives within the N. C. Department of Human Resources.
The field representatives monitor leachate filtration throughout
the area surrounding the landfill.
Future System(s)
The disposal method recommended by Malcolm Pirnie includes
incineration of the waste by one of several facility types. The
types include waterwall, rotary waterwall and modular. The
disposal facility chosen will require an ultimate location for
the ash residue.
One of the alternatives includes an incinerator in Beaufort
County. The incinerator could be located in Washington near the
National Spinning Company plant. National Spinning has expressed
an interest in buying steam that would be generated by the
incineration plant.
The use of an incinerator in Beaufort County could leave
the -County with responsibility for ash disposal. The ash will
be a byproduct of any incinerator. Regulations under considera-
tion by the Environmental Projection Agency may designate ash
produced by a solid waste incinerator as hazardous. This change
could place an additional burden on Beaufort County if it
retains ash disposal responsibility.
. The location of an incinerator in Beaufort County would not
mean that the County must dispose of 100% of the ash. The
operator of the incinerator would very likely be under contract
with surrounding counties. These counties could be responsible
for their share of the ash.
The environmental integrity of the area surrounding the
Beaufort County landfill and the incinerator site should not be
10

affected by the change in use. The landfill is monitored now
for the leaching of both non -toxic and toxic wastes. The
acceptance of ash would not require a change in landfill opera-
tions unless the classification of the ash is revised. EPA
officials anticipate a release of revised regulations soon for
enforcement in 1992.
The use of an incinerator may create additional problems
for: the County through air pollution. Revised regulations may
place an additional burden on operators and owners of solid
waste incinerators.
The ash disposal and air pollution problem can be partially
avoided by an active recycling program. Incinerator boiler
efficiency can be increased and gas emissions reduced by the
removal of noncombustibles. This is believed to be due to more
even and complete combustion. In addition the removal of
noncombustibles will reduce the volume of final ash (through
the removal of its own weight and volume, as well as the in-
creased combustion efficiencies) that must be processed for
disposal. This information suggests that it is imperative for
the.County to implement a means to also provide point of disposal
segregation and collection of recyclable and noncombustible
material. At present, thereare two primary types of systems
available to accomplish this.
The first type of system is referred to as Air Density
Separation (ADS). With ADS, bulk refuse is conveyed into a
rotating conical bin which is connected to an air blower. Low
density materials (primarily lightweight paper and plastic
products, fabric and food wastes) are suspended in the airstream
and conducted directly into an incinerator. Denser materials
fall to the bottom of the bin where they are recovered and then
sorted to remove noncombustible and recyclable materials. Any
combustibles remaining after the sorting process are then
incinerated.
11

A more advanced method of separation is found in the
recently developed wet processing system. In these systems the
refuse is finely shredded, suspended in water and then separated
and automatically recovered. Some of the advantages of this
kind of system include:
I
(a) The recovered by-products are cleaned by this process,
which should facilitate handling and enhancing their
resale value.
(b) The homogenous nature of the resulting incinerator
fuel promotes more complete combustion.
(c) Many of these systems include the capacity to continu-
ously monitor the processed wastestream for the
presence of hazardous materials. The materials can
them be diverted from the incinerator and processed
for alternative disposal.
(d) Demineralizers are incorporated into many of these
systems which help to reduce heavy metal contamination
of residual incinerator ash.
This type of processing will add water to the waste and
should therefore be followed by a pyrolysis stage. The Malcolm
Pirnie study did not recommend pyrolysis. However, as a precom-
bustion stage pyrolysis would use water to drive oxygen from
the waste, which is then heated to generate burnable gases.
These gases are conducted into the incinerator where they are
utilized as supplemental fuel, offsetting any combustion ineffic-
iency attributable to the added moisture in the refuse.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
The adoption of a particular strategy by Beaufort County
will involve the commitment of staff, time, money, equipment and
resources such as land and water. The alternative chosen will
require the County to decide on construction, pwnership and
operation of the disposal facility.
12

Financing and Operation
Construction of an alternative disposal facility may be
paid for by one county, several counties, or the private sector.
Beaufort County may choose to construct a facility by itself.
This would make the County responsible for any financing package.
The money could be obtained from locally generated revenue, or
combinations of State and Federal money. Local revenue could
include funding from a capital reserve fund and general obliga-
tion or revenue bonds. The capital reserve fund would probably
not be usable due to the large amount of money (perhaps as
muchas $30 million) necessary for construction. In 1983, the
General Assembly authorized units of government to issue revenue
bonds for the collection, treatment and disposal of solid waste.
State or Federal money 'may come in the form of grants or
loans. Grants are the ideal source of money, but they are
difficult to obtain. Loans will require a repayment method.
The most logical 'choice of repayment funding for a disposal
facility is the use of tipping fees. These fees may be charged to
haulers bringing waste to the facility. Both private and public
haulers may be charged a fee based on weight.
A tipping fee by itself may not generate sufficient revenue
to cover the cost of operating and capital expenses. The
various types of energy buyers discussed earlier will be an
additional source of revenue. One other source of revenue is
property tax, which could be increased to provide revenue for
the facility.
All of the combined revenue sources may not generate
sufficient revenue if one county attempts to construct a waste
disposal facility. The ability to assume several million
dollars of debt may be more than a county can financially or
Politically afford. This may require the creation of a regional
sanitary district.
13

