Solid Waste Alternatives Study-1988

11gR
CARTERET COUNTY
SOLID WASTE
ALTERNATIVES STUDY
DCM COPY' --NN.V-11V7 1 DCM COPY
[Please do not remove!!!!!
Division of Coastal Management Copy
ttactrtc vo"r
to utility
turwe
"wator
- �1.-,, 0 0,,FA/A///A/'
pllq� IMM-0-9
III• ,� �,Vr .Y �' �.1
ky y� ,
O
watt tan(
n.k

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CARTERET COUNTY
SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES STUDY
Prepared for
Carteret County Commissioners
William E. Smith Carl L. Tilghman
Leland Garner John Morris Patrick O'Hara
Kenneth W. Windley, County Manager
by
MID -EAST COMMISSION
P.O. Box 1787
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Robert J. Paciocco, Planner -in -Charge
December 28, 1988
This report was funded in part by:
FA
A grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

I
CARTERET COUNTY
Solid Waste Alternatives Study
Page
I.
Introduction
1
II.
Data Base
Amount of Solid Waste.. ....................
4
Composition of Solid Waste ...................
4
Landfill Location ............................
5
Future Conditions ............................
6
Toxic Material ...............................
6
III.
Analysis of Disposal Alternatives
Recycling ....................................
9
Resource Recovery ............................
10
Baling .................................
12
Shredding ................. '.................. .
13
Composting ...................................
14
Refuse Derived Fuel ..........................
15
Ocean Dumping ........................ ......
16
Incineration .................................
16
IV.
Analysis of Energy Market
Current Usage ................................
17
Expected Demands .............................
18
V.
Analysis of Environmental Consequences
Current System ...............................
19
Future System Effects ........................
22
VI.
Implementation
Financing and Operation ......................
24
Citizen Participation ........................
25
VII.
Recommendations ..............................
29

CARTERET COUNTY
I
SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES STUDY
' Solid waste disposal is a growing problem in all North
Carolina counties. The amount of waste is increasing on a yearly
basis. Problems in waste disposal are increased by the rising
cost of maintaining landfills, regulations and a high water
table. All of these have made obtaining a landfill permit a
difficult task. As the value of waste increases, counties must
find a way to adequately dispose of the trash.
' Solid waste is defined by the State of North Carolina as
"any hazardous or non -hazardous garbage, refuse, sludge from a
waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air
pollution control facility" (General Statutes, 1969). This
report will consider the disposal of what is known as garbage or
refuse. This State has defined garbage as "all putrescible
' waste, including animal offal and carcasses, and recognizable
industrial by-products"; refuse is "all non-putrescible waste"
(General Statutes, 1969). The handling of hazardous waste, which
' counties are not required to -handle, will only be considered
briefly.
This report provides for Carteret 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 within
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.

SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES
STUDY
'
HERTFORD
w
nlror
■
erOEEIE
BERTIF1
■
• ttrlsol
'
HART I N
+N•
nuursrer
'
BEAUFORT
t"sxucrex
CRAVEN
■ ■ ...
P A l(L I C O
xrt
■
■
O N S L 0 +ecesomttE
'
;%
■
L a n d f l l
IE"OtOeT
CARTERBT
♦
Transfer S t a � , on
A
Incinerator
'
OTHE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN
i
PART THROUGH A GRANT PROVIDED BY THE NORTH
CAROLINA COASTAL ,PIANAGEMENT%PROGRAM;"THROUGH
FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS ADMINISTERED
l
0
�-T BY THE OFFICE OF COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,ar.:r'
1 NATT02 OCFANI' AND r=PHFRTC AOMTNISTPATION
—

CARTERET COUNTY
Solid baste A I t e r n a t i v e Study
1%
e LANDFILL
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN
PART THROUGH A CRANT PROVIDED BY THE NORTH
CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THROUGH
FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS ADMINISTERED
BY THE OFFICE OF" COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
—1V
BEAUFORT

