
          Tuscaloosa's Solid-Waste Turkey
          By United Citizens Against Toxic ChemicalsUnited Citizens Against Toxic Chemicals
          Vol. 9, No. 4, 1987, 8-9
          
          Your city is actively considering buying an incinerator. Should you
have one? Tuscaloosa, Ala., thought it should, but it now knows
better. We are a citizens group from Tuscaloosa and we don't want you
to make the same mistakes we did. Here's our story, as told by the
newspapers.
          First, you will be told how wonderful incinerators are:
          
            Unlike the landfill it replaced, the facility is not just a
place to d ump garbage and trash, but is a place that produces revenue
and has the power to operate three times what it is doing now. I've
seen a great number of recovery plants across the country, and I, for
one, am glad to know we had the foresight to invest in such a
project.--John T. Lancaster, director, Tuscaloosa County Solid
Waste, quoted in the Tuscaloosa News.
          
          You will be told that your incinerator is new, state-of-the-art,
not like other incinerators in other cities or made by other
companies. This is not true. All incinerators are basically the same
and they all have problems. At first, the problems are kept
quiet. Some stories never appeared in our local paper, but only in a
paper published in Birmingham, 60 miles away:
          
            The Alabama Department of Environmental Management is
investigating complaints that Tuscaloosa's new $9 million trash
burning steam plant is creating strong odors and pollutants that are
making some residents ill.--The Birmingham News,
October 19, 1984.
          
          
            Officials from the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management met with concerned residents of Tuscaloosa County here in a
tense, three-hour meeting Tuesday night over Tuscaloosa's often
malfunctioning garbage incinerator.--The Birmingham
News, Nov. 21, 1984.
          
          Finally, in 1985, the local newspapers started to cover the story
and the local citizens became aware of some of the problems. The plant
was well beyond its "shake-down" period and was still breaking
down. We knew, of course, that other incinerators broke down a lot,
but we had been told new state-of-the-art incinerators would not:
          
            A coolant system breakdown at the Tuscaloosa garbage incinerator
forced the plant to close for three days while repairs were made, a
state officials said Friday.--The Tuscaloosa News
          
          And then, at last, a front page article about the "bottom line":
          
            The City of Tuscaloosa has given full backing to a$256,000 bank
loan to prevent the Tuscaloosa Solid Waste Disposal Authority from
technically defaulting on a bond payment of almost $800,000... The
governments are under contract to help meet any deficits in operating
expenses of the authority... Though the Authority needed $406,000 to
make bond payments due Thursday, the governments were asked only to
back $256,000 of the shortfall because the authority received the
remaining $150,000 through another loan from First Alabama Bank backed
by a stockholder of Consumat Systems, Inc.--The Tuscaloosa
News
          
          This "revenue-producing" incinerator was, in fact, eating up more
money than this small community can afford. A very clear contract
meant that local taxpayers' pockets were being emptied to keep the
expensive incinerator running. By the summer of 1986, when the waste
authority finally figured out that they had been bamboozled, they
sued:
          
            The Tuscaloosa Solid Waste Disposal Authority was expected to
file a $20 million federal lawsuit today against Consumat Systems,
Inc., charging the company with fraud, breach of contract, and
negligence in the design, construction, and operation of the
Tuscaloosa garbage incinerator.--The Tuscaloosa
News, May 16,1986
          
          A couple of months later, the waste authority board decided they
didn't want to take the heat, the responsibility, or the counter-suit,
and the headlines read:
          
            "Tuscaloosa's Solid Waste Authority Resigns." The resignations
followed months of disagreement among the governing bodies of the
city, Tuscaloosa County and Northport concerning the proportionate
share each should pay to cover operating shortfalls at the
deficit-ridden garbage incinerator.--The Tuscaloosa
News, August 8,1986
          
          These were not the first resignations, nor would they be the
last. But by spring 1987, everyone was trying to pretend that the
problems were solved and everybody was happy:
          
            "Better days may be ahead for the incinerator..." Local
government officials said Friday they hoped a new agreement this week
will lead to a fresh start for the city's financially troubled solid
waste incinerator.--The Tuscaloasa News
          
          Of course, there was one little detail:
          
            "Incinerator tipping fees will double... "New rates for the
incinerator's commercial users will be increased from $9 per ton to
$18 per ton...the new rate will not affect INDEC, a private,
for-profit garbage pickup service, or the local governing bodies of
Northport, Tuscaloosa, or Tuscaloosa County...whether the tipping fees
for INDEC and the three governing bodies would be lower, higher or
even with the $18 tipping fee... "I 'm not prepared to say what [the
negotiated fees] will be," said Rutherford, executive director of
TSWDA.--The Tuscaloosa News, February 22, 1987
          
          What's this negotiated settlement?" For now, it means much higher
fees. And, as soon as more problems crop up, it means more fees and
more lawsuits.
          Finally, after three years, the state admitted what we had known
all along:
          
            Jack Honeycutt, chief of the solid waste section of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management, said earlier this week that
preliminary tests of incinerator fly ash conducted in mid-February
showed the presence of high levels of cadmium and lead, created when
garbage is burned at the 

incinerator...fly ash was found to have
contained dangerous levels of cadmium and lead. The Tuscaloosa
incinerator produces. . . approximately 100 tons of fly ash collected
daily.--The Tuscaloosa News, March 19, 1987
          
          But you will be told that you're running out of landfill space and
that an incinerator will reduce ninety percent of the garbage, and
that it's the only solution.
          That ninety percent figure is nonsense. The best plants can do is
about seventy percent. Ours does about fifty percent. The rest of the
garbage still needs to get dumped.
          Consider that fifty percent of garbage is paper. All you have to do
is recycle the paper and you've got a fifty percent reduction of
garbage--the same as our expensive "Turkey." You're still healthy and
you can sell the recycled paper. You can also recycle aluminum, steel,
glass...
          But you will be told that recycling isn't practical. Oh? How come
all Japanese cities and towns separate out their paper, aluminum,
etc., and recycle. How come the state of New Jersey has mandated at
least minimal recycling for all five hundred plus of its
muncipalities.
          Why the big push for incinerators? Because combustion chamber
manufacturers have run out of markets one is building new power
plants, heating plants, or large ships--so they want to build
incinerators. One of the biggest names in the game is Babcock and
Wilcox, the firm that gave us Three Mile Island.
          If you would like to know more about the Tuscaloosa Turkey, write
United Citizens Against Toxic Chemicals, Box 7953, University, AL
35486. Our saga continues. If you're smart, you won't let yours
start.
          United Citizens Against Toxic Waste is an affiliate of Citizen's
Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc., P.O.  Box 926, Arlington, VA
22216 (703-276-7070). This article is reprinted with permission from
Everyone's Back Yard, a newsletter published by CCHW. Three full-time
CCHW field organizers help grasroots groups in the South fight a broad
range of environmental hazards. The field organizers are: Linda King,
P.O. Box 1608, Harvey, LA 70058 f 504-340 2321), Clay Carter,
P. O. Box 31329, Birmingham, AL 35222 (205-322-4762), and Linda Meade,
P.O. Box 11077, Charleston, WV 25339 (304-343-7650).
        