Historic Rogers Road Community Enhancement Plan Development and Monitoring Task Force

This sounds like a good use for plasma-arc trash converters. I read about them a few months ago in Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbcc...) and when I read about this transfer station issue it popped up in my mind.

The article claims that a city of 1 million people would need a $250 million converter. Scale that down to Chapel Hill sizes and it seems affordable.

The best part is that not only can can it destroy all of the trash going to this new transfer station, it can also be used to clean up the existing landfill. In 10 or 15 years the landfill would be gone.

Has this been looked into and dismissed for some reason? Are the Rogers Road residents aware of this technology and what it could do for their community?

According to the tax records, the parcel owned by the county north of Eubanks is 120 acres, which is much larger than the parcel owned south of Eubanks which is 80 acres.

Is that not enough for the transfer center AND the recycling center? Or is there a lot of that land that is unusable? Or maybe I'm just not conceiving how much land such a station does require. Anyone care to shed some light on this?

I described aspects of the landfills already, Paul, but you really don't believe it do?

Gayle Wilson has emphatically stated that there will be no room on the north side of Eubanks for the convenience center; the convenience center contains the dumpsters where we leave our garbage, etc--not to be confused with recycling.

On the north side, in addition to the transfer station, we also have a SECOND C&D landfill as well as yard waste, etc..
We have adminstrative buildings.

Yes, 120 plus another 80 acres (you'll need to add in the acreage for the Neville Tract as well)--and still Orange County can barely squeeze in the transfer station.

So you really don't get it, do you? C & D, hazardous waste collection, m & R, leachate, yard waste, garbage drop-off, recycling, and the list goes on. Like I said, it will be an industrial solid waste/sanitation superpark. So, no, nothing in truth is really closing; the landfills are simply being recycled. Hmmm . . . no wonder the strong stench.

Comment at 9:34pm 7/18/2007 by Neloa Jones

Ms. Jones, I would respectfully ask you to stop telling me "I don't get it" as if I don't WANT to get it or I'm just too dense.

I said in my first comment on this thread that this is pretty new to me, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me like I'm some kind of scoundrel or idiot when I ask questions; the answers may appear obvious to you, but they aren't to me, I just know enough yet.

Paul, I'm glad you like those ideas.

A number of folks posting on this thread have hashed through a lot of the issues already via the 'net.

Here's some posts I put together on methane recovery and the relevant 2006-7 minutes from the SWAB discussing the site and alternatives (see Linda's comment above). Heck, I posted these comments to much of the ongoing discussion throughout last year.

And that's the tip of the iceberg. Between STP and OP there's a veritable play-by-play with supporting documents of this particular issue.

Ouch! Sorry to ruffle your feathers, Mr. Falduto. I suppose I am irritated because you seem to keep asking (or at least implying) the same kinds of questions, e.g., isn't the landfill closing? won't the transfer station improve life over here on Rogers Road? isn't there enough space? So, yes, I am wondering why you haven't made more progress than suggested by the kinds of questions you keep asking. I would add that it seems to me that you really do not want to understand the reality of the impact of the solid waste facilities being constructed on Eubanks.

Where did I ever claim that the transfer station would IMPROVE life on Rogers Road?

Paul,

If you haven't seen the EPA site on waste transfer stations, it might be helpful. There's also a report from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council linked on the site that you might find useful.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/transfer.htm

Here's the press release from the opening of the Greensboro station. Apparently there are more than a few issues with that site even if the siting process was more equitable than what Orange County has done...just minor things like increased taxes, increased fees, and the fact that its opening did not close the landfill.
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/pressreleases/061115.htm

Another reference that I found interesting was a news article from Montgomery County, home of the Uwharrie Landfill where Greensboro sends its trash. Doesn't seem like there's much joy in that county about taking the trash from elsewhere.
http://www.montgomeryherald.com/articles/2005/06/30/news/top_stories/new...

