If we are to believe a new report on the Beaver HIll Disposal Site by Brady Consulting, and the commissioners do, then our staff have been working in unsafe conditions for quite sometime. The findings come a week after an onsite inspection by Jack Brady done March 12 & 13 that declares the facility unsafe. “Many of the component parts of the plant are structurally unstable and close to catastrophic failure and present very serious safety hazards to the plant operators and to anyone else who might venture into the incineration and air pollution control areas…” Brady details several safety hazards at the site.
Brady Report on Beaver Hill Incinerator
Commissioner Cam Parry said the county had narrowly averted a catastrophe. “But for the grace of God”, said Parry, “we haven’t had a serious injury out there to either our staff or a member of the public…” If ever a door has been opened for a lawsuit Parry just opened it, rolled out some red carpet and placed a giant welcome mat but who is responsible for allowing our staff to work in such hazardous conditions?
The Brady report contradicts a report prepared by URS in 2009 using multiple inspectors over multiple days and taking months to complete. From 2009
Overall, the incinerator and APC system are in good condition, a reflection of timely and conscientious maintenance and repair performed by skilled BHDS staff. Structurally, the incinerators are sound, but all are in need of some steel work and patching. The refractory is in fair-to-good condition with only a few spots that will need to be repaired in the near future. The
gas-to-air heat exchangers and the baghouse, along with their ancillary equipment, appear to be in very good shape and need little more than the regular maintenance they are getting now.
Who is the public supposed to trust? Let’s assume the Brady report is accurate and that URS and its subcontractors ACS Incorporated and Bell & Associates were risking life and limb during their inspections in 2009 why haven’t the staff complained about unsafe work conditions as well? Who is responsible for allowing this multimillion dollar publicly owned incineration system to be labeled as salvage metal at pennies on the dollar by Brady Consulting?
As everyone knows Waste Connections has been interested in turning the site into a transfer station and the company has quite a history of taking over municipal landfills.
How The Waste Was Won (with apologies to John Ford) would tell how Waste Connections has come to provide solid waste collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling services to about 2 million commercial, industrial, and residential customers in 29 states. The integrated solid waste services company does business mainly in smaller markets. It operates primarily in the West, but also in the Midwest and South. Waste Connections owns or operates about 135 solid waste collection operations, 54 transfer stations, 44 landfills, and another 39 recycling facilities.
Presently, Waste Connections may owe the county as much as a $1 million but the commissioners have chosen not to enforce an agreement or collect the money. Parry has even stopped all metal reclamation at the site and earlier discussions about purchasing a shredder to prolong the life of the Joe Ney construction debris facility have simply ended without explanation.
The board seems primed to use the Brady report not only as an excuse to convert the site to a transfer station but to forget the $1 million owed to the taxpayers.
Demand answers and demand this board uphold its fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Coos County
Bob Main
(541) 396-3121 ext 770
Fred Messerle
(541) 396-3121 ext 247
Cam Parry
(541) 396-3121 ext 281
I have listened to what some of the Solid waste employees, Cam and read what the Brady report had to say about the facility. I still need to read what the URS report has to say and go see the plant it self so i can make an educated opinion on the facilty. Assumming the Brady report is accurate. Then we need to look at what would be in the best interest for the citizens of Coos County.
1: build a new burner facility
2: Go to a total recycle center
3: Haul the trash out of the county
All of the above ideas should be looked at if the facility is no longer repairable.
We should consider how big of facility it would have taken to dispose of 30 years of trash in a conventional dump vs the ash trenches. How much closing and monitoring costs would be for each type of facility. We will need the input of the citizens of Coos County to help us go in the direction that will be the most benificial for everyone. we need this facility to remain County owned and operated for all the options listed above.
And another thought. I found the courage to watch the latest Commissioners meeting on Channel 14. I have worked with some of the best corporate lawyers on this planet. I don’t believe that I have ever worked with a lawyer, at any stage of their career, who talks more and says less than your pal Oh Bone White. Why in the holy hell must she be sitting there with the commissioners. If they have a problem or a need for her they can call her to join the meeting. Takes less than a minute from her office. How about that Mr. Messerle? Eliminating Oh Bone should reduce meeting time by more than one hour; maybe two.
MG, I read that report cover to cover. Lengthy report is boring and verbose. Interesting that signature block and heading font appear to be different than body. Cut and paste from somebody else report? Appears much was written before he arrived at facility. I must be the only person who does not understand Mr. Sanne’s position at the solid waste facility. I want to find reason to vote for him. But, if he was supposed to have his finger on the pulse of the facilty, and if he didn’t, how can I get a warm feeling that he will have his finger on the pulse of the county for four years? I believe that the deparment manager was advertised to be an experieced person in all things incinerator and solid waste and they should probably be long gone.
I agree with you Mary, Randy and the other dismissed employees should sue the county for working in an unsafe environment. That will air this issue in the courts, so we don’t have to rely on our gut feelings about this issue. Bring this whole messy story out in the open. The county has been sued by former employees before, one more lawsuit seems in order with this issue, so long as the plaintiffs don’t settle out of court, and thereby cheat the public out of the truth.
Reports almost always lean in the direction of the preferred result of those paying for them. Brady said he feared for his safety during the inspection. One way to test which report is accurate is for the staff to sue the county for placing them in hazardous working conditions then see how the county defends itself. Will it just rollover and accept Brady’s report and pay up or will it push back and challenge the findings? Either way, heads should roll and for once the public may learn the whole story
This issued has blindsided me and don’t know what to think. You have the URS report and then the Brady Report. From my recollection of sitting at many of the Solid Waste Committee meetings when running for commissioner, the main issue of disagreement with the URS report was the longevity of the ash trenches. There was little talk of the condition of this facility. Either URS was totally incompetent in their assessment or there’s more going on than meets the eye.
There are a few questions I have. How was this firm selected and who was involved in the selection process? Have they done consulting work for Waste Connection in the past? It’s been my experience that engineers are like lawyers. They spin their reports to benefit their clients who are paying the bill. We all know there’s been a move to turn our disposal facility into a transfer station to benefit Waste Connection. It’ll take some time to sort this issue out. The only way I see it being resolved is to have URS publically backup their report and dispute the Brady Report or have a third party do another assessment based on these two reports. I doubt the commissioners will ask for a third assessment as this last report suites their agenda.
You smell something and all we need now is for some of these employees to file a suit for hazardous working conditions, maybe with the union’s assistance and then sit back and let the discovery begin. Grab popcorn
Do I smell criminal negligence?
The Brady report doesn’t address money issues at all except to say the plant should have been spending $100K per year on maintenance which Sanne has been saying for some time
Assuming Brady is our best friend this week, what has the Brady Report done to the credibility of Mr. Sanne. For those of us who do not follow county government so closely, please, a summary of the salient points of Brady and what Sanne has told us. Thanks.