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.
Permitting/Legal
Dickerson incinerator in violation
Sent 04/20/10 to Maryland state senators, Frederick and Carroll county commissioners and others:
"...blasting records indicate there were a total of 121 charges detonated on Saturday March 6, 2010 between the hours of 7:56am and 5:30pm, and 12 charges detonated on Sunday, March 7, 2010 between the hours of 6:35am and 9:17am."
Hello Honorable Members of the Education, Health, Environmental Affairs Committee;
I forward to your attention a letter from the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection. This is a warning letter to the Montgomery County trash incinerator manager regarding violation of the facility's Explosives Permit. The matter has been referred to the Mont. Co. Fire Code Enforcement Section for investigation.
More from Marion County, Oregon
Sent 07/05/10:
The following is part* of comments submitted as testimony for a 1/20/10 public hearing held by the Marion County Board of Commissioners to consider adoption of the 2009 Marion County Solid Waste Management Plan from Joseph Miller Ph.D Member, Board of Directors Oregon Chapter, Physicians for Social Responsibility (812 SW Washington Street, Suite 1050 Portland, Oregon 97205) and Associate Professor of Psychology Emeritus Saint Mary's College Notre Dame, Indiana 46556:
CONTINUED RELIANCE ON INCINERATION IS AN ECONOMIC THREAT
Incinerators pose major economic threats to communities. Early this month the Mayor of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania indicated that the city could run out of money in three months, largely because of payments that are due on $288 million in debt the city has racked up across time on its WTEF incinerator and various retrofitters and incinerator retrofits [5]. While trade industry proponents assert that the current Harrisburg incinerator -- retrofitted and operated by Covanta -- is "among the world's most innovative" and "state of the art," one proponent notes that "bottom line [the incinerator] is not making enough revenue to cover operations and debt." [6]
Harrisburg's financial status and the financial status of any other city or county that owns a WTEF incinerator will take additional hits in coming years as federal and state regulators tighten regulations on large industrial combustion facilities to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming, smog, and health impairment. Peter Montague made exactly this point in 2006 in his chronology of the Harrisburg incinerator when he noted that "if regulations on ultrafine particles, or mercury, or other emissions from the incinerator are tightened at any time during the next 30 years -- as seems inevitable -- additional retrofits and additional debt will become necessary" [7].
Stricter federal regulations are exactly what is playing out as the EPA announced in September, 2009 proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from large, stationary industrial facilities [8,9]; proposals in January, 2010 to strengthen emission standards for pollutants that contribute to smog [10,11]; and preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil in January, 2010 [12,13]. The EPA also announced earlier this month that it is "working to complete a dioxin risk assessment that has been under review for years. The goal is to have the assessment finished by the end of 2010. When it’s finished, the EPA will use it as its scientific foundation for future decision-making about dioxins in the environment" [12].
The EPA dioxin risk assessment currently in progress is partially due to a call by more than 100 organizations to President Obama in January of 2009 to mandate the EPA to evaluate previously blocked federal regulations for dioxins [14]. Such regulations can be expected to further increase the pollution control and operational costs of, and cost projections for, incinerators and ash monofills, and impact the feasibility and cost projections for proposals for the "beneficial use" of incinerator ash. If Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) for dioxins [15] were mandated in the United States as they are in some parts of Europe, WTEF incinerators would be even more costly to operate, but they would also emit fewer dioxins.
Contracts and the need to pay operational expenses and retire debt require that incinerators receive at least a stable and minimum amount of waste. Changes in our economy and society, however, increasingly threaten the ability of communities to meet their contractual obligations to supply a mimimum amount of waste to feed incinerators. Under such conditions, communities have to either pay higher tipping fees, import waste from greater distances, and/or pay financial penalties. Interrelated factors that jeopardize the ability of communities to meet their contractual obligations to feed incinerators include:
- decreases in the magnitude of the waste stream due to changes in the economy, employment and consumption
- decreases in population resettlement due to the economy
- increased commitments to conserving resources, energy, and water by residents, businesses and consumers
- increased concerns about the health and environmental effects of pollutants and global warming gases
- decreases in the production of goods and the size and weight of packaging
- increases in extended producer responsibility for packaging
Re the above, The Washington Post reported last April that in a number of communities across the nation, disposal is down and reuse and repair are up [16]. To cite just two additional examples, San Bernardino County, CA reported a 19 percent decline in the total waste tonnage between 2005 and 2008 [17], and "towns served by the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority’s Mid-Connecticut trash-to-energy facility in Hartford will see their tipping fees ... increase to $69 per ton starting July 1 because the volume of garbage the plant takes in is down [by 8%] compared to last year" [18].
Also re the above, OPB recently reported that because of the recession, diminished work opportunities, and other factors fewer people moved into Oregon in 2009 than in recent years [19].
It should be noted that the recommendations in Chapter 6 of the Solid Waste Management Plan are predicated upon more and more people moving into Marion County, and projected yearly increases in the amount of waste each person discards. Both assumptions look increasingly questionable.