"Where did I ever claim that the transfer station would IMPROVE life on Rogers Road?"--Paul Falduto

You have implied it, repeatedly. Anyway, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council report is excellent.

Ms. Jones, either my points are escaping you entirely, or you are twisting my words to fit your apparant desire to put me in the camp of your enemies.

Since you are obviously not stupid, I would guess it is the later.

I guess it makes you feel better to "call out" yet another "environmental racist" out there who wants to screw your neighborhood over again and then laugh about it, which apparantly seems to be your opinion of me.

Yet despite your attitude, my empathy for your cause grows the more I learn about this issue.

Terri and Will, thanks for the links, I have browsed a bit of it; I do want to read that National Enviromental Justice Advisory Council report today in its entirety, if I get time.

Paul, I do not believe anyone is trying to turn you into an enemy. Quite to the contrary. Many of us have spent much time trying to honestly answer your questions. Since this is an on line forum and we have only words without body language or voice intonation, how questions phrased, the sequence with which they are asked, etc may very will cause false impressions and wrong interpretations. I started as time went on to get the impression that your questions had an agenda other than information gathering and that was agenda was inherently hostile. My answers started to reflect that impression. That starts an increasingly negative and probably unproductive feedback loop. I apologize for apparently making that mistake.

Some of your comments were provocative but maybe that is just your style. So I will start anew and assume you are just gathering information. Again please accept my apologies.

I also have a question to ask. You are obviously spending a lot of effort on this. Can you share where you might go with this information and how you may get involved with this issue?

Thank you very much, Dave, not only for your last few comments but also for your ongoing support in these matters. Mr. Falduto, I really am not trying to make you into the enemy, but I am responding to comments like these:

" . . . quite a few people looked at the downside of living near a landfill and built anyway, so it could be TOO horrible a place to live, could it?"

"But won't an indoor transfer station solve most of the problems? Odor, ground water contamination and vermin wouldn't be issues with a short-term indoor storage facility, would they? If that's so, the only problem left is traffic, as far as I can see."

If you believe the transfer station will solve the problems of odor, vermin, etc. (which it will not), then, by implication, you are also suggesting that the Rogers Road Community will have fewer issues with the solid waste facilities housed near their community, hence the transfer station helps to improve things--I don't think I took a big leap in logic here.

Anyway, I will talk more later. Really busy right now.

Ms. Jones, as far as I can see, closing the landfill and opening a transfer station is net plus, not as good as having no transfer station at all in your neighborhood, but again, better than now. That is "improvement" to me.

Mr. Richter, although I didn't intend to do anything with the info I got, I am someone who is curious and also was responding to what I see as ad hominum attacks on local elected officials, but I found out yesterday that a discussion (not a vote on a resolution, just a discussion) of this issue is going to be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Orange Co. Democratic Party Executive Committee, a group of about 100.

It is not any kind of public forum or hearing, we are simply going to discuss it amongst members of the committee and see if and how we want to proceed in addressing the issues surrounding this controversey.

I personally would like to see us recommend a bond issue for Rogers Rd. in the $10 million range and also see if the administrative facilities planned for parcel north of Eubanks can be moved somewhere else, and all waste-related activities, including the convenience center, confined to the north side of Eubanks with proper visual and noise barriers and have the parcel south of Eubanks turned into a park. Perhaps the administrative facility could be put on this side too, I wouldn't think it would take up more than 3 or so acres, leaving more than 70 for the park.

Just one man's idea of a compromise, one I see as reasonable. Others may not. Any thoughts, Ms. Jones?

Paul, it has been stated over and over that everyone near the landfill want all of the operations GONE. Not sure which letter of the word "gone" you are struggling with.

In any case, your party can go and worry about something else, unless you want to help with getting the entire thing SHUT DOWN (aka GONE). The Rogers road folks can fend for themselves. We don't want someone else's "vision"of what Eubanks should look like. That is what has been foisted on us for 40 years.

johnk, thanks for your input. I'll be anxious to see what reasonable, rationale folks have to say.

