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.

Strong Opposition from Frederick County Residents and Business Owners

This letter that describes the opposition of incinerators by citizens and how Wheelabrator hires lawers to quash this opposition.

What is Robin Davidov doing on Detroit's Public Radio Station?

Sent 04/21/10 to WDET FM, Frederick and Carroll county commissioner, and others:

Hello Detroit!

Last spring Ms. Davidov, the Executive Director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, was on your station (slide to 1:19:45) discussing the "pro" incinerator stance. However, you should know that things are not going well at home.

Ms. Davidov talked about how "carefully" the emissions are monitored for the Baltimore plant. Obviously, the EPA disagrees with her. Also please note, there is extreme opposition to trash incinerators in Maryland — Ms. Davidov did not tell you that.

Air pollution limits tightened on Baltimore incinerator

EPA says Maryland improperly relaxed permit on trash-to-energy

For the news release, click here.
For the EPA Order, click here.
For the Petition, click here.

See also http://www.wdetfm.org/detroittoday/entry.php?entry=691

Next, we'll chat with Robin Davidov, executive director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority. She'll discuss the potential of incinerator technology, such as its implications for the future of energy production.

Sent 03/28/10 to Robin Davidov, executive director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (NMWDA), Maryland state senators and other officials:

Ms. Davidov,

In testimony given on March 2, 2010 in front of the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee you stated,

"We have and I've been managing 3 waste-to-energy facilities in Maryland for the past 25 years. We know these facilities are safe. We do not receive complaints from neighbors about these facilities and I can tell you in the past 25 years I've been operating these facilities, I think we've received one complaint from a neighbor; it turned out not to be from the waste-to-energy plant." (MP3 file, at 31:09)

However, as acknowledged by the Montgomery County Planning Department (pg. 3) there are complaints from the neighbors at your trash incinerator located there:

"While the [incinerator] has many significant advantages for municipal solid waste disposal, it is not perfect. No energy generation plant that burns is emission free. Neighbors in the Dickerson area have reported problems with odors and stack emissions. Truck traffic into and out of the facility and occasional blasts associated with maintenance disturb the peace of the agricultural reserve. The Dickerson Area facility Implementation Group (DAFIG) was created to give neighbors a venue for interacting with County, Covanta, Mirant (coal burning plant located adjacent to the [incinerator]) officials to finds ways to improve operations and reduce impacts on the community."

And Ms. Jane Hunter is on the record about the problems:

"The most frequent disruptions are beepers of trucks backing into the dumping pits, Hunter said. When workers forget to close the trash pit doors, a garbage smell occasionally wafts to her house."
A neighbor reported an odor of burning trash to the county at 10:20 p.m. Oct. 6. A county report showed no malfunctions, and staff concluded the odor probably originated from a home wood stove. "Have you ever smelled a wood-burning stove?" Hunter asked. "It doesn't smell like burning trash." The incinerator odor is more like burning plastic, she said.
Steam erupts and whistles go off. Her windows usually have a fine ash coating. "It's entirely different than road dirt," she said.

Ms. Davidov, I hope you will correct the record — there have been complaints about the facilities you manage. And please consider this a complaint about your "public service". Communities in Maryland should not be subject to your exploiting their trust in order to benefit and support the trash incinerator industry.

Sent 04/01/10 by a Frederick County resident to Frederick and Carroll county commissioners; County Manager Ron Hart; Mike Marschner, director of the Frederick County Division of Utilities & Solid Waste; Maryland state senators and other officials:

Good Afternoon Honorable Members of the Education, Health, Environmental Affairs Committee;

I forward to your attention part of an email from a Montgomery County resident. This was in reaction to Ms. Davidov stating there have been no complaints about the trash incinerators in Maryland.

Thank you for your time.

"I was dismayed to hear that Robin [Davidov] testified before the Maryland Senate that there were no complaints from the Dickerson neighbors. From day one, we have steadfastly complained about the noise, the traffic, the night repairs, the ash that has been discharged, the rotten stench that we sometimes smell and how all our concerns are summarily dismissed and/or blamed entirely on either Mirant or more often the Montgomery County Yard Trim Facility.
From the first explosive cleanings conducted on the weekends ( there are 6 cleanings a year), we complained about the early start times, anytime after 6:00 a.m. We have requested on many occasions that we would appreciate Covanta waiting until at least 8:00 a.m. for the blasting to begin and better yet not to conduct explosive cleanings on the weekends. Of course, this fell on deaf ears and we were ignored as we always are. For 14 years we begged and pleaded until I finally called DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) and asked if the incinerator had to comply with the Montgomery County Noise Ordinance which was to have quiet hours from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays in the Agricultural reserve.
When responding to my question it was discovered that Chapter 22A dictates that there will be no blasting on Sundays. Guess what Covanta's response was? "We didn't know." A better question is why didn't they know? Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

Covanta could not bring themselves to even say they were sorry. Why should I be surprised when the [Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal] Authority supports their arrogance and overbearing attitude to the host community. I think their motto is that if you hate the incinerator as our community does, then we deserve to be punished as much as possible.

Please trust me when I say that the Authority does not try to work with the community on any issues and Covanta, their vendor, could care less if they are a good neighbor or not. Robin [Davidov] knows what goes on, but she chooses to ignore the host community once the operation is up and running."

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.