DATA BASE
Amount of Solid Waste
The determination of the amount of solid waste requirirg
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 Carteret 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:
County
Carteret
TONS PER DAY
1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
92 106 120 134 147 161
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
4
1

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.
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
tdecision 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
I
an incineration process.
Landfill Location
The location of the Carteret County landfill is on the west
side of S.R. 1141 (Hibbs Road) within the Croatan National
Forest. The closest surface water is the East Prong of Gales
Creek which flows into Bogue Sound. The. Creek is approximately
' 4,000 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.
' 5
1

Future Conditions
' In preparing for the future of solid waste disposal Carteret
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 three ton 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
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management is as
follows:
Estimated
Year
Population
1990
57,205
1995
65,598
2000
73,396
2010
91,196
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 ate divided into small and large genera-
tors. Small generators are facilities that create less than

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1000 kilograms per month. In Carteret County the facilities are
classified as follows:
Small
Generator Generator Transporter
Army Reserve XVIII
Airborne Co.
X
Coastal Dry
Cleaners
X
Conner Industries
Truck Stop
X
Crystal Coast
Auto Center
X
Duke University
Marine Laboratory
X
Gillikiw One Hour
Cleaners
X
Lavino Shipping Co.
X
MCALF Bogue
X
Mitchener Inc.
X
National Marine
Fisheries Service
X
Owen -Corning
Fiber lass
gont
X
Parker Olds
Buick GMC Inc.
X
Sounshine Laundry
& Cleaners
X
US Coast Guard
Base/Fort Macon
X
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.
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.
I
1
0
R]

ANALYSIS OF DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
' The continued generation of solid waste has created a need
by the County to examine alternative disposal methods. A
' successful solid waste disposal plan can include recycling,
incineration and landfilling. In addition the plan could include
baling, shredding, composting, refuse derived fuel and ocean
dumping. Installation and operation costs, reliability, and
environmental soundness will be the determining factors in
deciding on the type of disposal system. Financial considerations
have led the County to seek out disposal methods that reduce
' operation expenses through energy recovery. Each of the methods
of energy recovery have had varying degrees of success. The
' methods include biological, chemical, biochemical and combustion.
' Recycling
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, typi-
cally drop to below 20% for both rural and inner city waste
' streams. This will be a major problem for the County in
developing solid waste management programs, especially since the
' efficiency of many disposal technologies is dependent upon the
prior removal of non combustible and recyclable material. Two
' ways to address these difficulties include:
a) Where feasible, the utilization of manned collection
stations at disposal sites. Pitt County has initiated
' this at one site using workers from Eastern Carolina
Vocational Center. The best way to insure success of
this method is to offer a monetary incentive. For
' example, a 15-30% reduction in dumping fees for
individuals bringing some pre-set amount, such as 5
lb.,) of sorted recyclables. This method could be used
' if the County began charging a dumping fee. At
unmanned facilities, some voluntary compliance can be
attained through the use of drop boxes.
' b) In communities where pick-up is offered, programs
involving monthly or bi-monthly collection of sorted
recyclables are often successful. This type of program
9
11

