The new Request for Proposals for the incinerator, issued May 30, 2014 is here. Don’t believe the R-Board’s hype: “Incinerator is not used anywhere in the RFP, so it’s not an incinerator”. The thermal processes in the RFP are defined by the EPA, the European Union, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality as incinerators. No matter how often you kiss a frog, it remains a frog.
2014 RequestForProposals. Information about the RFP is here, such as the Pre-Proposal Conference.
BOS agenda item showing how Stafford handled citizen comments on the second RFP. Stafford residents insisted on being able to review the draft RFP and provide comments. We were given 2 weeks to do so, and provided a significant number of them. unfortunately, most of them were not incorporated into the revised draft RFP.
Draft RFP to Obtain Engineering Services. The BOS admitted in a public meeting that they didn’t have anyone on staff who understood the technology well enough to make an informed decision on the proposals they would receive, so they decided to issue an engineering services RFP to bring on a consultant. This RFP was won by Arcadis, who reviewed the new RFP, provided suggested changes, and who will help evaluate any proposals resulting from the RFP issued on May 30th. Given that the R-Board had to rescind the previous contract, it is a good idea to get someone they can point their finger at, when problems occur (note: not if they occur – when they occur).
These are documents from a North Carolina court, filed by Dominion/ Virginia Electric Power, where EEP claims to own and operate an incinerator at the Eskimo Hill Road landfill, several months before Stafford issued the RFP. Start at page 84. EEP claims they “own and operate” a waste to energy facility at the Eskimo Hill Road landfill as of 8/16/2012, over 2 months before they submitted the actual proposal, and 8 months before they signed an agreement (April 22, 2013) with Stafford County to proceed. This paperwork was filed in a North Carolina Court on 2/28/2013, almost 2 months before they signed the agreement with Stafford. Since the City of Fredericksburg had not signed the agreement, even the agreement date was not official.
This is the actual proposal submitted by EEP for the 2013 RFP for the incinerator. Note that EEP submitted this proposal on November 1, 2012. It has lots of information about the process, including dumping garbage on concrete floors, crushing garbage, shredding garbage, sorting out recyclables after being crushed and shredded (?), odors, noise, tires, 16-hour per day operation, etc.
April 22, 2014 Agreement between Stafford BOS and the winning Company. This is the agreement that would have allowed the plant to be built. Even though it is signed by Stafford, it has not been signed by Fredericksburg, so it is still not valid.
Citizen’s review of the Incinerator Proposal. An in-depth look at the proposal, including multiple links that dispute what is in the proposal.
Citizen’s testimony given to the R-Board. Some analysis of the proposal, pointing out things that don’t make sense.
Citizen’s testimony given to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) as part of the review process. Points out things in the proposal that are inconsistent and/or incorrect.
This document was released by the Stafford Board of Directors discussing the incinerator. It includes a FAQ section that is misleading and tries to justify their award.
BOS Agenda item – the incinerator lease. This contains the agenda item that approved signing the lease that would have been put in place, if Stafford residents hadn’t strenuously objected.