THE HEALTH IMPAIRING EFFECTS OF INCINERATORS AND INCINERATOR ASH
Both the national and Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) are signatories along with hundreds of national, state/regional, and local organizations to the "No Incentives for Incinerators Sign-on Statement" [20]. The statement asserts, in part, that: "Incinerators are a toxic technology. Even the most technologically advanced incinerators release hundreds of distinct hazardous byproducts including dioxins, heavy metals, and halogenated organic compounds in the form of toxic air emissions, particulates and ash."
An extensive and growing literature exists on the health impairing effects of the pollutants emitted from municipal waste incinerator stacks and present in incinerator ash. Contributing to this literature have been organizations such as the British Society for Ecological Medicine [21]; Prevent Cancer Now [22,23]; the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives [24]; the Irish Doctors Environmental Association [25]; and a coalition comprised of the Pembina Institute in collaboration with the David Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Legal, Toronto Environmental Alliance, Canadian Environmental Law Association and Great Lakes United [26].
WAYS IN WHICH REGULATIONS (AND CLAIMS) CAN BE INADEQUATE, INCOMPLETE, MISLEADING
Representatives of incinerator corporations assert that the emissions from their facilities meet federal and state regulations, and thus imply that the emissions are safe, and do not impair health or the environment. What they do not say is that there are all sorts of ways in which these regulations are known to be inadequate, incomplete and misleading. For example [27-29]:
- while some pollutants are monitored, other pollutants are completely unmonitored
- monitoring may be continuous, but it may also be only on a six-hour basis once every year. Extrapolations made from such infrequent samples can dramatically underestimate day-to-day emissions.
- interactions and synergistic effects among chemicals are unexplored, even though research indicates such effects can be major
- timing of exposure is sometimes very important, and chemicals may have different effects at different points in development
- dosage effects may not be linear, and low doses can sometimes have greater effects than high doses
Re pollutants that are unmeasured, one of the most health impairing and deadly forms of particulate air pollution -- ultrafines -- are neither regulated nor measured under current regulations, and are released in vast quantities by incinerators. Such particles are incredibly small (between 1 nanometer or billionth of a meter and 100 nanometers, i.e., 1/100,000th to 1/1000th the width of a human hair) and have a very large surface area relative to their volume. Airborn toxins attach to this surface. Such ultrafines then get lodged in our lungs, or enter our blood stream creating various types of respiratory, circulatory and other health problems. [30]
More and more such ultrafine particles are being emitted from incinerators, because more and more products containing nanotechnologically engineered ultrafine sized materials are entering the waste stream. There are currently more than 800 such products [31]. As these products are discarded and incinerated, there is every reason to believe that the increased levels of ultrafine particulates that are emitted, and the properties of these ultrafines, will create increased levels of health impairment.
Engineered nanomaterials have unique properties. The organization Food & Water Watch, for instance, notes in "Sweating the Small Stuff" that "nanoscale materials are very different than their larger counterparts, with distinct electronic, magnetic, chemical and mechanical properties," and that "nanoparticles have the potential to bypass the blood-brain barrier" ... "the potential to pass the placental barrier" .... [and that] "once in the bloodstream, nanomaterials can circulate throughout the body and be taken up by organs and tissues." [32]
"Sweating.... " also notes that "the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks reported [3/10/06] that 'experts are of the unanimous opinion that the adverse effects of nanoparticles cannot be predicted (or derived) from the known toxicity of material of macroscopic size, which obeys the laws of classical physics.' " [32]
Because of their nano size and unique properties, and because they are unregulated, many groups have called for urgent precautionary research, regulation and oversight of engineered nanomaterials throughout their cycle of production, use, and disposal. These groups include the Environmental Working Group, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (UK), the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, the ETC Group, Friends of the Earth Europe, Food & Water Watch, the Soil Association (UK), the Science & Environmental Health Network, and many others [33], as well as former EPA official J. Clarence Davies [34], and insurance companies [35,36].
