In the Community

Parsippany’s New Incinerator… Long-term Project with Big Implications, but Little Discussion

Posted in: Environment, View All Entries by admin on August 22, 2011

On June 21st, the Council voted unanimously in favor of entering into an agreement with a company called Synagro to redesign and operate the town’s non inactive incineration plant on Edwards Road.    The incinerator would burn “biosolids” (what’s left after sewer water is filtered and cleaned).   This agreement with Synagro will be for the next 20 years.

Background

In the early 1970s, Parsippany constructed two incinerators at the sewer plant and Parsippany operated those incinerators burning sludge and biosolids from the townships as well as from neighboring towns.  However, because they were inefficient and not aligned with the environmental standards on the state and federal level – Parsippany stopped using the incinerators.  Instead of burning the biosolids left from treated sewer water, Parsippany paid companies to haul away the waste.

 

New Incinerator Project
In 2009, Parsippany began the process to obtain bids on re-building the incinerators to meet state and federal requirements.   There was an open bid process, however, Synagro was the only responsive bidder for this project.  Synagro will pay the Township $1 million over the course of the next three years for the partnership, as well as annual lease and host fees (which reflect a percentage of the sludge/biosolids that Synagro would process on behalf of other nearby towns).  Despite the potential for environmental impact on our community, Parsippany’s Environmental Advisory Committee was not consulted about the project.

 

Our Take

“When the mayor presented his plan for the incinerator at the Council meeting (on 6/14/11), it was the first time that the public could learn about this project that includes a 25 year commitment.  When considering re-opening facility that will burn and dispose of waste – natural resident questions and concerns would be related to the potential for environmental and health risks.  Especially when the permitting process is highly regulated by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, it would lead one to believe that there’s the potential for a negative environmental impact. The Council’s lack of discussion is troubling.

“The incinerator project represents another decision that the mayor made in a vacuum.  Similar to the website project where he spent $22,000 on a pre-fabricated website without consulting local experts in website development and IT on the Transparency in Government Committee.   In this case, instead of including the expertise and counsel of the Environmental Advisory Committee (which includes scientists and PhDs who are residents in the community), the mayor presented the proposal and the Council was poised to vote in favor of the plan without question or discussion.”

 

Interested in learning more about the Incinerator Project: