Questions and Concerns About the Frederick County Incinerator

These incinerator concerns have been sent to officials, politicians and candidates in Frederick County, Carroll County and the State of Maryland; the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, and others.

Conflicts of Interest, Bias and Cover-ups from Officials

Incinerator — Problems with financial analysis

Sent 07/14/10 to Carroll County Commissioner Mike Zimmer:

The reason that no technologies other than types of incineration showed up when there was an RFP several years ago is that the NMWDA limited the scope to thermal technologies. Dr. Mel Finstein, formerly of Arrow Bio, now with American Anaerobic Digestion, Inc., has confirmed to me that his company did not respond to the RFP because of this limitation. He wrote to me today:

I distinctly recall writing a letter to the NMWDA saying that I would not respond to their RFP because they clearly sought an incinerator. NMWDA should have that letter on file, or explain why not.

Commissioner candidate Bob Craig requested a copy of the RFP, but the NMWDA has ignored his request, along with many others. I know that transparency is important to you....so would you please urge Robin Davidov to cooperate with residents?

Two of the many problems with the process so far have been:

Mel Finstein went on to say that Were the NMWDA serious about anything other than incineration, a discussion would be in order. Companies are not going to waste their time responding to an RFP that excludes them.

So, it is inappropriate to request of commissioner candidates (and citizens) that they come up with "specifics of a new technology" when no serious study has been undertaken on any but incineration! You are not playing on a level playing field when you ask such a question. I sincerely hope that the new BOCCs for both Carroll and Frederick Counties look to all possible options in a professional and responsible manner. Commissioner Gardner has not been able to respond to Caroline's question about feasibility studies for other options because there aren't any!

Daniel Locke on SWAC = conflict of interest

Sent 08/09/10 to Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, commissioner candidates, Daniel E. Locke of the NWMDA and other officials:

Hello Commissioners,

I see that the Fred. Co[unty] SWAC [Solid Waste Advisory Committee] has recommended Mr. Dan Locke (Chief of Mont. Co's Division of Solid Waste Services) to join the committee. (Daniel Locke recommendation—please scroll down to page 7)

As a member of the NMWDA, Mr. Locke has a clear conflict of interest since the NMWDA will be significantly benefiting by the placement of its Regional Incinerator in Frederick County.

I would also like to provide some additional information to the LTE Mr. Locke wrote over 2 years ago. (And please see the attached memo from Mr. Locke.)

  1. The electricity revenue made by Mont. Co. trash incinerator in fiscal 2007 was $17 Million, but Mr. Locke fails to share that AFTER all revenues are calculated, the subsidy to operate and pay the debt service was $38 Million.
  2. The electricity revenue for fiscal 2008 was $26M, however, Mont. Co. still was had costs of nearly $33 Million in order to operate the facility.
  3. How the Mont. Co. incinerator "breaks even" is that there is a System Benefit Charge (as does Fred. Co.) in order to make-up any shortfalls in electricity and ferrous revenues. This "fee" found on the property tax bill is part of what they define as Revenue - please don't assume Revenue is just the electricity revenue. Mr. Locke describes this "fee" as solely a fee to subsidize recycling, but if you were to read the bond prospectus for Mont. Co.'s incinerator the subsidy for its incinerator is also assured by this fee.
  4. The statement that Mont. Co's waste services are "mid-range" may be due in part to the fact that their trash incinerator cost half of what Frederick and Carroll Counties are planning to spend.
  5. Also, please note that the Mont. Co. System Benefit Charge is spread among 4 times the population of Frederick, and an unknown (at least by me) amount of business retail space as compared to Frederick.

Thank you.

MontCo solid waste services chief disputes column on WTE

Originally published March 09, 2008

The Feb. 4 column of Katherine Heerbrandt, ("Tra$$$h") contained several errors regarding solid waste management in Montgomery County. To help clarify the issue we wanted to share the following information relating to our service. Regarding the statement that "The promised recovery of projected costs at break even levels was bogus," our Solid Waste System operates on a break even (full-cost-recovery) basis, as do most enterprise funds, such as water and sewer funds operated by most jurisdictions. Fees are set to cover the county's actual solid waste management expenses, and, thus, are not subsidized by taxes through the county's general fund. The fee paid by Montgomery County residents -- for very comprehensive waste and recycling services -- is in the middle range of other jurisdictions in the region, particularly when considering full cost accounting.

Next, revenue from selling the energy generated from our WTE facility was not $2 million as stated in the commentary, but $17 million. That was in FY 2007. In FY 2008, due to the recently increased market value of electricity, it is projected to be $27 million.

The statement that "Once the plant was operational, homeowners started to see something new on their tax bills every year, a $200 solid waste fee" is not correct. The System Benefit Charges did not increase by $200/year when the WTE opened; rather another set of fees just replaced the earlier system of refuse collection and tipping fees which included general fund support.

The new system, introduced in FY96, covered all solid waste costs, as it continues to do to this time. In that first year, the new Base System Benefit charge was $56.26/household.

In addition, homeowners paid a $66.64/household Disposal Fee that was charged in lieu of residential haulers paying a tipping fee to the county. Because the residents' haulers no longer paid a tipping fee, they could not pass that along to their customers. Thus, the County's Disposal Fee did not represent an increase, merely a different way to recover costs.

