I always thought Tulsa was very progressive because it burned its trash instead of burying it in landfills. What can we do to make Tulsa more Green in this regard.
There are some environmental benefits to burning trash instead of burying it, but there are some trade-offs as well.
I thought the Tulsa World story this morning did a good job of presenting the local arguments.
Everyone is talking trash
By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
11/5/2006
A major debate is brewing over who gets Tulsa's waste
As Tulsans drag their garbage cans to the curbside, few probably give thought to where the food wrappers, pop bottles and other household waste stuffed inside will go.
But the destination for the roughly 420,000 tons of trash local residents and businesses generate annually is becoming a major topic of debate among city leaders, as well as those in the waste industry who have launched media campaigns to compete for the spoils. The result will affect every resident and business in the city through their trash rates.
Effective May 1, the city's $180 million, 20-year debt will be paid off on the Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility, which burns the bulk of local garbage. Negotiations are already under way with representatives of the burn plant, owned by the New York City-based finance company CIT, for rates that reflect the city's free-agent status.
But Tulsa leaders are also considering whether it might be a better financial deal to divert all of the city's trash to a landfill. Of course, there's also the environmental aspect of both options to take into account.
"I don't know that there's a single driving factor," said Stephen Schuller, chairman of the Tulsa Authority for the Recovery of Energy, or TARE -- the city board that will make the decision. "There are a number of serious issues for us to consider."
Can't change the past: The Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility was built in 1986 in response to a national marketing blitz that predicted landfills would become scarce due to new, tougher federal restrictions.
The fears prompted the city to enter into an agreement with a private firm to construct the waste-to-energy plant on the west side of the Arkansas River.
Assistant Public Works Director Mike Buchert said city officials at the time decided it was best not to actually own the plant because of liability issues and the ability of a private company to build it much cheaper with the help of tax credits.
In the first year, the plant was expanded from two incinerators to three, allowing for a trash capacity of up to 350,000 tons each year, with the 70,000 or so tons of overflow waste still being sent to a landfill. But the landfill shortage never happened. Buchert said area landfills have up to 50 years worth of space left and there's room for others.
The city, however, has experienced a shortage of cash, as the plant proved to be a financial drain that significantly affected local trash rates. "At this point, there's no need to Monday-morning quarterback the decision," Buchert said. "We have to look at where we are, and where we want to go."
The cost of waste: Today, the city has the most expensive residential and commercial garbage collection rates in the area.
Most Tulsans pay $14.53 per month for twice-a-week curbside service that does not include supplied containers or the cost of recycling, which carries an additional $2 fee.
Oklahoma City residents pay $13.91 for once-a-week service that includes the use of large, city-supplied containers, as well as curbside recycling. Rates in area suburbs range from $7.56 per month in Sapulpa to $12.25 per month in Broken Arrow, a recent survey found.
Tulsa is only able to keep its rate at the current level because of a $7 million loan the city took out three years ago to help offset the payments it makes to the plant. The actual cost for the $14.53 service is $15.94, but city leaders vowed years ago not to boost residential rates again.
Similarly, the commercial rate of $2.58 per cubic yard is roughly double the rate charged in other cities. For example, a popular convenience store chain has a Tulsa location with a monthly trash bill amounting to $534 and another in Owasso that has a bill of $270 for the exact same service.
The reason for the high rates is because of the high disposal and debt costs at the plant. Taking trash to the plant costs the city $23.50 per ton for disposal, plus about $24 per ton is paid toward the debt -- amounting to nearly $48 per ton.
The $23.50 is down from $26 due to the city's share of the sale of steam produced by the plant for the Sunoco refinery. In comparison, the Quarry Landfill charges $16.50 per ton for the city's overflow waste.
Regardless of the decision that is made, Tulsa's trash rates almost certainly will be lower because the debt on the plant will be gone, Schuller said. "The city will want to save as much money as it can and not be in the position of subsidizing this anymore," he said.
CIT Vice President Tom Simpson said he considers the plant's disposal rate competitive by factoring in the cost of fuel to drive to the landfill, located in the far northeast area of the city. Simpson also said the landfills are so competitive in their pricing because of the plant. "If we're not in the picture, Tulsa's situation in terms of landfill space and cost of disposal changes drastically," he said.
But CIT is in negotiations with the city to try to reach a rate that is good for everyone involved, Simpson said. "It's of no cost to the city for us to be in business after May 1," he said. "What they want is for us to be competitive in our prices and for us to be a viable option for them, and that's what we're going to do."
The city is in an excellent bargaining position because of the long-term contracts it has with residential haulers and the Quarry Landfill, Buchert said.
TRI, a consortium of haulers who service most residential customers in the city, has a contract with the city until 2012 that stipulates they will take the trash wherever, without an increase in fees. And Quarry Landfill, owned by Waste Management, has a contract with the city until 2018 that locks in the cost of disposal, with annual increases.
For the commercial waste, Public Works officials are recommending the TARE board allow the commercial haulers to cut their own disposal deals. Guy Blagg of American Waste Control, which services about a third of Tulsa's commercial trash customers, said he supports the city going to a free-enterprise system for commercial waste.
Blagg's company is affiliated with a landfill west of Sand Springs. He could take the trash there, to another landfill or even to the burn plant, depending on who can offer the best deal. That would drive down the costs for his business customers and, as a result, help economic development in Tulsa, Blagg said.
Plant representatives said the incinerator is important to economic development. There are companies, particularly those from Japan, such as Toyota, that don't allow trash to go directly into a landfill. "The trend on environmental issues is toward more sensitivity, not less, and that's something corporations are aware of," CIT Senior Managing Director Dan Morash said.
