The Herald Online
written by Sammy Fretwell
Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010 05:38am
S.C. legislators are being asked to loosen state rules so a New Jersey company can build a $450 million garbage incinerator in jobs-hungry Chester County.
The change would let Covanta Energy burn substantially more trash than is now allowed in South Carolina - including garbage from other states, such as North Carolina.
Covanta's proposal has touched off a debate in South Carolina among environmentalists, Chester County industrial recruiters and politicians over the benefits of a trash incinerator near Fort Lawn, just west of the Catawba River.
Supporters of the project say Covanta's "waste-to-energy" facility will create up to 500 construction jobs and 55 permanent positions - paying about $60,000 - in a county with an unemployment rate of 22 percent.
The incinerator would be used to create electricity as America seeks new sources of energy. And it would reduce the need for new landfills, which can leak contaminants into groundwater, Covanta and its backers say.
"It's a great idea," said Sen. John Scott, D-Richland, one of the state's biggest landfill critics.
But a major unknown looms large in the debate: how much toxic air pollution the waste-to-energy plant will produce. Mercury, dioxin and carbon dioxide are among the pollutants that typically come from such facilities. Mercury can cause nervous system disorders, while dioxin can cause cancer. Carbon dioxide contributes to global warming.
Questions also center on the flow of out-of-state garbage to South Carolina, a state with a history of taking the nation's refuse.
One of the company's ideas is to bring waste from the Charlotte area to fuel the incinerator. And the site near Chester is adjacent to rail, which makes shipment from other states easier, critics say.
South Carolina law now limits companies to incinerating no more than 600 tons of garbage per day. Covanta's plan is to increase the limit to 1,600 tons per day for its facility. Spread over a year's time, that would increase the amount of burning allowed from 219,000 tons to 585,000 tons.
"They're looking to use little South Carolina as a place to unload their garbage," said Susan Corbett, a top official with the state Sierra Club. "We don't want that stigma."
Paul Gilman, a senior vice president with Covanta, said his company can't afford to bring waste from long distances to Chester County. The company can't make money by charging low disposal fees that would attract waste from states far away, Gilman said.
"The economics of building a facility like this and trying to attract imported waste just doesn't work," Gilman said, explaining that his company will compete with landfill corporations for a slice of the garbage pie in South Carolina.
For much of the past two months, Covanta has quietly pitched its plan to state regulators, newspaper editors, environmentalists and lawmakers - including Scott and Sen. Creighton Coleman, whose district includes Chester County.
A draft bill prepared at Coleman's request has been circulated in the Legislature, and the company predicts formal legislation will be introduced soon. Covanta officials want to start construction in the fall and operate the new plant by 2014.
Officials met Thursday with Coleman and environmental groups in an attempt to ease any concerns. Conservation groups are expected at the State House this morning to lobby lawmakers against the Covanta plant.
"A $450 million investment sure is going to help Chester County, but we need to look at environmental issues, too," Coleman, D-Fairfield, said.
NEW WAY TO CREATE ENERGY
Covanta's incinerator would be the only one of its kind in South Carolina, but commercial waste incinerators aren't new to the Palmetto State.
Three major S.C. incinerators that burned toxic or medical waste have closed since 1995 because of concerns about air pollution. Last year, Charleston County officials shuttered an aging incinerator that burned garbage, also because of pollution worries. Before that, officials in York County turned down Covanta's offer to locate the company's waste-to-energy plant there, citing similar concerns.
No comments:
Post a Comment