At the same time, in order to pay for county recycling program costs, which otherwise had to be subsidized by the county general fund, the county introduced an Incremental System Benefit Charge of $65.54/home. Again, that was for recycling -- not disposal -- services and simply represented a new means of paying for recycling costs that avoided any subsidy from county general funds and assured a full-cost recovery without taxes. The county continued to provide refuse collection for homes receiving that service from the county, but again its refuse collection fee provided full-cost recovery for that service, as well.

Finally, we would like to address the assertion that "Fees for waste disposal will rise sharply at least twice to meet the debt service obligation before it's paid off or refinanced in 2016."

Actually, because of roughly constant scheduled debt service, increasing capacity utilization, and the increasing market value of electricity, the solid waste fees in Montgomery County have either generally declined or stayed about the same over the years. And, when compared to inflation, they have substantially declined.

Daniel E. Locke is chief of Montgomery County's Division of Solid Waste Services. He writes from Rockville.

Incinerator opponents object to pending panel app't / The NMWDA does benefit

Sent 08/10/10 to Frederick County Commissioners President Jan Gardner, Frederick and Carroll County commissioners and candidates, and others:

Ms. Davidov has lied. She lied to the EHE Affairs Committee on Mar. 2, 2010 when she said she receives no complaints about her facilities. I present here again several examples of complaints from the Harford and Mont. Co. communities near the NMWDA's trash incinerators.

It is disturbing to think the Board of the NMWDA, of which Mr. Locke is a member, has done nothing to correct the record in Annapolis.

This is nothing to do with Ms. Davidov personally, but the assertions made by me, and many others, are about her professional conduct and her advisory role as the Dir. of the NMWDA.

I'm sad to hear that you think telling the truth is "bad behavior".

Sent 08/10/10 by Frederick County Commissioners President Jan Gardner:

I will clarify one more time.

The personal assertions about individuals does not move the factual debate about WTE forward. Accusing Ms. Davidov of being a liar, does not advance the discussion. Mentioning the situation with Ms. Davidov in Annapolis has nothing to do with a SWAC appointment. It is unrelated and unnecessary.

There is a saying that goes something like this – If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say it”.

My point was to keep the personal assertions and name calling out of the debate entirely. The personal assertions and name calling do not advance the discussion in any way. These bad behaviors only serve to inflame the debate and avoid the real discussion.

I used to ask – Can’t we all just get along and respect each other? It appears to be too much to ask.

Response sent to Jan Gardner on 08/11/10:

Jan,

If the information provided wasn't inaccurate (whether by mistake or intent) then there would be less frustration and everyone could be more "positive" as you wish.

Let's be clear - the NMWDA DOES BENEFIT from putting their incinerator in Frederick County. (Please see page 14 from the Frederick County's Agreement w/NMWDA.)

These payments ([NMWDA] Component Revenues) can include:

Blaine, it does matter who is sitting on SWAC — please see the above list of ALL of the other ways the NMWDA will be milking this County. Where are the fiscal conservatives?

BoCC, the NMWDA is highly motivated to get this County into as many contracts as possible. What is the estimated total the NMWDA plans to collect from these fees they are allowed to collect pursuant to the contract with the County? And you just voted to put one of its Board of Director members on the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee.

I would laugh if it weren't so sad.

What's NMWDA's total piece of the pie?

Sent 04/08/10 to Frederick and Carroll county commissioners, commissioner candidates and others:

Commissioners, have any of you pulled out your calculator?

Since the NMWDA gets $327.14 per year per installed ton (1500, correct?) from Wheelabrator, then that is a payment of $490,710.00 the first year of operation. And these kickbacks (er, I mean payments) increase 3% per year.

Here's the summary:

Do we wonder why the NMWDA thinks its incinerator is a good solution for Frederick and Carroll Counties? For the citizens, or for the NMWDA?

But Ms. [Robin] Davidov, You Are Biased

Sent 06/08/10 to Robin Davidov, executive director, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority; Michael Zimmer, Carroll County commissioner; Alex Mooney; David Brinkley; Galen Clagett; Sue Hecht; Paul Stull; Joseph Bartlett; Leroy Myers; and others:

Ms. [Robin] Davidov, is it your intention to insult the intelligence of everyone on this email string?

You send a pro-incinerator article based on interviews and quotes from pro-incinerator sources and we are all suppose to be distracted and forget that you, a State of Maryland employee, are biased towards incineration?

You travel the world promoting incineration and you have not revealed who paid for these excursions. (Australia, New York, Florida, etc.)

You have not completed the state financial disclosure form in regard to your incinerator-promoting travels.

You did not openly disclose that your agency will receive $500K per year from Wheelabrator if this incinerator is built in Frederick County.

You have not provided the page from the executed contract between NMWDA and Wheelabrator to clarify if the operating fee starts at $19.2M, or $19.8 million dollars per year. [In mid-September, 2010, she did provide this].

You went to Annapolis on March 2, 2010 and lobbied against the bills which would have protected our citizens from the inappropriate placement of a trash incinerator next to the Monocacy Battlefield and the Monocacy River.

You have not honored your promise to provide spreadsheets which show the range of heat values (575KWh/ton, 635 KWh/ton) as provided in Appendix 2 of the Service Contract.

And in neglecting to provide a range of heat values, you have failed to provide information such as this which was provided by an independent CPA:

"By reducing the KWH/Ton assumption from 750 to 545, the cumulative Frederick County cashflow decreases by $186,839,841, the Carroll County cumulative cashflow decreases by $115,206,689, while the combined Counties’ cashflow decreases by $302,046,530. Needless to say, this would have a disastrous adverse impact on the WTE incinerator’s net present value as compared to the other options you've since dismissed, and makes its financial desirability highly suspect."