Not sure about what "rationale" folks would say. "Rational" folks, at least those who have suffered the landfill under the uber-government for so long, would certainly agree with me that the effort needs to be focused on moving waste disposal services, in their entirety, elsewhere. We don't want a pretty, nice smelling transfer station. Stick it- in someone else's back yard.

I can appreciate your offer of compromise, Mr. Falduto, but the transfer station just can't work.

For me, the so-called closing of the landfill, the relocation of other solid waste facilities, the transfer station, the consolidation of sanitation and solid waste all accompanied by Orange County's steady incremental purchasing of more land in this area (the 15-acre Neville Tract, the Deng property--10 and 12 acre tracts on each side of each landfill--north and south) constitute the beginning of an industrial solid waste superpark. According to Orange County, there is barely enough room for the transfer station--how can that be?

I'd like to see some of the discussion at the Orange County Democratic Committee Exec meeting explore the implications of this expansion and, yes, discuss this in context of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council report.

I think the writing on the wall is clear. And so, no, there can't be a compromise on the transfer station--the transfer station is too critical to Orange County's larger plan and the plan is what must be stopped.

Paul, first I speak only for myself and my opinions are my own. I do not pretend to speak for anyone else or any group. And I do understand you did not even ask for my opinion.

Second, in the interest of disclosure, I am retired and my house is on the market. We are downsizing. My wife and I will move out of the County and there is a 50/50 chance we will move out the state to be closer to our 7 grandkids in PA. Given all that...

You are the first one to suggest a method of financing. Currently it is my understanding that there is no money allocated by anyone for this neighborhood. I have no concept of what the costs are to deliver the services and improvements this community deserves. So I have no idea if 10 million is enough, too much or too little. Nor do I understand how a bond issue gets approved that cuts across multiple jurisdictions. But at least it is a positive suggestion.

As far as the transfer station being a net plus to the community: I see it very differently than you. The Rogers Road community has been carrying the solid waste burden of Orange County for 35 years. Lets say that each individual in the Rogers Road community has been dragging around this 2 ton burden which is the landfill. When the transfer station is built and the landfill closed for arguments sake let us say the burden is reduced to one ton. And therefore according you the community is better off. To me there is something very wrong and unjust with that line of thinking. I am asserting that it is completely unjust to ask the Rogers Road community to carry even a reduced burden. They have done their share.

While politics is built on compromise not all compromise is good in the long term for all. But I will completely support anything the Rogers Road community decides, whether it is some compromise or sitting in the middle of Franklin street or in front of Carey's house until the whole Orange County community is paying attention.

In addition not every attack is ad hominum. I think that there is evidence to support less than good behavior on this issue by some officials , committees and neglect by all of the governments of this community. I believe our officials should be held accountable for their actions. I understand that politics is not always a pretty game but when the elephants dance it's the grass that suffers. I also believe in redemption. But first one has to admit to the misdeed. I know I am talking in generalities but I am not sure a specific discussion on this is productive at this point and I will just say I disagree with your characterization.

I do strongly suggest that you invite some members of the Rogers Road to your committee meeting to advocate for themselves. Even though it is not a public meeting I am guessing that you can make specific invites.

those that have much to say about what ,how ,when whereand if to do enhancement for the hioric ROGERS ROAD community go to nc division of waste management and look at guidance for the preparation of permit applications for transfer facilities then read the north carolina solid waste management annual report july 1,2005 --june 30,2006 after doing this tell me if you think this community have been in your your viewpoint thoughtfully received the treatment your community would and why.

we sometime have the answer for people and yet do not understand the issues, we have our opinions and the version how the end sure be no matter how fascinating this concept maybe come visit rogers road and eubanks road one day on a monday or thurday sit on the side of the road from 7:30 until 10:45 just 3:15 min. look at traffic safety

issues to keep in mind what is sighted on eubanks road and the development to take place on homestead road , then we look at the other issues. this is more complex than a simple answer

The documents I believe Robert is referring to are located on the NC Division of Waste Management website

The
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report July 1,2005 –June 30,2006 [PDF] covers transfer stations among other issues.