' would require the cooperation of the County and the
towns.
' Mecklenburg County has recently begun a voluntary program
offering curbside pick-up (Ogg, 1987). The program began in 1977
with a few drop off points. The County now has a network of
seven drop off points including one at the landfill. The County
' is currently recovering about one percent of the total waste
stream with about 9,100 homes involved in the program. They have
' a goal of 30 percent by 1994.
The idea of recycling plastic soft drink bottles was
instigated by the Mecklenburg County bottlers of Coca-Cola and
' Pepsi -Cola. Both companies provided money for services to
research such a project. In addition, Coca-Cola guaranteed that
' it would buy back all plastic containers collected in the
recycling program. Participating households receive plastic
containers for storing recycled items. These are collected at
curbside with regular trash pick-up.
' Mecklenburg County also distributes public information
materials to its residents, and monitors public participation,
material recovery rates, adequacy of the recycling containers
' received, variables ,affecting the efficiency of collection, the
efficiency of truck operating costs, and the size of collection
routes. The data has helped the County fine-tune the program.
Beaufort County would need to develop a cooperative agreement
' with the towns for this type of program to work, as the collec-
tion of solid waste at curbside has been a municipal respon-
sibility.
A recycling program can only be as successful as the public
will support. The dependency upon local citizens to recycle 100%
' of all available material is unrealistic and cannot be expected.
The implementation of resource recovery at a disposal site can be
' the next step in a solid waste management plan.
' Resource Recovery
Resource recovery for the purpose of this study will be
' 10

limited to the separation of recyclable material at the disposal
site. This is refuse that should have been separated at point of
' generation. Plastics, paper, glass, and metal all may be used
again if properly handled.
At present there are two primary types of systems available
to accomplish this task. 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
' air stream and moved directly into an incinerator. Denser
materials fall to the bottom on the bin where they are recovered
and then sorted both electromagnetically and by hand, to remove
non-combustible and recyclable materials. Any combustibles
remaining after the sorting process are then incinerated.
' A more technologically sophisticated method is found in the
recently developed wet processing systems. In these systems, the
' refuse is finely shredded, suspended in water and then separated
and automatically recovered, according to density, by centrifuga-
tion. Some of the advantages to this kind of system include:
a) The recovered by-products are cleaned by this process,
which should facilitate handling and enhance their
' resale value.
b) The homogeneous nature of the product and will create
RDF or mass burn fuel that promotes more complete
' combustion.
c) Many of these systems include the capacity to con-
tinuously monitor the processed waste stream for the
presence of hazardous materials. These materials can
then 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 the residual incinerator ash.
Because water is added to the waste, this type of processing
' usually includes a pre -combustion pyrolysis stage. The water is
utilized to drive oxygen from the waste, which is then heated to
' it

generate burnable gases. These gases, are piped into the
incinerator where they are utilized as supplemental fuel,
offsetting any combustion efficiency reductions attributable to
the added moisture in the refuse.
The resource recovery phase should be followed by a process
that will result in the final disposal of the waste. A number
of alternatives, such as Baling or Incineration can be chosen by
the County with each having its own pluses and minuses.
Baling - one alternative for disposal is baling. Solid waste can
be baled in a manner similar to the process farmers use in baling
their straw and grain products. In 1986 there were about 40
baling operations in North America (Robinson, 1986). During
baling, the refuse is compacted, usually into a block, by ram
compression. Depending on pressure exerted on this block and
moisture content of the waste, the block may be tied or wired
during the process. In a multi -county disposal system baling can
be a major advantage due to the process of condensing several
truck loads into a form that could be easily handled by a larger
truck.
The use of baling after a resource recovery process would
help in the reduction of odor, dust, blowing litter, birds,
rats,flies,. and disease transmission. It is also conceivable
that the need for daily cover material could be eliminated due to
these factors. While the potential for leachate generation is
not eliminated by baling, the increased density reduces the
velocity with which water may percolate through the bales,
leading to a more diluted leachate strength. However the
production of this diluted leachate will continue for a longer
period of time.
The major reason the County may consider baling as an
alternative is the reduction in necessary' landfill "floor
space". The reduction in original space requirements is a factor
of pressure exerted upon the refuse during compaction, leading to
more or less dense bales. The increased density of bales will
12

