Politicians' Positions on the Waste-to-Energy Incinerator
Frederick County Commissioner Candidate Paul Smith
In favor of waste-to-energy incinerator
"I support the current WTE incinerator project that is planned for the McKinney site on the Monocacy River."
"It is not expected that the increased truck traffic will have a serious impact on traffic congestion."
"I don’t believe that it will cause much pollution."
Well, then, why don't we all just take his word for it that the incinerator won't affect property values just because Roscoe Bartlett lives near the site and he's not opposed to it, and because Smith doesn't "believe" it will pollute... See below.
An e-mail sent to Paul Smith in September 2010:
I see that you are in favor of the incinerator. This greatly concerns me. I looked at your background and professional experience. I'd like to know why you are OK with supporting this. I have done extensive research on it over several years and don't understand how anyone could support it. I've come to the conclusion that even if you don't oppose incineration, how could this contract be supported? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about it.
Response from Paul Smith:
Thank you for your comments about the WTE project. I support the project because I believe it is the best available option, and because no better alternative has been identified. You do not mention any particular objections to the project other than some unspecified issue with one of the contracts.
Attached here are some comments that I sent to another person recently. My comments responded to some specific concerns that were raised.
I would point out that the opinion piece in today's FNP by Harvey Alter, gives some solid support for the WTE. Thanks for taking the time to write. Below are the comments I referred to.
Paul Smith
With regard to the Waste to Energy (incinerator). I have followed this issue fairly closely for three years now. For most of that time I have been inundated with multiple, daily emails debating, criticizing and discussing various options, and during the last year criticizing the County’s decision to proceed with the WTE facility at the McKinney site off of Rt. 85, on the Monocacy River. I won’t take the time here to discuss all of the different issues related to this project. But I will mention a few of the most important aspects of the WTE project.
First, now that the Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 to proceed with the WTE option at the McKinney site, the debate must change in that those who wish to scrap the WTE proposal have a heavier burden now—the burden is on them to present another alternative that is clearly better than the WTE proposal. It is important for the County to be consistent and reliable in its actions. WTE should be scrapped only if it can be clearly demonstrated that there is a much better alternative that should be pursued. And while the opponents of WTE continue to object and criticize, they have yet to present a concrete, superior alternative. They have only presented speculative options. Kai Hagen admitted to me that there will be no “silver bullet,” but that there would be a combination of approaches used to handle the solid waste. But such a vague alternative is insufficient to scrap the existing proposal at this point.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the WTE option will immediately save the County about $1 million per year, over the current practice of hauling our trash out of state, at a cost of $4 or $5 million per year. In later years, the savings is projected to be even greater.
The County’s current practice of hauling our trash out of state is not a responsible solution to managing our solid waste.
Without either hauling the trash out of state or burning it, our landfill will exceed its capacity in only a few years. There is an urgency to find a better long-term solution than that of hauling it out of state.
While there will be a few jobs connected with the WTE facility, the job impact in Frederick County from either WTE or some other alternative is relatively minor.
The WTE is not currently being planned for the EastAlcoa site. The WTE facility is currently being planned for the McKinney site, which is off of English Muffin Way, right next to the Monocacy River. One reason this site is advantageous is that it is adjacent to the McKinnery wastewater treatment plant that is being constructed. Situating the WTE there will save the County $48 million dollars by virtue of the fact that (a) we already own the land, and (b) the County will not have to build the sludge incubators, that otherwise would be required for the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, this site is in an industrial area and is easily accessible to major transportation arteries.
I do not believe that the WTE facility will have a significant impact on property values. Roscoe Bartlett’s home is as close as anyone’s to the proposed WTE. He is in favor of the WTE project, as the best thing for Frederick County to do.
There will certainly be increased traffic in and around the McKinney site after the WTE is built and operational. However, there will be a substantial decrease in traffic at the Reich’s Ford Road landfill. It is not expected that the increased truck traffic will have a serious impact on traffic congestion. I understand that the WTE will regulate the times at which trucks will be allowed to access the WTE; I understand that truck traffic will be either prohibited or greatly restricted during the rush hours.