Why will you not provide the spreadsheets for independent review when your agency has admitted, "...the annual revenue from FOG disposal is calculated to be $142,231 which is $120,000/year escalated. The NEA [NMWDA] in completing this calculation was in error. The costs should be $14,223. This error equates to an increase in the Frederick County cost by $128,008 in the first year."

You have not provided the name of even one trash incinerator in the world which achieves 750 KWh/ton which is the heat value you claim our incinerator is to achieve. Wait a minute — if this is "proven technology" then why won't you answer that question?

And why won't you provide the specs for this "new" or "different" or "European" technology. Wait a minute - how can it be proven technology and new technology?

Why don't the spreadsheets provide for the cost of transporting and handling the resulting ash?

Why will you not provide the name of the other "problem" incinerators in this country. Could it be Detroit? Spokane? (We all know the mess Harrisburg is in.)

Why did you not tell the truth to the State Education, Health,Environmental Affairs committee about the complaints from the communities with your incinerators? (There are several well-documented unsatisfied customers!)

Why do I have to scratch and claw to gather the information that Mont. Co. subsidizes its trash incinerator by $30,000,000+ per year, and that tens of millions of dollars of subsidies per year have gone to Covanta every year since the facility has been open?

Why do you not educate people that 3-5 times the energy can be saved by recycling than what is produced by incineration?

Why do you support (endorse) the burning of tires when they are recyclable? Why have you not answered the question about the ramifications of burning tires?

Why do you not make it clear that the materials with the highest BTUs are the most recyclable materials (plastic and paper) and therefore, with an incinerator there is incentive to burn these materials rather than recycle them?

Why do you not tell people the contract does not provide for recyclable material be removed prior to incineration?

Why are there no 30-year facility-life guarantees for the placed upon Wheelabrator?

Why is there a paragraph in the contract which releases Wheelabrator from its electricity revenue guarantee?

In Appendix 12.2 why was the formula for future escalation changes modified to no longer pass thru 100% of the cost savings or costs of future index changes for deflation or inflation which was a give-away to Wheelabrator of a free deflation flooring option as well as $26,349,973 of construction savings?

Why is it that Frederick wasn't given the option of processing sludge like the Baltimore City Composting Facility (pg. 2) ?

Ms. Davidov, the more articles or sound-bits you send which support incineration, make it clear you are solely promoting your industry instead of doing an unbiased job for the citizens of this state.

Sent 06/07/10 from Robin Davidov:

Ms. ___________: Here is an interesting article from an unbiased source, the Philadelphia Inquirer.

From an attorney in Frederick County:

"Davidov is compromised and her activities wouldn't last twenty minutes in a reputable law firm. Clear conflicts."

Conflict of Interest/Biased/Misleading?

Sent 06/09/10:

If you look at the alternate technologies section of the so-called 'Beck Report', two references were used to discredit all other technologies. Both are available on the internet. The report generated by Alameda Power, if you look at that report, its conclusions were that some of these alternate technologies had been proven and they felt that acceptable proposals would be submitted for RFPs. This finding was turned on its head in the Beck report. Which actually has the NMWDA logo on its cover.

The other report referenced was an internal working report that had each page stamped that it was not to be quoted from or used for other than internal discussion purposes. Hardly something an accomplished professional would allow to be used.

When I read the Alameda report, that was when I began to suspect that Ms. Davidov was not just biased but misleading our elected officials. Including Commissioner Zimmer.

Ms. Davidov won't share the spreadsheets, but it's not her money!

Sent 06/07/10:

Comm[issioner Michael] Zimmer,

It looks like Ms. Davidov won't give you those spreadsheets either. Not surprising.

However, since you have a fiduciary responsibility to your constituents, do you not think it appropriate (even necessary) to require Ms. Davidov to provide spreadsheets which show the various KWH/ton values?

This is crucial since all of the pro-burning commissioners seem to be relying on a certain amount of electricity income. Yet, Ms. Davidov refuses (please see the previous emails) to provide the financial scenarios which show the allowable range of BTUs per the contract.

Whooey it's not!

Sent 06/02/10:

Commissioner [Mike] Zimmer -

It is not "whooey" or about some kind of "claim of conspiracy" to ask how someone is being compensated when they are a public employee. Any possible or perceived conflict of interest should be clarified and dispelled.

In fact the State of Maryland has a Financial Disclosure Filer Identification Manual to assist the State Ethics Commission to properly identify employees required to file an annual financial disclosure statement. The financial disclosure "provides that certain government officials and employees disclose their financial affairs annually as a tool to guard against conflicts of interests and to assure the public that State business is being properly conducted."

Comm Zimmer, you stated, "who’s paying for what that’s a fair question deserving absolute transparency." It concerns me that you appear to be dismissive of the fact that Ms. Davidov travels the world promoting trash incinerators when she is suppose to be giving fair, unbiased advice across the spectrum of alternatives to her member jurisdictions here in the State of Maryland.

So why is it that Ms. Davidov has not provided information about who paid for her trip to Australia?

And who paid for her to go to Florida to share her "tactics" to overcome a community's objections to trash incineration?