' result in higher operation costs. However, higher density, bales
' will reduce the amount of leachate. Low to medium density baling
may offer a 20 to 40% extension of landfill life. Higher density
bales would result in further extension of landfill life.
Shredding - An alternative for baling is shredding, also known as
' milling. The shredding of solid waste involves mechanical
pulverization.of waste, either by grinding, shearing or beating.
The shredding of waste may be used alone as a means to decrease
the void space within the waste stream, or as a first step in
composting, mass -burn incineration, creation of Refuse -Derived
Fuel (RDF), or applications like pyrolysis. The result of
shredding is generally a homogeneous mass of approximately the
' same size particles, unrecognizable from original waste. The
shredded waste stream is conveniently handled by means of
' conveyor or truck to the landfill site. At the landfill site,
the material is easily dumped, spread and graded. Other
' advantages include a large decrease in nuisance caused by blowing
paper and dust, the risk of fire is lessened, and disease
carrying inspects and rodents are reduced (Robinson, 1986). The
shredded waste is also generally more aesthetically acceptable to
local residents (Pavoni, 1975).
The primary interest of the County in this process will be
the reduction in volume and the amount of landfill space
required. While shredders .are available which can handle bulky
appliances and even demolition rubble, the most appropriate
' application for MSW is a standard top feed unit. These units
normally produce particles in the 3 to 6 inch range, though glass
' and similar material may shatter to a much smaller particle size.
This will cut down on maintenance and repair time for landfill
vehicles. The decrease in particle size exposes more waste to
' surface action of leachate forming agents. Therefore, a more
concentrated strength leachate may be expected initially, but a
' lower degree of contamination potential is present for the long
term.
' 13

' After shredding, the material compacts to a greater density
and in less time than unprocessed waste. In -place densities in
' the range of 27% greater than unshredded waste are obtainable in
as little as 70% of the compaction time (Pavoni, 1975). Also,
' though cover material should still be used, the requirement for
daily cover should be less.
The major disadvantage of shredding is the capital cost of
the unit and its required facilities, such as cover building,
' conveyors, and site work. High operating costs may also be a
factor as electrical consumption may be high, and hammers,
shears, and grinders may jam and need replacing on a fairly
regular basis. The cumulative costs may be used to extend the
life of the landfill by approximately 35-50% over unprocessed or
' uncompacted waste.
Both baling and shredding have a similar disadvantage from
t the view point of the County. The both continue to rely heavily
on landfills as the primary source of disposal. Additional
alternatives dispose nearly 80-90% of the MSW to locations other
than the landfill. One such alternative is composting.
Composting
- Though sometimes viewed as an ideal alternative for
rural areas
where land availability is not a major concern, the
'
economic success of composting may well depend on the marketabil-
ity of the
product. This primary biological treatment process
can result
in a humus -like, non -offensive soil tilth conditioner
(Robinson,
1986). Composting may be either aerobic or anagrobic
in design,
and the MSW may be combined with sewage treatment
'
plant sludge in the same process (General Electric, 1986). The
moisture, nutrients and physical characteristics added by the
'
sludge aid
in the microbial decomposition process and result in
an equal or
superior quality product in possibly a shorter period
'
of time.
Historically,
efforts to establish cost-effective composting
plants in
the United States have been unsuccessful (Pavoni,
1975). The
economics of past attempts have been largely based on
'
14

partial cost recovery through the sale of the composted product.
Contrary to many areas in Europe where composting has been more
successful, arable land is much more readily available in the
United States. Therefore, as the fertilizing nutrient value of
compost is generally low, the United States demand for large
amounts has not been great enough to support large scale opera-
tions.
Refuse Derived Fuel - The lack of an available market for the
compost in the United States has led to the adoption of processes
associated with producing refuse -derived fuels (RDF). This is a
process which will remove non-combustible matter from the waste
stream, and increase the combustion potential of the product.
This involves metals removal and continued shredding or grinding
to finer size particles: plus, for fuels with higher value,
removal of glass, dirt, and inorganic material. Finally, high
grades of RDF may be processed into a solid brick or pellet form,
shredded into a fluff or ground into a, powder, for ease in
handling and transportation.
The RDF can be fired in either a boiler specifically
dedicated to RDF combustion or co -fired with another fuel. This
will affect the firing technology used and the extent of the RDF
processing required. The fuel may be sold to outside parties or
burned in-house.
By-products such as ferrous metals, aluminum, and glass may
be recovered, but the primary intent of the preprocessing is to
improve fuel quality. Another benefit is overall ash reduction.
The type of preprocessing equipment used in RDF facilities
varies considerably according to the purpose of the process
equipment. If the intent is for improving fuel quality then a
particular process train will be used. If the intent is for
materials recovery, a multitude of options are available
depending on what product is being recovered. However, some
similarities exist in all RDF process trains.
15