From trash to ash: The plant burns the trash into about 10 percent of the volume it was when it arrived as solid waste. So the 7 million tons of trash taken to the plant over the past 20 years have been converted to 700,000 tons of ash that have gone into the landfill.
In 2003, the plant shut down for several months due to the bankruptcy of the owner, Covanta Tulsa Inc., and its eventual takeover by CIT. During that time, there was a public outcry over whether it would reopen. "There are a lot of people in the city who like the idea that most of their trash is burned rather than simply buried in a landfill," Schuller said.
Truth is, both landfills and the burn plant, which is the only one in the state, have their environmental downfalls. "I don't think you can necessarily say one is more environmentally friendly than the other," Schuller said. "But I'm sure there are interested parties who will try to do that."
Full-page ads have begun appearing in the Tulsa World to tout the virtues of both options. Those in favor of landfills show the burn plant's stacks belching plumes of dark smoke, while those in favor of the plant show a pile of trash at a landfill with birds hovering over it.
Between 1999 and 2000, to comply with the federal Clean Air Act, the plant installed cleaning scrubbers to help extract pollutants in the smoke, reducing some by as much as 99 percent. Plant representatives also argue that the steam generated by the plant prevents the Sunoco refinery from having to burn oil to create the same energy.
Landfills put off emissions, too, specifically methane gas, which must be flared off or recaptured. There's also the danger of groundwater and soil pollution from a landfill, but that is less of a factor now that they have protective linings.
The state Department of Environmental Quality monitors landfills and the burn plant. "We make sure they're doing what they're supposed to do," DEQ spokesman Kyle Arthur said. "We don't get into the debate over which is better."
Going it alone: Whether the burn plant could survive without Tulsa's business is unknown. "The viability of the facility, regardless of whether or not it burns our trash, is important to the city," Schuller said.
The plant, which employs about 50 people, could try to attract other municipalities or private businesses, but its owners don't want to be in that position. They compared it to office buildings or shopping centers that need anchoring tenants.
"We want to continue our partnership with the city and have it be our sole source of waste," Simpson said. "But if we need to look for alternatives, we'll do it."
I have to say I like burning it instead of burying it.....
I think there should be a combination of aggressive recycling and incineration. I don't know any stats, but when I lived in Europe a while back, my curb-side trash can was about 1/10 the size of Tulsa's trash cans. This was because of the strict/mandatory recycling regulations.
There should also be an examination of the source of trash to begin with. There are many ways to reduce waste into the landfills.
It's kind of sad, but when I returned to the United States, I was appalled at the way we throw stuff out. I was so used to sorting everything, down to the last paper cup. Even food waste could voluntarily be put into a community compost pile. Yeah, it was kind of gross, but it was stricly maintained to be sanitary.
I was even fined once for tossing a glass bottle out with the trash one time. [:O] Pretty hard-core, but I learned my lesson.
Anyway, there's my take.
They burn at 61st and Harvard and it smells bad and burns your eyes....
Who burns what at 61st and Harvard?
quote:
Originally posted by meeciteewurkor
I think there should be a combination of aggressive recycling and incineration. I don't know any stats, but when I lived in Europe a while back, my curb-side trash can was about 1/10 the size of Tulsa's trash cans. This was because of the strict/mandatory recycling regulations.
There should also be an examination of the source of trash to begin with. There are many ways to reduce waste into the landfills.
It's kind of sad, but when I returned to the United States, I was appalled at the way we throw stuff out. I was so used to sorting everything, down to the last paper cup. Even food waste could voluntarily be put into a community compost pile. Yeah, it was kind of gross, but it was stricly maintained to be sanitary.
I was even fined once for tossing a glass bottle out with the trash one time. [:O] Pretty hard-core, but I learned my lesson.
Anyway, there's my take.
I agree with that even more.....
My mom and Dad live in Minnesota in a town of around 400 give or take.
They have mandatory recycling. Not because they don't have landfills - but because their state government thought it was the right thing to do.
It is very strictly adhered to.
Mom said at first it was a pain in the butt - now after a few years - it is just the norm and no big deal.
I think we should recycle first, then burn and then have a raw garbage dump if needed.
I think in the long run it will save everyone a lot of money. We won't know unless we give it a try.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Who burns what at 61st and Harvard?
someone who has a burn permit...
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Who burns what at 61st and Harvard?
someone who has a burn permit...
61st/Harvard.... isn't that all residential? A homeowner has a burn permit for that area?
I am not aware of any burn permit near there. I know the Southern Hills Golf Course has received them in the past, but I was not aware of any new activity.
Normally, in Tulsa County, one has to have 10 acres or more to recieve a burn permit.
Tell me more. Is this a Southern Hills burn?
If it is Southern Hills, they would have an incinerator type that was controlled as opposed to an open barrel type.. yes?
perhaps, a "commercial" enterprise...grandfathered in i assume....it's only pesticide riddled tree debris. But contained incineration...very good.
quote:
Originally posted by okieinla
If it is Southern Hills, they would have an incinerator type that was controlled as opposed to an open barrel type.. yes?
I don't think there is any pollution control equipment, just a controlled burn of organic material.
define organic. The pesticides used on the grass run into the roots of trees...I do not know if that "scent" given off in the air contains the remenants of the poisons.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
define organic. The pesticides used on the grass run into the roots of trees...I do not know if that "scent" given off in the air contains the remenants of the poisons.
Why would you need to use pesticides on grass...?
He is more accurately referring to fungicides and herbicides rather than just pesticides. Golf courses use all three and also use large amounts of fertilizer.
An average course uses about 1,000 pounds of pesticides per year.
Most of the chemicals stay on the course, but there can be runoff issues if improperly applied.
Yes. I understand they are VERY sensitive to those issues.
The burns are only bad at certain times when stagnant air settles the smoke. One must wonder if the air gets fouled.