Burning and Otherwise Dealing withTires: Finance Subcommittee E met on Sunday, October 18 at 2:00. This committee’s only charge is to study scrap tires. Judiciary Subcommittee A is already studying scrap tires, which has many people wondering why a second committee was formed to study the same subject. The fact that Senator Walt Helmick, who has been championing burning tires for at least two years, is one of the co-chairs explains a lot.

The committee had a "public forum" on how to deal with scrap tires. Ted Bostich of Capitol Cement Corporation of Martinsburg, WV, informed the committee that the company already has a permit to burn tires from the Office of Air Quality. They are having special equipment made to inject whole tires into their kiln, and will conduct a test burn of about 100,000 tires in December ‘98 or January ‘99. By September ‘99 they should be in full production with tires and expect to burn 3.3 to 4 million tires annually. To give some idea of how many tires that is, WV generates about 1.2 to 1.5 million tires annually. Since Virginia, and other states, reimburse companies for burning tires, Mr. Bostich said that for West Virginia to be competitive, it would have to pay Capitol Cement $.25/tire for clean passenger car tires, and $.90/tire for dirty passenger car tires. Otherwise, they would not burn WV tires.

Greg Sayre, representing the WV Waste Haulers and Recyclers Association and the Independent Recyclers Association, recommended The following: (1) tire transporters be regulated by the PSC, (2) there be a manifest system to track where waste tires went, (3) a fee be imposed on the sale of new tires to finance tire pile cleanups, (4) tires should be viewed as a resource/fuel, and (5) end users be developed through subsidies.

A tire dealer whose name I didn’t get spoke for the tire dealers association. He recommended a manifest system, increasing end user value (subsidy), and he spoke strongly in favor of using tires in asphalt.

I expressed support for the manifest system and regulation of tire haulers, explained that burning tires is not necessarily environmentally safe because power plants and cement kilns have variances from emission limits imposed on incinerators. I also submitted a bill that would require the Dept. of Highways to use tires in road building projects.

Last up was Allegheny Power. I had to attend another meeting, but I was told that they gave the same presentation that they gave to Judiciary subcommittee A in Morgantown -- they’d be glad to burn tires if WV pays them to.

Blasting from Strip Mines: Government Organization Subcommittee C had a "public forum" to receive proposed solutions to blasting problems. Janice Nease of the Coal River Mountain Watch, Patricia Bragg of the WV Organizing Project (WVOP), myself for the WV Highlands Conservancy, and Ted Hapney of the United Mine Workers of America all called for creating a presumption of liability against the blaster for damage caused by blasting within one mile of the blast. This means that it is assumed that the damage was caused by the blaster, and blasters must prove they did not cause the damage. This would make it much easier for citizens to collect for damages.

Recommendations were also made to move mines farther back from homes, reduce ground vibration and air blast limits, require site specific blasting plans for blasts within 2,000 feet of homes, require better notification of citizens rights, and require increased use of pre-blast surveys.

The good news about the meeting was the fact that the two full committee chairs, Delegate Douglas and Senator Bowman, expressed dismay and disappointment that the coal industry had no solutions to offer. When pressed, Dan Miller, of the WV Mining and Reclamation Association, and Bill Rainey, of the WV Coal Association, said that they were going to have a meeting Tuesday and try to come up with something. Bill Rainey suggested a new state agency to deal with blasting, "like in Kentucky." They both seemed to take the stance that blasting damage was not as bad as was being represented to the committee, that pre-blast surveys were useless, that a presumption of liability would end all blasting, and that only 900 complaints out of 16,000 shots (an incorrect statistic) implied a vocal, extreme minority.

The bad news is that various legislators apparently don’t need to wait for Coal’s proposals, and are already thinking of ways to weaken the presumption of liability in search of a compromise.

Back to Tires Again: Judiciary Subcommittee A met on Tuesday evening at 6:00 pm. Guess what? Another "public forum!" A gentleman from the Office of Air Quality (OAQ) gave an overview of Tire Derived Fuel (TDF). He basically gave a glowing report on TDF, but he did say that additional emission controls would be needed "to do it right." When asked if TDF is permittable in West Virginia, he said that under OAQ it is, but that the solid waste law may need changing to allow it. He wasn’t specific as to which statute, but the incineration ban, which allows tire burning as a pilot project if it gets a solid waste facility permit, is obviously one of them.

Joe Manchin, who has now surfaced in the office of economic development, brought in somebody to propose burning tires at the Grant Town power plant. They conducted a three week test burn in August of this year and burned 1,000 tons of tires. In September, they burned 750 tons in another test. Like everybody else proposing to burn tires, they want some form of money from the state to do it.

A gentleman from Tucker County gave a presentation on what his company is doing with truck tires. He makes mats, blasting mats, culverts, and chips tires into concrete. The sidewalls that he can’t use are burned. He feels that burning car tires and truck tire sidewalls are the future.

The committee then heard a presentation from a group that wanted to sell a pyrolysis facility to the state. Although they do not have a pyrolysis facility up and running anywhere, they were insistent that the state could pay off the $14 million investment in 3-4 years, after which the company would offer to buy the facility back. They said they only sell to governments, and painted a glowing picture of how the state could become a center for tire recycling for surrounding states, barging in tires on coal barges that now return empty. They passed out bottles of samples of the product that the process generated. I didn’t get to examine those, but I think some of them contained snake oil. I couldn’t believe the committee members were all keeping straight faces (I sure couldn’t), but Senator Ross made some pretty pointed comments that seemed to go right over the presenters’ heads. It’s pretty scary when Senator Ross is making the most sense of anybody in the room, but that’s what occurred.

Garbage: There was a brief abstract from staff on the latest version of the mandatory disposal bill. Basically, the solid waste management board would compare lists to see who is not on garbage service, then turn the list over to the DNR conservation officers, and they would enforce the law. There would be a 2% fee on garbage bills to finance the whole thing, and the requirement that the PSC phase in usage sensitive rates is still part of the bill. There was no discussion of the bill, so I couldn’t get a feel for how the committee received it.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. Tom Degen, phone: 655-8651; email: tdegen@wvwise.org

In passing: I recently ran across something I think merits public exposure: On July 23, 1998 the West Virginia Manufacturers Association submitted comments to the Office of Waste Management concerning the proposed solid waste regulations 33 CSR 1. The comments were submitted by counsel, Michael P. McThomas. (This is the same Mike McThomas that lobbies for USA Waste, now merged with Waste Management.) On page 2 of the five or so page comment is the following: "A reduction in the shear number of governmental entities receiving solid waste assessment fees would reduce the burden on local businesses that are subject to the disposal fees. Namely, elimination of solid waste authorities and the Solid Waste Management Board, and deletion or refinement of Public Service Commission jurisdiction over solid waste facilities."