A sanitary district could combine several counties into a
group that could affordably operate a facility. The district
could be held responsible for construction and operation financ-
ind.
One other implementation strategy could be the use of
private sector money in the development of the project.
Private industry may participate in the construction or operation
of a facility if the economic benefits are high enough. The
General Assembly permits counties to contract with private firms
for the development of a solid waste disposal facility. The
contract may be based on factors other than cost, such as
facility design, operational experience, system reliability,
energy production efficiency, long-term operational costs,
compatibility with source separation and other recycling systems,
environmental impact and operational guarantees.
Citizen Participation
A final non -technical consideration in the development of a
waste to energy is the probability of public opposition. Much
of the hold-up in constructing solid waste disposal facilities
is the result of well organized public resistance campaigns.
Public opposition is often the result of two primary factors:
(a) Although armed with a considerable number of facts,
most lay people do not have the technical training to
use these facts in forming an objective opinion. They
are easily swayed by emotionally charged arguments
which are based upon either technical impossibilities
or worst.case scenarios.
(b) Many in the general public believe that public offic-
ials will promote projects that do not necessarily
serve the public interest. The failure of the federal
government, until recently, to protect the public from
chemical hazards has given support to this argument.
The County should implement immediately an effective public
relations and information program if a disposal facility is to
14

be completed in a timely fashion. A well informed public will
probably be a supportive public. One major mistake in other
parts of the country was the exclusion of the public from the
planning, siting and development process. In many cases, all
significant decisions were made behind closed doors with politi-
cal decisions overriding public service ones. The public
hearings were held after all the major decisions had been
reached. This attitude has tied up many units of government in
litigation over siting and construction. Private individuals
should be encouraged to serve on committees and participate in
all phases of the development process. A consensus among
opinion leaders on the criteria for selecting a site long before
a site is even unofficially chosen can play an important part
in the success of the project.
- The involvement of citizens in the planning process should
include representatives of environmental action groups. These
groups have proven themselves to be formidable opponents to
refuse disposal facilities. If carefully cultivated these same
groups could become strong proponents of a disposal system.
This will involve approaching them early in the planning process
and asking for their opinions and creative input. Their techno-
phobia can be overcome by showing a project package that includes
a certain technological overkill in areas of air and water
quality. A note of caution is that the groups should not be
used unless their opinions will be listened to in the planning
process. Simply paying lip service to the groups could create
problems at a later date.
All citizens of the County cannot be on a planning commit-
tee. The soundest environmentally safe plan is useless if
proposals and progress on a disposal facility are not communi-
cated to the public periodically from day one. Newsletters,
slide shows, media coverage and newspaper inserts can be used to
develop an informed public and vividly portray the good neighbor
aspects of a disposal facility.
15

The particular method of communicating is not as important
as its style. It must be straight forward and demystify high
technology solutions. It must not be a slick sell. Going to
people at their regularly scheduled meeting can head off the
venting of frustrations at a public hearing.
The public information program must be personalized and
dialogue must be continual. The public should be able to feel
they know the county person responsible for the project. The
crucial characteristic of acceptance of information has been
found to be the credibility of the source, of which the two most
important ingredients are expertise and trustworthiness. It is
much easier to trust individuals than institutions.
For most citizens, the press account of a public meeting is
its reality. A reporters decision to give balanced coverage to
all points of view or to sensationalize the events by giving
disproportionate space to opponents charges can make or break a
project.
The role of supportive editorials is important, but not
nearly so much as what is on news pages and on television
broadcasts. The person in charge of the project for the county
should be accessible and have clear, knowledgeable answers to any
questions. Successful projects come after many hours spent in
educating reporters about the issue.
Public information and participation should be built into
environmental and engineering contracts. The key is a conscious
effort to earn the public trust. If the effort is serious from
the beginning of the project, then knowing how to overcome
opposition to waste disposal facilities may become an unnecessary
skill. The county must get the message across that it has the
ability to supervise the design and operation of a solid waste
disposal facility; that the added risk is unmeasurable and
insignificant in comparison to risks we readily accept in modern
life; and that these are the conclusions of people both with
expertise to make such judgments and those with a long commit-
ment to public interest.

Most of all the county should take the whole process of
public acceptance as seriously as financing and vendor selection,
for without it their will be no project. The county should be
sure that the engineers involved in the project make their
findings relevant and intelligible to people outside their
discipline and to call on those who can help them do so.
Finally, there is a need to acknowledge the benefit of
citizens participation. Without it, many facilities would not
be "as carefully designed, would not be as well equipped with
monitoring and reporting systems, would not have rigorous
training programs for operators,would not have the scrubbers
which provide acid gas control or fly ash removal systems. In
addition, citizen support is. required to implement a recycling
program which reduces the overall disposal burden and will
ultimately reduce the cost of waste disposal and the depletion
of natural resources.
17