References:
[5] Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson inherits a city that's running out of money, according to a consulting firm - The Patriot-News 1/5/10
[6] Trade publication ranks Harrisburg incinerator among the world's most innovative - The Patriot-News 12/8/09
[7] Money to Burn - Peter Montague - Rachel's Democracy & Health News #884 12/7/06
[8] As Hill Debate on Climate Flounders, EPA Plows Ahead on Emission Rules - New York Times 9/10/09
[9] EPA New Source Review: Fact Sheet 9/30/09
[10] U.S. wants to toughen smog standards, putting clamp on Oregon cities - Scott Learn - The Oregonian 1/7/10
[12] Updated story: EPA seeks input on interim dioxin cleanup goals - Midland Daily News (MI) 1/1/10
[13] Development of Draft Recommended Interim Preliminary Remediation Goals for Dioxin in Soil - Superfund - US EPA
[14] Over 100 Organizations Call on Obama to Take Action on Dioxins - Center for Health, Environment and Justice 1/16/09
[15] Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs)
[16] A Trashed Economy Foretold: Intake at Landfills Has Been Falling - Washington Post 3/14/09
[17] There's even less trash in this economy - The Press-Enterprise (Riverside County, CA) 2/9/09
[18] Recession has brought decrease in trash, some hikes in fees 5/24/09
[19] Company's Data Shows Fewer People Moving To Oregon - OPB News 1/5/10
[20] No Incentives for Incinerators Sign-on Statement - Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) 2007
[22] Incineration and Links to Cancer - Prevent Cancer Now 1/09
[23] Health Effects of Incineration - Prevent Cancer Now 1/09
[24] Incinerators Trash Community Health - Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) 6/08
[25] Irish Doctors Environmental Association: Incinerators and their Health Effects 6/15/06
[26] Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste: An Update on Pollution - Pembina Institute in collaboration with the David Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Legal, Toronto Environmental Alliance, Canadian Environmental Law Association and Great Lakes United 5/07
[27] Can Chemicals Be Regulated? - Peter Montague - Rachel's Democracy & Health News #993 1/8/09
[29] Incinerators Trash Community Health - Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) 6/08
[30] The Deadliest Air Pollution Isn't Being Regulated or Even Measured - Peter Montague - Rachel's Democracy & Health News #915 7/12/07
[31] Nanotechnology-Related Environment, Health, and Safety Research: Examining the National Strategy - Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 117, Number 4, April 2009
[32] Sweating the Small Stuff: Nanotechnology Needs Research and Regulation - Food & Water Watch 1/07
[33] Precautionary Concerns about the Potential Adverse Effects of Incinerating Engineered Nanoscale Materials in the Waste Stream (Section 9) - Joseph Miller 1/09
[34] Former EPA Official Calls For New Environmental & Consumer Protection Agency: Technological Advances Require New Oversight - Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies 4/28/09
[35] Nanotechnology: The Smallest Big Risk - Joshua Hackett - Endurance Reinsurance Corporation of America Fall/09
[36] Insurers scrutinize nanotechnology - Environmental Science & Technology 9/24/08
*Edited in part to contain information of general interest. (Emphasis to this excerpt was added by me.) I will forward the complete testimony to anyone interested.
Review of the service agreements?
Sent to the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, County Manager Ron Hart and Assistant County Manager Barry L. Stanton:
As you know, I have had numerous questions about the contracts regarding the proposed trash incinerator for Frederick County. Very few of them have been answered. Therefore, I'm curious if the "upcoming Board meeting" as mentioned on 6/23/09 to review the service agreements has ever taken place. I do not recall this happening.
CPCNs or CPCN exemptions
Should the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority apply to the Public Service Commission for CPCNs or CPCN exemptions before beginning construction of generating stations in Maryland?
Sent 10/30/09 to the Frederick Board of County Commissioners:
I read the article in The Gazette regarding the intention of the BOCC to overturn the recent vote by the Planning Commission regarding the incinerator. How exactly does it work procedurally when one arm of the county government is fighting another? Does County Attorney Mathias represent the BOCC—and if so, who represents the Planning Commission? Does this proceeding take place in circuit court? Is it open to public view and comment?
Also, what exactly do you feel the Planning Commission did wrong with regard to their findings? It seems that they backed you up in your vote to not site the incinerator at McKinney Industrial Park. Also, the county's Solid Waste Management Plan still currently states that "waste to energy" incineration does not meet the county's environmental and economic goals. So I wonder how you feel the Planning Commission could have done a better job in their findings.
Thanks in advance for your responses. I know I am not the only one confused!
Response from Jan Gardner:
As noted in the article, John Mathias will advise the BOCC of choices for next steps to address the recent decision of the Planning Commission. He has not done so yet.
I certainly do agree with many of the comments of the planning commission members. I did not vote for the WTE facility for many of the reasons they noted.
However, the planning commission did not follow the law as outlined by legal counsel. The planning commission has a very limited role. I do think it is important for all our boards and commissions to follow the law including the County Commissioners. I fully recognize that some members of the planning commission believe they did follow the law. Our legal counsel would suggest otherwise. I have no interest in debating the legal nuances or getting into a legal debate by e-mail.
Since all of our processes are very open and public, next steps will be publicly discussed sometime in the relative near future.
I very much appreciate your continued interest in solid waste issues.
Have a Happy Halloween! And for those of you who live in the City vote on Tuesday!
Follow-up to Jan Gardner:
Jan,
You said, ".....the planning commission did not follow the law as outlined by legal counsel. The planning commission has a very limited role."
I understand that you don't want to get into a "legal debate by email" and I appreciate that. But, many people really don't understand just what the Planning Commission did that wasn't "legal." It would be good to hear more from Mr. Mathias on this......
You also said, "I did not vote for the WTE facility for many of the reasons they noted."
You DID vote for WTE, but just not at this site. Given the environmental concerns with a WTE facility (or landfill, for that matter), which site would you choose instead?
Response from Jan Gardner:
I understand that there is difficulty in understanding the legal viewpoint. Personally, I think Mr. Chomel was fairly clear at both planning commission discussions but also appreciate that others may not think so.
I did vote against WTE. The vote was 3-2 with Comm. Hagen and I dissenting. This is on the public record.