The US EPA has guides for decision makers covering a range of issues:
Decision Makers' Guide to Solid Waste Management with the sub-section Collection and Transfer [PDF]

Now, if we can just teach the elected fools in charge of this to read.

John, somewhere I read that for one to act, to do the right thing, accomplish a task or anything of substance is a combination of readiness (knowledge) and willingness. When using free will both are required. I am not sure if the knowledge side is the problem. But the lack of willingness certainly is. Knowledge can be acquired and is the easier of the two. Willingness comes from the heart or external forces that create an imperative. I fear, in this case, the latter is what is required.

Reverend Campbell, Welcome to this thread.

WE DO MANY THINGS OUT ON ROGERS ROAD TO PROMOTE THE GOOD WILL OF THIS COMMUNITY. WE DO NOT SET BACK AND DO NOTHING. THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM HAVE NOT WORKED FOR THIS PART OF CHAPEL HILL, RATHER ALL GOVERNMENT AGENTS HAVE OVER LOOKED THIS AREA WHEN IT COME TO ENHANCEMENT. TOOK PAVE ROADS SOME TWENTY PLUS YEARS TO COME TO THIS COMMUNITY MUNICIPAL WATER.

I WILL GO AS FAR AS TO SAY THE MUNICIPALITY DROP THE BALL. WHEN ROBERT'S ASSOCIATION DID THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COMMUNITY SOME ONE LOOK THE OTHER WAY, NO WATER , NO SEWAGE , NO SIDEWALKS. NO REAL INSIGHT FOR THE FUTURE. AND WE ARE STILL MAKING EXCUSES. LET US DO THE RIGHT THING NOW. LET US HELP MAKE ORANGE COUNTY A BETTER PLACE. WE ARE TO BE OUR BROTHER KEEPER. LET US LOOK ONE ANOTHER IN DEED, LET US BE DOERS OF THE WORD AND NOT JUST HEARDER AND TALKER, LET US WORK TOGETHER .

WITH THIS SAID THE FAITH TABERNACLE CHURCH WILL HAVE ITS BACK TO SCHOOL BASH ON 08-11-07 WE GIVE OUT SCHOOL SUPPLIES TO SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN ON THIS DATE.
DROP OFF YOUR DONATIONS AT 8005 ROGERS ROAD TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT TO UNIFY THIS COMMUNITY AS WELL AS ORANGE COUNTY FOR THIS BACK TO BASH IS FOR AS NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE FROM. LOVE CAN GO FAR.
ROBERT CAMPBELL
919 -933-6210
1711 PUREFOY DR.
CHAPEL HILL N.C. ,27516

Rev. Campbell- thanks for your message. What items are the school children most in need of? I want to help any way I can. Let me know, thanks.

(JMK)=JOHN, THE SCHOOL SUPPLIES FOR THE BACKTO SCHOOL BASH WE PASS OUT ON ,08-11-07 . GIFT CARDS FROM LOCAL STORES THAT CAN BE USED TO PURCHASE
SCHOOL CLOTHES; OTHER ITEMS WE GIVE AWAY === BOOK BAGS , BACKPACKS 1 AND 2 SUBJECT NOTE BOOKS ,COMPOSITION BOOKS, NOTEBOOK PAPER (10.5 X 8"
PACKAGE OF PENS,PENCILS .ANY GIFT THAT WILL MAKE THIS DAY A DAY OF SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES WITH SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN , DROP ANY AND ALL GIFT OFF AT FAITH TABERNACLE CHURCH 8005 ROGERS ROAD. THE PASTOR HOME IS NEXT DOOR. THE NUMBER TO CALL 919-942 8472
919 -967-8667 OR 919- 933-6210 SOMEONE WILL MEET YOU AT THE CHURCH================THE PASTOR DR.ILA MCMILLAN=== THANK YOU AND ALL FOR YOUR HELP.
REV, ROBERT CAMPBELL =THANK YOU VERY MUCH, WORKING TOGETHER ON ROGERS ROAD FOR A BETTER FUTURE.