I notice that in administering the financial disclosure provisions of the law, the State Ethics Commission initially relies on the employing State agency to identify the positions that meet the criteria for filing.

Can you identify why Ms. Davidov is not on the Ethics Commission's list of those who have filed?

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." — Thomas Sowell

Sent 05/26/10 by Carroll County Commissioner Michael Zimmer:

This is all so much whooey. When someone has garnered a certain amount of expertise in a field of endeavor, it is normal for her to be invited to present to other groups hosting meetings on her topic of expertise. This is much ado about literally nothing. If anyone wants to know who pays what for what, that’s fine. It should be out there as a matter of record, but to claim this is some vast conspiracy that discredits Ms. Davidov is plain silly.

Advice should be unbiased

Letter to the editor, 05/20/10:

By Patrice Gallagher

I am responding to an April 20 letter from Robin Davidov, "Waste-to-energy a positive project."

I grew up in Carroll, and have lived in Frederick for 20 years, and I'm weary of Davidov's waste-to-energy cheerleading in our counties.

She's touted in industry circles for promoting incineration to the public, but as Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority director, she is supposed to give us unbiased advice regarding our waste. However, only one professional study of disposal options was conducted for Frederick, comparing waste-to-energy to long hauling our trash, period. We need a professional study including commercial recycling, reusing/repurposing construction and demolition debris, commercially composting our food waste, etc.

Davidov travels globally, speaking as an expert on public persuasion. In Australia last month she was billed as: "... an accomplished speaker and a frequent panel member, Robin has an extensive understanding of the public acceptance criteria for WTE facilities and the methods best used to engage communities."

For the 2010 Annual NAWTEC conference in Orlando: "Building Bridges, Burning Trash." In 2007 at the NAWTEC conference, her talk, "Improving Public Acceptance of Waste-to-Energy," was described as: "... communities are once again seriously considering WTE ... However, convincing the public that the industry meets the most stringent guidelines for protecting public health and the environment are ongoing challenges. Join this panel discussion as we discuss the messages and tactics we can collectively use ..."

Davidov should stop using her famous "tactics" here, and provide a plan that won't lock us in to 40 years of inflexible technology, ultimately costing our counties well over a billion dollars.

Incinerator concerns remain — another LTE

Sent 05/26/10:

We're all still waiting for the transparency Comm. Zimmer acknowledges is a legitimate concern.

And in the meantime here's another LTE from the Carroll County Times,

"Is the incinerator industry paying her travel expenses? If true, she is indeed an industry lobbyist. That potential conflict of interest leaves her guiding Maryland counties in their solid waste planning decisions. If the state pays her expenses, that's an inappropriate use of taxpayer money given that the NMWDA was created to serve Maryland member jurisdictions only."

Incinerator concerns remain (letter to the editor)

By Gregor Becker

In an April 20 letter to the editor LTE Robin Davidov, executive director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, assured readers our incinerator would be nothing like the 1972 model Harrisburg incinerator model with its upgrade mismanagement.

No doubt that's true. Our upgrades or operational challenges will be different. Who cares to speculate what those might be over the anticipated 30-year operational life?

So why is Davidov making presentations to promote incineration in Detroit, New York, Florida and, recently, in Australia? The NMWDA was created in 1980 to be "a public instrumentality of the state of Maryland."

Is the incinerator industry paying her travel expenses? If true, she is indeed an industry lobbyist. That potential conflict of interest leaves her guiding Maryland counties in their solid waste planning decisions. If the state pays her expenses, that's an inappropriate use of taxpayer money given that the NMWDA was created to serve Maryland member jurisdictions only.

Davidov recently told the General Assembly that she hasn't received any complaints about NMWDA incinerators in Maryland. Perhaps she never received a letter about the Montgomery County incinerator being defeated in Shady Grove, only to be built after bitter resistance, including a court battle, in Dickerson. Dickerson residents' 14 years of complaints about odors and explosive noises didn't reach responsive ears. MDE awaits a Covanta response regarding noise violations.

Harford County residents have protested building a larger new incinerator because the existing one has produced odors, dust, loud noises, pollution and such hardships for them.

Davidov says compared to Harford County's or Harrisburg's, ours is modern, more like advanced European designs. Sounds like a sales pitch. Don't worry. Any health problems cannot be traced to our incinerator. No liability.

In 2007 Davidov led the Carroll County Board of Commissioners on a field trip to American Ash Recycling Company in York, Pa. This company was denied its permit to operate by the city of York just months after this field trip; denied because of the extreme hardship its operations placed on residents nearby.

Without supporting evidence, she insists that ash can produce beneficial products. Montgomery residents also heard "superior European design," but their pilot program for recycling ash failed. Montgomery now pays to ship its incinerator ash to an out of state hazardous waste site. We plan to use our ash as inexpensive landfill cover to dispose of toxic residue.

Michael Zimmer (Carroll County commissioner)'s response sent 05/26/10:

Mr. Becker is badly in error to assert that daily cover use of ash is toxic. This is a permitted us by MDE.

Response to Mike ZImmer:

Doesn't mean that its the right thing to do, Mike. Toxic is toxic regardless of above or below ground

Zimmer's reply:

That would actually be the point. It is not toxic. The treatment process at the plant is thorough. MDE would not allow a county like Harford County to spew toxic waste all over their land fill.

If anyone wishes to be against WTE in general or this particular proposal that’s fine. Reasonable minds can disagree and they can do so in an agreeable manner. Just stick to facts when advancing your argument. That’s not too much to ask is it?

