I come before you again to try to get you to make the right decision for Stafford . DO NOT BUILD an incinerator at the Eskimo Hill Road landfill. Given that our landfill has an expected life of 30-50 years, there is no need to rush into a bad decision. Instead, build upon Stafford’s excellent record of recycling, and become another jurisdiction that recognizes the need to protect its residents’ health and environment, like San Francisco, Austin, and others.
Ø Some Board members are gung ho in favor of a private company building and operating an incinerator, despite the fact that health study after study shows that incinerators are bad for everyone, and especially bad for children, expectant mothers, and seniors.
Ø Some Board members maintain that the environmental impact is overblown by residents who prefer not to do anything. In actuality, those Board members seem to be motivated by their dislike of paying taxes, and are willing to poison the environment and damage citizen’s health to avoid that.
Ø Some Board members insist that their favored technology, pyrolysis, isn’t an incinerator, despite the fact that the US EPA defines that technology as an incinerator, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality states that it will be regulated as an incinerator.
Ø Some Board members have stated that the incinerator proposals will not cost taxpayers anything. The first attempt, stopped by public outcry in August 2013, would have committed County residents to pay $6.3 million to improve the road leading to the landfill. Those road improvements were needed to handle trucks that would have brought tires from all over the country into Stafford to be incinerated. Our new motto would have become:Stafford, the Tire Burning Capital of the World.
Ø Some Board members denied that there would be any toxic waste created, but the agreement they signed had provisions for dealing with the toxic waste that would, in actuality, be generated. No protections in there against noise, odors, and water pollution, either.
Ø It is a good thing that the previous attempt was stopped, because the proposed incinerator would have required lots and lots of water, that Stafford simply does not have. Their new RFP states that no water would be available for operational use of the incinerator. So, if tires are brought in and a fire occurred, there would be no way to put out a tire-driven fire, and all the billowing black smoke and poisons that escape into the air.
Ø Getting a consultant to evaluate the RFP and the proposals is not the solution, because, as anyone knows, you can buy any answer you want. That simply allows the Board to point fingers when things go wrong.
To everyone here in the gallery: Ask yourself this: why would the Board be in favor of paying $6.3 Million to fix roads for a private company, when it won’t spend the money to properly fund our school system?
In about a week, we will be placing information about the proposed Stafford incinerator on the soon-to-be-operational website “StopTheStaffordIncinerator.