CONTAMINATED DIRT: IN CARRBORO;;;WHERE WII IT GO
may go into the lined landfill let it not be the one on Eubanks Road .the dirt should go to a hazardous materials facillity we must set new meaning for contamination no matter how small the levels are why do we want to put it IN a neighborhood that have more than it amount of hazardous waste and contaminated waste from other chemicals if the GOV.'S OFFICE PROMPTED THE REMOVAL OF PANHANDLERS==but can not see the health risk to local ROGERS AND EUBANKS ROADS RESIDENTS tell me where is the image to be up held did the state pass new laws about waste . have any one tested to see how far the dry cleaning solvent have moved from the site in the ground water. the mound of trash in the local landfill is to high to put this dirt , we can not use this as cover dirt so tell us where this dirt will go do any one have a site or idea let me in on it
please.WILL THIS BE COST CONVENIENCE TO THE STATE AND THE PRIVATE CONTRACTOR BECAUSE THIS IS NEAR THE SOLID WASTE FACILLITY ON EUBANK ROADS.
TELL ME ==============MIN. ROBERT CAMPBELL

YES WILLR;
THE CHAPEL HILL NEWS STORIES YES , THE POINT RATHER IT IS A ORGANIZED EFFORT WHY DID THE GOV.'S OFFICE MOVE SO FAST ON THIS ISSUE AND NOT THE LANDFILL ISSUE WHICH BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER SOME 30 PLUS YEARS IS THERE A IMAGE TO UP HOLD WE CAN NOT SEE TRASH A LONE THE I-40 ROADS WAYS AND OFF RAMPS BUT TRASH CAN STILL PILE UP IN A LANDFILL OR A TRANSFER STATION ON ENBANKS ROAD/ ROGERS ROAD AND YET NO ONE CAN SPEAK ON THE BEHALF OF THE GOV.'S OFFICE ABOUT OUR ISSUES THE POINT OUT OF SIGHT CAN NOT SEE THIS FROM I-40 BUT YOU CAN SMELL IT ON SOME GIVEN DAYS WHERE THE JUSTICEIS IS THIS PART OF THE STATE IMAGE AS WELLTO SEE A CLEAN CHAPEL HILL AT THE COST OF SOME PANHANDLERS WHAT ABOUT THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY WE CAN NOT GET THE N.C.DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION TO LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT FROM 40 TO 25 OR THE CITY WIDE 35 AT LEAST TELL US WHY IT CAN NOT BE DONE IS THIS POLITICS
WILL.R===================== ROBERT CAMPBELL

Reverend Campbell, you are so right to be dismayed.

Your treatment by all the Orange County governments for the last three plus decades has been abysmal. They pretend to listen sometimes, have a task force every once in a great while, talk about what could be done and then do absolutely nothing. They split you into multiple jurisdictions and then blame everyone else on why nothing gets done. These governments have effectively disenfranchised your community. They do this because they can. There has been absolutely no political consequence to this injustice and those like Moses Carey believe that they can run for office and the public will not care about this issue. And they can deceive the public about the problems anyway and get away with it.

I am convinced it will take good old fashion demonstrations, sit-ins an maybe even some civil disobedience to make a difference. Concerted and continuous actions may be required that will bring lights and TV cameras such that the issue becomes a major embarrassment to our Ostrich local politicians and even maybe John Edwards who is running his campaign from this community.

As things stand now only the very few are paying attention.

That is a question for the deaf ears of Orange County.