Ocean Dumping - The alternatives described previously have not
included a final resting place the MSW. One choice for the end
of the waste stream is in the ocean. In the past, for extreme
cases of limited disposal options, barging could be utilized for
ocean dumping of MSW, providing proper permits were obtained from
state and federal regulatory agencies. Ocean dumping has been
regulated by EPA since 1972. Prior to ocean dumping it is likely
that high -density baling would be necessary to bring the refuse
to densities greater than sea water.
Problems with obtaining permits, finding firms to handle the
waste, future regulatory problems and locating adequate sites
prevent ocean dumping from being a viable alternative.
Incineration - The alternative receiving the most attention from
county governments, state and federal regulatory agencies and
private vendors is incineration. The process of burning waste
has been used for many years. However, controlled burning with
the result of energy recovery is a relatively new idea in this
country and is receiving increasing support. Incineration may be
divided into two major areas: burning of Refuse Derived Fuel and
Mass Burning.
As previously described, the creation of RDF allows the
waste to be burned on site or transported to another site. RDF
boilers are available in three major types: spreader stoker
boiler, fluidized bed incineration, and co -firing in utility
suspension boiler. The Malcolm Pirnie study gives a complete
description for each of these types.
In addition to solid waste disposal through the RDF process,
mass burning may be used when little or no preprocessing is
described. Mass burning, when combined with energy recovery, is
currently a we11 developed and widely practiced disposal
technique. Various types of boilers are examined in the Malcolm
Pirnie study.
16

1
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 Usage
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 Lejeune MCB.
The purchase of steam would allow the buyer to avoid the repair -
or replacement of boilers.
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
17

1
r
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 County 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.
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.
m

' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
' Carteret'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
water quality.
' Current System
The environmental integrity of the area surrounding
' landfills 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.
' The primary impetus behind the trust in re-evaluation of
landfill practice is the potential for groundwater contamination
by the products created by the decomposition of MSW, though
' control of waste -generated methane gas is also a concern in some
areas. The products of aerobic and anaerobic biochemical
' degradation may be picked up by water from precipitation as it
percolates downward, or by water in the existing water table.
' This solution may then contaminate adjacent groundwater and sur-
face water supplies. The characteristics of this resulting
' solution, or leachate, are dependent on many factors.
The net composition of the refuse is a principal determinant
of leachate biochemistry. Perhaps equally important is the
chemical character of the water which comes into contact with the
decomposing waste. Soil parameters such as clay content, hydrous
oxides, organic matter and pH may determine what products are
leached, their rate of generation and degree of mobility.
Additionally, factors such as in -place refuse density and
quantity of leaching fluid have a great effect on leachate
' 19