Response to ZImmer:

You might want to check your facts before spouting. It is fact that landfills that have used the ash have had to remove it and haul it to the toxic dump site in VA because of its toxicity. That little tidbit of information was included in an earlier email along with the specific landfills and their reasons.

I suggest that you take your own advice.

Zimmer's reply:

How about nobody spouts and we get down to specifics? What specifically are you referencing?

Does anyone deny that MDE permits use of WTE ash as daily cover at a land fill? Does anyone deny that they actually count such application as beneficial use? Mr. Evans, are these laid out in COMAR? If so please share chapter and verse with the list so we can all be specific.

Sent 05/27/10 to Carroll County Commissioner Michael Zimmer, Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Maryland state delegates and other:

Attached, you will find a wonderful list of toxins contained in the ‘harmless’ ash-read it this time and then try to explain to everyone why you’re all for deliberately dumping toxic waste into our landfills.

MDE didn’t have issues with the toxins from underground tanks that have contaminated our water supply throughout the county-or did you conveniently not see or read any of those reports either.

It’s not like MDE fully understands-they’re given the same bogus information you and the county have received-information designed to mislead or they go along knowing full well of the dangers. But that’s ok, you’ll be long gone as commissioner before this toxic ash would show just how devastating it truly is and you can rest on the fact that you’ve allowed someone else to do your due diligence and you can then wring your hands of any wrong doing, right, Mike?

Do your own homework, [Michael ZImmer].

For those on this email list-why waste your time arguing with someone who’s obviously quite content being ignorant…they say ignorance is bliss…I guess in your case, Mike, it is. A battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is futile.

The next board of commissioners in both counties will correct this colossal mistake.

Sent by Michael Zimmer:

Friends,

The use of daily cover is established in COMAR 26.04.07.10D. One of the conditions of the materials to be used is that it may not contain toxic materials. WTE ash from Baltimore City and Harford County has been approved for daily cover of land fills. These are plain simple facts.

If anyone is aware of instances where such daily cover has had to be removed after applied for any reason, that would be good to share. It would be valuable to share specific details so the claim can be verified one way or another.

It is somewhat remarkable that our EAC never made such an allegation in any of their written or in person presentations to the Commissioners.

COMAR [continuation of the above set of e-mails]

Sent 05/27/10:

Hello State Delegates!

(Whew.) Perhaps we need some updating here in Maryland. We certainly do in regards to the scope and the purpose of the NMWDA....

From Paul Connett, PhD,

Director, American Environmental Health Studies Project, Inc. (AEHSP):

In the 1980s, the US Supreme Court ruled that ash had to be tested for toxicity, and if it failed had to be sent to a hazardous waste facility. However, they left it to the US EPA to determine how that test should be administered.

The EPA allowed the industry to mix the bottom ash and the fly ash together before testing. This allows two things:

a) the bottom ash (about 90%) dilutes the toxicity of the very toxic fly ash and;

b) the lime in the fly ash prevents the leaching media to get down to the intended pH of 5 where lead is soluble and leaches out.

Typically when the test is applied the leaching media ends up at a pH of about 8-9, the pH of least lead solubility. The end result of this giveaway is that all the ash is passing the leachate tests. In other words, if the ash is passing the test it is NOT because either the fly ash or the bottom ash or the mixture is non-toxic but rather because the EPA did a big favor to the incinerator industry and designed a non-scientific say of measuring the toxicity of the ash.

In Germany and Switzerland they don't even bother to test the fly ash because they KNOW it is very toxic.

Comm. Zimmer, this discussion reminds me that on the "mega-spreadsheets" I do not think there was any accounting for the cost of transporting and handling the ash. You have been so helpful in obtaining the financials for the Harford incinerator, I'm wondering if you would be able to obtain the working Excel spreadsheets for the facility to be placed next to the Monocacy River?

State of Maryland employee or trash incinerator lobbyist?

Sent 04/26/10 to Israel (Izzy) Patoka, executive director, Governor's Office of Community Initiatives; Josh L. Russin, Western Maryland Coordinator, Intergovernmental Affairs; and others:

Hello Mr. Patoka,

Please tell Gov. O'Malley it was nice to have seen him at the Groundbreaking Ceremony for Restoration of the Catoctin Aqueduct. In the same spirit of environmental concern and awareness, as well as fiscal accountability, I would like to bring Gov. O'Malley's attention the actions of Robin Davidov, the Ex. Director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority.

Although it is an independent, non-profit state agency, the purpose, duties and actions of the NMWDA are a reflection upon the State of Maryland. Ms. Robin Davidov is the Ex. Director of this agency which states its mission is "...to plan and develop waste management systems that meet the highest environmental standards while providing the most efficient and reliable waste disposal services possible," and "An underlying goal, inherent in all Authority projects, is to minimize waste disposal costs."

Neither of these goals are being demonstrated in the NMWDA putting its trash incinerator in Frederick County. Ms. Davidov seems to have taken the role of incinerator lobbyist more seriously than working for the best welfare of the citizens of Frederick and Carroll Counties.

Therefore, I am taking the advice of Comm. Zimmer of Carroll County and asking your office for "crystal clear transparency" regarding her promotion of trash incineration around the globe.