It seems to me that if we build a WTE facility, we should make sure it has the capacity to handle our solid waste needs for many decades. Accordingly, we would necessarily build a facility that has more capacity that we can currently meet. Therefore, I have no problem with giving Frederick County the option to take trash from other jurisdictions, if we so elect, until such time as we want to use the entire capacity for ourselves.
Finally, with regard to your concern that the WTE would cause pollution, I don’t believe that it will cause much pollution. This is a fear that is at least in part being planted by those who are conveying false information about the WTE. For example, the recent flier that was distributed throughout the County by Friends of Frederick County, includes a picture of a tower spewing smoke and ash. But the WTE smoke stack will not emit any visible smoke and ash. One of the reasons the WTE is so expensive is because of the incredible filtering that will occur. What will be emitted from the chimney will meet the very stringent requirements of the Clean Air Act. I understand that the air emissions from the WTE will be comparable to or better than the emissions from a land fill.
Having said all of these things—I want to point out that I am not an expert on Waste to Energy facilities. But I have listened to many of the main players in this three-year-old debate. After listening and evaluating the facts and arguments for three years, I have come to respect and rely on Michael Marshchner more than Kai Hagen or Caroline Eader or Janice Wiles. Mr. Marschner is more reliable than any of those other three.
As much as I have written, I know that I have not addressed all of the issues related to the WTE. But again, at this point, once that the matter was fully debated, and now that a decision has been made, I don’t believe the County should change course unless someone can present a specific, comprehensive alternative that is demonstrably better than the WTE proposal.
For these reasons, I continue to support the WTE proposal.
Obviously, Paul Smith does not know that:
- There are many options, not just a single one. He thinks WTE is easy because it's just one solution so therefore we should go with it. Even if people do not object to the technology itself, this contract is absurd and gives all the power to the NMWDA, who has a clear bias, and the financials do not make sense.
- Someone who used to work for ArrowBio came out and admitted that Davidov, when soliciting RFPs, was clearly biased toward incineration and therefore ArrowBio did not respond: see here and scroll down to "Incinerator — Problems with financial analysis".
- The incinerator will not immediately save the county $1 million per year—and don't forget we still need a landfill with incineration. See the county's REAL costs.
- The incinerator will pollute! He thinks we should just take his and others' word that it won't? No one can absolutely state that WTE will not pollute, AND the BOCC in the past has said the cost would be "prohibitive" to get all of the safety features to make it pollute less. Massachusetts has put a ban on incinerators due to the mercury emissions.
- Just because he and others "don't expect" the incinerator to increase the amount of truck traffic doesn't mean it won't! There will be and those of us in the area will have to just deal with it when it does, I suppose. There was no study done to show what will happen and how more often the roads will need to be maintained, or the health hazards of the increased truck traffic, etc. Even Gray previously commented on this. Paul Smith has obviously have NOT seen for himself in the contract where they regulate truck traffic (page 109 of the revised service contract):
SECTION 10.4. RECEIVING AND OPERATING HOURS. (A) Receiving Time. On and after the Acceptance Date, the Company shall keep the Facility open for receiving Processible Waste (1) from 6:30 A.M. until 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday (other than New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day) for general deliveries, and (2) during such additional hours as may be required to accommodate the usual special collection practices of the Authority on account of any holiday or to accommodate the Authority’s disposal requirements on account of a special event, a natural disaster, or an emergency condition (the “Receiving Time”). The Company shall, based on the operating history at the Facility, provide the Authority with reasonable notice of anticipated additional hours of operation which may be necessary and cost associated with such additional hours of operations. The Authority shall reimburse the Company for any additional labor costs, including overtime charges, incurred as a result of extending the Receiving Time in accordance with item (2) above, except in the event of the extension of the Receiving Time is made at the request of the Company. Any extension of the Receiving Time shall be subject to the Company obtaining any required Governmental Approvals (e.g., MDE), and shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions thereof. (B) Operating Hours. On and after the Acceptance Date, the Company shall operate the Facility (except the Authority Operated Assets, which shall be operated by or on behalf of the Authority or Frederick County in accordance with Sections 10.5 and 10.6) on a continuous basis in a manner which is consistent with the Performance Guarantees and sound operating practice, except as affected by Uncontrollable Circumstances.
- Our waste stream is being reduced with the implementation of the recycling program. It will only continue to do so. We should not be importing other county's trash either!