I
1
strength and consequently, the amount of time and travel distance
necessary for the leachate contaminant levels to approach natural
concentrations.
Many of the chemical constituents of leachate are present in
naturally occurring groundwater and may be considered "polluting"
only by virtue of their increased concentration in leachate.
Notable examples of this are iron, sodium, calcium, various
metals and their salts, and chemical specifies of nitrogen and
phosphorous known to be necessary for plan utilization.
The most significant pollutants in MSW leachate are reported
to be BOD, COD, chloride and nitrate (General Electric, 1976).
Concentration levels of these potential contaminants and other
constituents present in leachate have been investigated for many
years, and as one might suspect, there is great variation in
methodology and reported results. Procedures vary from on -site
sampling at existing fill sites to packing lab and field scale
containers with selected refuse and collecting leachate for
several years. Characterization of leachate is made even more
difficult due to seasonal changes in waste composition, and
variations as the decomposing material approaches stabilization.
A number of investigations have been perforfied on leachate
quality of existing landfills, and the range of values reported
is great. However, in the vast majority of cases, either the
landfill had accepted industrial and chemical wastes, or the
composition of the refuse was simply unknown.
The literature associated with these and other studies show
a trend in the production and release of individual contaminants.
Very generally, after an initial period of low concentration,
levels appeared to increased over a period of several months to a
year, and then begin a gradual decline or remain at a plateau as
the decomposing material approached stabilization. The trends,
rates and concentrations will vary from site to site depending on
refuse type, infiltrating water quantity, quality, and velocity,
and adsorption/absorption potential of each constituent.
Since 1975, several instances and allegations of groundwater
20

' degradation have occurred. Notable examples are the contamina-
g P
tion of the drinking water aquifer in New Castle County, Delaware
' (4 years after landfill closure) and the 2 mile migration of
selenium from a site on Long Island, New York (Griffin, 1978).
' Closer to the County, there are also allegations of leachate
contaminated water in the Flemington area near Wilmington, North
' Carolina. There are however, many confounding factors in the
form of potential local industrial sources which are preventing
' absolute determination of pollutant origin. New Hanover County
remains involved in legal action seven years after the original
complaint was filed.
As a means to control leachate migration, a landfill area
may be lined prior to the disposal of waste materials. The
choice of lining mechanism is dependent on many factors. Double -
layer impermeable polymeric membranes, or rigid construction
' linings may be used for industrial disposal sites or fills
accepting chemical waste, while for MSW sites a greater flexibil-
ity in choice may exist.
Here a liner may be composed of admixed cements or soil
conditions which chemically treat the leachate as it passes
' through; sprayed -on material and applied substances such as
asphalt and soil sealant; or a membrane composed of rubber,
' plastic, poly -vinyl chloride (PVC) or polyethylene. In some
cases, a liner of compacted clays, generally constructed in a
series of small compacted layers or "lifts", may be utilized.
The choice of lining method is a function of expected leachate
' chemistry, necessary structural requirements, final permeability
desired, and economics.
' Liners are subject to chemical interaction with the
leachate. For example, gasoline and lower -weight hydrocarbons
may break down asphaltic surfaces, and acetone (not generally
' found in MSW fills) can attack the plasticizer of fillers in a
PVC material. Other lining membranes may absorb liquids or even
ionic chemical species and swell - thus affecting both chemical
and structural stability. The lining material and especially the
21
i

seams from sheet connection must also be strong enough to
withstand stresses from installation, the final weight of refuse,
cover and compaction, and potential punctures from tree roots,
rocks, sharp objects, and vehicular traffic.
In the event that lining of a new landfill site becomes
necessary, this new expense may dictate the responsible agency to
review methods of solid waste volume reduction. The alternatives
are many and varied, and while some associated factors .may be
generalized, ultimate cost -efficiency must be determined on a
site specific basis.
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 Craven
and Onslow Counties. The incinerators could be located in
Havelock on Cherry Point MCAS and in Jacksonville on Camp Lejeune
MCB. Military officials have expressed an interest in buying
steam that would be generated by the incineration plant. This
would require Carteret County to direct the disposal of its waste
in two directions.
The use of an incinerator in Craven or Onslow Counties could
leave these Counties with responsibility for ash disposal. The.
ash will be a byproduct of any incinerator. Regulations under
consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency may
designate ash produced by a solid waste incinerator as hazardous.
This change could place an additional burden on Craven and Onslow
Counties if it retains ash disposal responsibility.
The location of an incinerator in Craven or Onslow Counties
would not mean that the County must dispose of 100% of the ash.
The operator of the incinerator would very likely be under
22

contract with surrounding counties. This would make Carteret
County responsible for their share of the ash.
The environmental integrity of the area surrounding the
Carteret County landfill and the incinerator site should not be
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 increased
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, there are two primary types of systems available to
accomplish this. The ADS system and wet processing. system
described earlier are two mechanical means to, accomplish this.
task.
23