There are questions about the financial arrangements concerning Ms. Robin Davidov's speaking engagements. Does she always take "vacation" for these appearances? Who pays for the travel expenses? Who is paying for her accommodations? Does she get paid a stipend? How often does she use her job title to promote incineration in jurisdictions outside of her member counties?

Please see portions of several emails which mention just a few of her speaking engagements:

April 2010:

But during this "vacation" Ms. Davidov is a presenter at Bringing Waste to Energy to Australia:

"As an accomplished speaker and a frequent panel member, Robin has an extensive understanding of the public acceptance criteria for WtE facilities and the methods best used to engage communities in understanding the environmental and economic benefits that a well designed WtE facility can offer."

Please remember the NMWDA's contract with Wheelabrator provides Ms. Davidov's agency with a very lucrative payment of ~1/2 million dollars per year if she is successful at her job of gaining "public acceptance".

May 2009:

Detroit Public Radio - May 21, 2009:

Last spring Ms. Davidov, the Ex. Director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, was on your station (slide to 1:19:45) discussing the "pro" incinerator stance.

March 2007

On this YouTube video Ms. Davidov is touting the Baltimore trash incinerator as being "European" and "proven" technology. Isn't this exactly what we're being told about the NMWDA's newest facility to be located next to the Monocacy Battlefield and the Monocacy River?

But wait a minute - Air pollution limits tightened on Baltimore incinerator "EPA says Maryland improperly relaxed permit on trash-to-energy"
For the news release.
For the EPA Order.
For the Petition.

Robin Davidov at New York Debate on Waste-of-Energy Incineration, Mar.2007

And since Ms. Davidov's appointment is by the approval of the Governor, I would like to know what action, if any, the Governor can take in regard to revealing the financial incentives she receives for her lobbying efforts.

Thank you for your time.

Sent 04/27/10 to Israel (Izzy) Patoka, executive director, Governor's Office of Community Initiatives; Josh L. Russin, Western Maryland Coordinator, Intergovernmental Affairs; and others:

Hello once again Mr. Patoka,

When Ms. Davidov was a speaker at the 15th Annual North America Waste of Energy Conference at the Doral Resort and Spa in Miami, Florida in 2007 was she also on "vacation"?

Please see page 5 of the attached brochure...

SESSION 8
IMPROVING THE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY
The waste-to-energy industry is at a critical crossroads. Due to expanding plants and renegotiated contracts, communities are once again seriously considering waste-to-energy as a solid waste management solution. However, convincing the public that the industry meets the most stringent guidelines for protecting public health and the environment are ongoing challenges. Join this panel discussion as we discuss the messages and tactics we can collectively use to show our communities that they are a necessary component of a sustainable solid waste management system.

• Bettina Kamuk, Project Director, Ramboll
• Lindsay Sampson, Division Director, Lee County Division of Solid Waste (Fla.)
• Robin Davidov, Executive Director, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority

Thank you for providing any information you can about the funds Ms. Davidov receives for sharing her "tactics" to convince the public they should buy an incinerator.

Sent 05/03/10 to Israel (Izzy) Patoka, executive director, Governor's Office of Community Initiatives; Josh L. Russin, Western Maryland Coordinator, Intergovernmental Affairs; and others:

Is this another "vacation" for Ms. Davidov next week when she attends the "18th Annual North American Waste-of-Energy Conference" in Miami? I see she is one of the keynote speakers and the title of her talk is "Building Bridges, Burning Trash." (Please see attached.)

Does Ms. Davidov go to this conference every year? How many years has she been a speaker for this group? Who pays for Ms. Davidov to attend in order to promote the incineration industry?

Why is she going to Miami when she was originally scheduled to give a presentation in Taylorsville, part of one of her member jurisdictions?

Thanks for your anticipated assistance in obtaining full disclosure of Ms. Davidov's activities while representing herself as the Ex. Director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority.

Lennie, this one is for you (lobbying reform)

Sent 05/11/10 to Comissioner Lennie Thompson; Robin Davidov, NMWDA
Cc: Frederick County commissioners; Gouge, Julia W.; Minnich, Dean L.; Michael Marschner; Evans, J. Michael; Ron Hart; Powell, Steven D.; Michael Kurtianyk; Dick Johnson; Paul Smith; Michael Blair - CC; Vince Pacelli - CC; Stephen Buettner - CC; Brian Dimaggion - CC; michelle@ppesi.com; Dave Rousch - CC; Michele Johnson - CC; maloneyge@verizon.net; Eric Bouchat - CC; David Jones - CC; Perry Jones - CC; Doug Howard - CC; Ellis Burruss; daniel.riley@house.state.md.us; John S. Mathias; Linda Thall; Izzy Patoka; Josh Russin; Sen. Alex Mooney; Sen. David Brinkley; Del. Paul Stull; Del. Galen Clagett; Del. Joe Bartlett; Del. Donald Elliott; Del. Sue Hecht; J Mathias; Zimmer, Michael D

Lennie, it looks like our federal government is addressing the power and the influence of lobbyists. (Please see below.)

And perhaps we should also be focusing on STATE of MARYLAND EMPLOYEES such as Ms. Robin Davidov (Ex. Dir. of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority) who LOBBY FOR PRIVATE BUSINESS instead of upholding their fiduciary responsibility to their member jurisdictions.

Ms. Davidov, once again we ask who is paying for all of your travel to promote trash incineration as a "necessary component" of a community's solid waste system?

I'm looking forward to your response.

The Close the Revolving Door Act of 2010 has been introduced in the U.S. Senate which will:

Close the Revolving Door Act of 2010 (Introduced in Senate)

S 3272 IS

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 3272

To provide greater controls and restrictions on revolving door lobbying.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 28, 2010

Mr. BENNET introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To provide greater controls and restrictions on revolving door lobbying.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Close the Revolving Door Act of 2010'.

SEC. 2. LIFETIME BAN ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FROM LOBBYING.

(a) In General- Section 207(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS- Any person who is a Senator, a Member of the House of Representatives or an elected officer of the Senate or the House of Representatives and who after that person leaves office, knowingly makes, with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance before any Member, officer, or employee of either House of Congress or any employee of any other legislative office of the Congress, on behalf of any other person (except the United States) in connection with any matter on which such former Senator, Member, or elected official seeks action by a Member, officer, or employee of either House of Congress, in his or her official capacity, shall be punished as provided in section 216 of this title.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 207(e)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in the caption, by striking `Officers and staff' and inserting `Staff'; and

(2) by striking `an elected officer of the Senate, or'.

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.

Paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5)(A), and (6)(A) of section 207(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `1 year' and inserting `6 years'.

SEC. 4. IMPROVED REPORTING OF LOBBYISTS ACTIVITIES.

Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`(c) Joint Web Site-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall maintain a joint lobbyist disclosure Internet database for information required to be publicly disclosed under this Act which shall be an easily searchable Web site called lobbyists.gov with a stated goal of simplicity of usage.

`(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $100,000 for fiscal year 2011.'.

SEC. 5. LOBBYIST REVOLVING DOOR TO CONGRESS.

(a) In General- Any person who is a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal may not within 6 years after that person leaves such position be hired by a Member or committee of either House of Congress with whom the registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal has had substantial lobbying contact.

(b) Waiver- This section may be waived in the Senate or the House of Representatives by the Committee on Ethics or the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct based on a compelling national need.

(c) Substantial Lobbying Contact- For purposes of this section, in determining whether a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal has had substantial lobbying contact within the applicable period of time, the Member or committee of either House of Congress shall take into consideration whether the individual's lobbying contacts have pertained to pending legislative business, or related to solicitation of an earmark or other Federal funding, particularly if such contacts included the coordination of meetings with the Member or staff, involved presentations to staff, or participation in fundraising exceeding the mere giving of a personal contribution. Simple social contacts with the Member or committee of either House of Congress and staff, shall not by themselves constitute substantial lobbying contacts.

SEC. 6. PAYMENT FOR CHARTER FLIGHTS BY CAMPAIGN FUNDS AND DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN AIR TRAVEL WITH A LOBBYIST BY A SENATOR.

(a) Clarification of Rules on Use of Campaign Funds for Flights on Commercial Aircraft-

(1) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (1) of section 313(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 439a(c)) is amended--

(A) by striking `a candidate for election for Federal office (other than a candidate who is subject to paragraph (2)), or any authorized committee of such a candidate, may not make any expenditure for a flight on an aircraft' in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting `in the case of a candidate for election to Federal office (other than a candidate who is subject to paragraph (2)), no political committee may make any expenditure for travel by such a candidate, or for travel on behalf of such a candidate, by means of a flight on an aircraft (regardless of whether such travel is in connection with an election for Federal office)', and

(B) by striking `candidate, the authorized committee, or other' in subparagraph (B).

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by this subsection shall apply to flights taken on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Disclosure- Paragraph 2(e)(1) of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended--

(1) in subclause (C), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(2) by inserting after subclause (D) the following:

`(E) the source will submit a list of the names of any registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal on the trip not later than 30 days after the trip; and'.

SEC. 7. BAN ON LOBBYISTS MAKING CASH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

Section 321 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441g) is amended by--

(1) by striking `No person' and inserting the following:

`(a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (b), no person'; and

(2) inserting at the end the following:

`(b) Lobbyist-

`(1) TOTAL BAN- If the person described in subsection (a) is a lobbyist, the amount referred to in subsection (a) shall be zero.

`(2) LOBBYIST- In this subsection, the term `lobbyist' shall have the same meaning given such term in section 3(10) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.'.

SEC. 8. REPORTING BY SUBSTANTIAL LOBBYING ENTITIES.

The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 6 the following:

`SEC. 6A. REPORTING BY SUBSTANTIAL LOBBYING ENTITIES.

`(a) In General- A substantial lobbying entity shall file on an annual basis with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the United States Senate a list of any employee, individual under contract, or individual who provides paid consulting services who is--

`(1) a former United States Senator or a former Member of the United States House of Representatives; or

`(2) a former congressional staff person who--

`(A) made at least $100,000 in any 1 year as a congressional staff person;

`(B) worked for a total of 4 years or more as a congressional staff person; or

`(C) had a job title at any time while employed as a congressional staff person that contained any of the following terms: `Chief of Staff', `Legislative Director', `Staff Director', `Counsel', `Professional Staff Member', `Communications Director', or `Press Secretary'.

`(b) Contents of Filing- The filing required by this section shall contain a brief job description of each such employee, individual under contract, or individual who provides paid consulting services, and an explanation of their work experience under subsection (a) that requires this filing.

`(c) Improved Reporting of Substantial Lobbying Entities- The Joint Web site being maintained by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, known as lobbyists.gov, shall include an easily searchable database entitled `Substantial Lobbying Entities' that includes qualifying employees, individuals under contract, or individuals who provide paid consulting services, under subsection (a).