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
The adoption of a particular strategy by Carteret 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, ownership and
' operation of the disposal facility.
Financing and Operation
Construction of an alternative disposal facility may be
paid for by one county, several counties, or the private sector.
Carteret 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 much
as $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. The location of an incinerator at Cherry
Point MCAS or Camp Lejeune may result in the Defense Department
paying for part of the construction. 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
' 24

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.
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-
ing.
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.
25

(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
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
26

F
rI
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.
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
27

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
1 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
1 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.
28

RECOMMENDATIONS
The conditions and alternatives presented previously have
covered a wide range of technology. The choices for Carteret
County, must be based on sound financial and environmental
planning. The type of system selected should be cost efficient
as well as a protector of the environment.
All possible disposal plans should begin with recycling.
One type of an incineration system would begin with a wet refuse
processor and pre -combustion pyrolysis stage. Pyrolysis is used,
as discussed before, to overcome reductions in combustion
efficiency due to the wetted fuel. In addition, the ammonia
produced during pyrolysis is useful in extracting hydrogen
' chloride (and other haloacids) which participate in particles of
incomplete combustion formation. The pyrolysis chamber should be
followed by a rotary kiln. The capacity of most rotary kilns is
limited to about 100 tons/day. It would be possible to increase
' this capacity by using multiple furnaces tied into a single
secondary combustion unit. The secondary combustion chamber
containing limestone grates (limestone absorbs haloacid gases)
' ensures the almost complete destruction of combustion gases. The
secondary combustion chamber would be followed by the boiler
' which would generate steam. Next is a wet scrubber system used
to control gaseous emissions. Finally, a bag house and electro-
static precipitator to reduce fly ash levels. Bag houses are
suitable for the removal of larger particles, whereas a precipit-
ator is very efficient, once the large particles are gone at
removing smaller, more respirable particles. The performance of
this, or a similarly configured system, should be substantially
greater than what could ever be attained with a mass burn
incinerator.
' Before any system can be implemented the County should gain
control over the waste system. A weighing program should be
' conducted to verify waste quantities. This program should
29

consist, of at least six (6) months of weighing at the existing
landfill.
' The incineration system should be privately owned. The
County is without the expertise on its staff to implement a
sophisticated disposal system. Private ownership would release
the County of a possible financial burden.
Discussions among surrounding counties should begin im-
mediately to firm up possible regional disposal alternatives.
Tentative agreements regarding commitments of interest should be
drafted which include project roles. These agreements will later
be superseded as waste supply and energy, market contracts are
' formally drafted and approved.
1
30

REFERENCES
1. General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 130 Article 13B
Solid Waste Management, 1969.
2. General Electric Company; Solid Waste Management Technology
Assessment. Van Nostrand Reinhold -General Electric Series,
New York, N.Y. 1976.
3. R. A. Griffin and N. F. Shimp; Alteration of Pollutants in
Municipal Landfill Leachate by Clay Minerals. EPA 600/2-78-
157, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1978.
4. Jolie Ogg. "Recycling: Does It Work? Is It Worth It?"
Solid Waste and Power, October 1987.
5. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Neuse River Waste to Energy Feasibility
Study 1988.
6. Joseph L. Pavoni, John E. Heer, Jr., Joseph Hagety.
Handbook of Solid Waste Disposal. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Environmental Engineering Services. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co. New York, N.Y. 1975.
7. William D. Robins6n ed.; Solid Waste Handbook - A Practical
Guide. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y. 1986.
31