`(d) Law Enforcement Oversight- The Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate shall provide a copy of the filings of substantial lobbying entities to the District of Columbia United States Attorney, to allow the District of Columbia United States Attorney to determine whether any such entities are underreporting the Federal lobbying activities of its employees, individuals under contract, or individuals who provide paid consulting services.

`(e) Substantial Lobbying Entity- In this section, the term `substantial lobbying entity' means an incorporated entity that employs more than 3 federally registered lobbyists during a filing period.'.

SEC. 9. ENHANCED PENALTIES.

Section 7(a) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1606(a)) is amended by striking `$200,000' and inserting `$500,000'.

Sent 05/12/10 from Michael Zimmer, Carroll County commissioner:

You harm your own credibility when you spin like this.

The question remains: who is paying?

Sent 05/12/10:

Comm. Zimmer - Listing all of Ms. Davidov's pro-incinerator presentations is factual - not spin.

The spin is the mission statement on the NMWDA's website which states that the NMWDA will develop systems "that meet the highest environmental standards" and that "an underlying goal, inherent in all Authority projects, is to minimize waste disposal costs."

Ms. Davidov is a lobbyist for the incinerator industry - she just happens to be a State of Maryland employee at the same time.

Again, who is paying for Ms. Davidov to go around the world selling trash incinerators for the likes of Covanta and Wheelabrator, hmmmmm?

What is Robin Davidov [executive director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (NMWDA)] doing at the New York Bar Association meeting?

Sent 04/22/10 to Frederick and Carroll county commissioners, The Baltimore Sun, The Gazette and others:

On this YouTube video Ms. Davidov is touting the Baltimore trash incinerator as being "European" and "proven" technology. Isn't this exactly what we're being told about the NMWDA's newest facility to be located next to the Monocacy Battlefield and the Monocacy River?

But wait a minute — Air pollution limits tightened on Baltimore incinerator: "EPA says Maryland improperly relaxed permit on trash-to-energy"

Robin Davidov at New York Debate on Waste-of-Energy Incineration, Mar 2007

"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."

Sent 03/26/10:

Robin,

You wrote: "I don’t get paid to give presentations."

Who pays your travel expenses to go to New York to present the pro-incinerator side of the debate?

Reply from Michael ZImmer, Carroll County commissioner

Thank you very much for highlighting Ms. Davidov’s address. I hope it gets a great deal of circulation.

Michael Zimmer

Follow-up

Comm. Zimmer I will take your comment to mean that you are in favor of Ms. Davidov's lobbying on behalf of the trash incinerator industry when she is an employee of the State of Maryland. Would you be able to please share with us if she is getting paid for such appearances?

Maybe you know or can find out about her current trip to Australia?I'll repeat the questions here:

Who paid for her "vacation" to Australia?

Who's paying for her "vacation" expenses?

Is she also receiving some kind of stipend while she's on "vacation"?

If this is how she relaxes for "vacation" then why is she using her title as the Executive Director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority?

Doesn't her incineration lobbying have, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest and/or suggest the improper use of her position as a state employee?

Thank you for any information you can provide.

Reply from Michael Zimmer

I find much of what you shared to be shall we say skewed in the form of its rhetoric. I would expect some one with the educational and professional experience as Ms. Davidov to be quite in demand from out side groups. Your questions about her specific activities should be directed either to her or members of her Board of Directors. It is their responsibility to provide over sight to her agency.

I admire your passion but you don’t advance your own cause when you use skewed rhetoric.

Reply

I don't have the time to answer this right now, but I'm not sure how quoting from the contracts is "skewed rhetoric"...

Now Robin Davidov is in Australia — and I mean now

Sent 04/23/10:

On Wed, 11/19/08, Jan Gardner wrote:

"We have certainly had professional input from outside consultants who have no vested interest in WTE. In fact, I believe you will find our consultant work is from unbiased independent professionals. It saddens me that people think otherwise and have been lead to believe that we are not intelligent enough to make sure the consultants have no conflicts of interest."

Jan — How can Frederick and Carroll Counties get unbiased outside consultants when the people who will be in charge of the process (the officials from the NMWDA) are biased?

*****

From Ms. Davidov:
-----Original Message-----
From: rdavidov@nmwda.org
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Response to your questions

I will be on vacation April 14-29 so please send your work to cskaggs@nmwda org and Chris will start reviewing Thanks

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Blackberry

*****

But during this "vacation" Ms. Davidov is a presenter at Bringing Waste to Energy to Australia:

"As an accomplished speaker and a frequent panel member, Robin has an extensive understanding of the public acceptance criteria for WtE facilities and the methods best used to engage communities in understanding the environmental and economic benefits that a well designed WtE facility can offer."

Please remember the NMWDA's contract with Wheelabrator provides Ms. Davidov's agency with a very lucrative payment of ~1/2 million dollars per year if she is successful at her job of gaining "public acceptance".

Who paid for her "vacation" to Australia?

Who's paying for her "vacation" expenses?

Is she also receiving some kind of stipend while she's on "vacation"?

If this is how she relaxes for "vacation" then why is she using her title as the Executive Director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority?

Doesn't her incineration lobbying have, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest and/or suggest the improper use of her position as a state employee?

Does anyone have the answers to any of these questions?