Sent 04/28/10 to state senators of the Maryland Senate Education, Health & Environmental (EHE) Affairs Committee, Frederick County Commissioners and Carroll County Commissioners:

Honorable Members of the EHE Affairs Committee:

Harford County residents also have some complaints about their trash incinerator.

Not that anyone wants to read the entire 1175 pages of the Harford Final Environmental Assessment, however, if you scroll to page 94 you will see the comments made by Maryland State Delegate B. Daniel Riley about the proposed expansion of the Harford facility.

He writes:

The issues remain the same as when the facility first opened. They are as follows:

  1. Smell
  2. Fly ash deposited throughout Edgewood Community.
  3. Truck traffic through the community.
  4. Traffic to and from the facility use Route 24 gate (only).

Increasing the size of the facility will only increase existing problems.

Ms. Davidov, would you like to correct the record about your statement to the EHE Affairs Committee?

[Attachments to e-mail: siren sign and complaint letter.

Response to another Frederick County resident:

Robin,

If the communities you serve wished for an incinerator, I am sure that you would be a very knowledgeable person to lead the charge. But overwhelmingly these communities have expressed opposition to incineration. The Montgomery County incinerator was originally slated to be built in populous Shady Grove--but people banded together and successfully fought it off. The people of Dickerson fought it too, including engaging in a lawsuit. Unfortunately, Dickerson's small rural population lacked the political power of Shady Grove, so the facility was built against their will.

To respond to your comment: Over 700,000 citizens of Maryland served by these facilities have not, in the past 25 years, complained about my public service or integrity.

I'm afraid that is just not true. The citizens of Dickerson, MD have complained steadily for the past 15 years that they have had to endure the malfunctions, toxic emissions, loud noises, expense, and visual intrusion of the incinerator on what used to be pristine rural farmland.

The citizens of Frederick and Carroll Counties have also complained steadily for the past five years that we don't want an incinerator. The contract is disadvantageous to us, it will cost too much, and we want to go down the Zero Waste path instead. Zero Waste is a mainstream notion now, proven to work in other communities. Carroll County's EAC voted unanimously to not move forward with incineration, but to implement green programs instead.

To put this in more spiritual terms, I hope you learn how to let go of the ego attachment you seem to have with doing things the same way, earning your living through the same means, and identifying yourself professionally with an outmoded means of destroying resources.... despite the fact that the world has changed around you.

Incineration is the wave of the past.

I hope you can now respond to ____'s question about how you plan to help Frederick reach its 60% recycling goal. Citizens are also upset with your lack of transparency and responsiveness to questions. Why must every question asked be made as a formal FOIA request before you will answer....and even then the response is inadequate?

To say that you have never received complaints is an untrue statement!

Thank you.

Sent 03/26/10 from Robin Davidov, executive director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (NMWDA):

Ms. ________:

I ask you to stop disparaging my professional reputation. For your information, NAWTEC is sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and I don’t get paid to give presentations, I attend these conferences, as any professional attends conferences in their field. My daily job includes managing two very successful, award winning, waste to energy facilities with excellent permit compliance records, and these conferences are an opportunity to improve my knowledge and experience. Over 700,000 citizens of Maryland served by these facilities have not, in the past 25 years, complained about my public service or integrity.

I respect your right to disagree with me, and I hope you will exercise the same courtesy to me in the future.

Sent by a Frederick County resident 03/25/10:

Subject: RE: mismanaged trash incinerators? (4th request)

County Commissioners,

Citizens and physicians from all over the country have been writing in to you, along the lines of the email below, for years. Residents of Dickerson have testified at our public hearings about how bad their experiences have been with the incinerator. Offensive odors, starling loud noises from regular explosive cleanings, visual intrusion from a 350' smokestack, increased trash truck traffic (carrying loads of trash or ash), toxic emissions, large fees on homeowners' bills--all this can be our special way of honoring the Monocacy Battlefield, site of one of the most important battles in the Civil War. Why are you proceeding with this nightmare?

Our public hearings, letters to the editor, etc. have overwhelmingly expressed opposition to the incinerator. A full cross section of the population is represented in this opposition: bankers, CPAs, environmentalists, developers, business owners ,scientists, parents, the Tourism Council, the National Park Service, Civil War preservation groups.....the list goes on.

In contrast, model communities like Nantucket have been presented to you which prove that Zero Waste works! They are so competent at source reduction in Nantucket that only 8% of the waste stream is sent to a landfill. There is absolutely no need for a costly and polluting incinerator. Does any community have the need to poison itself in the most expensive way possible?

Demand of the NMWDA that they show us how to be a green community—or stop being member counties! Ms. Davidov can't even answer a simple question from a resident about how Frederick County can reach its stated recycling goal of 60% recycling. Hint: it can't be done with single stream recycling alone. The Authority has done nothing to lead the way towards our recycling goal, much less towards Zero Waste. The reason for this is that they are lobbyists for the incineration industry. Ms. Davidov leads seminars for the NAWTEC (North American Waste to Energy Conference) in how to improve the image of incinerators to communities that are resisting them (which is all of them)! Who pays for her to do this? I hope it not my tax dollars.

We need to stop the financial hemorrhaging now. It is not too late to do this. Other communities have gone further down this process, spent tens of millions more before cancelling incinerator projects because local leaders were finally wise enough to realize that many hundreds of millions could be saved through the implementation of comprehensive source reduction programs.

We need to learn from the mistakes of others, not experience the repercussions of these mistakes by repeating them. I'd like to think we are smarter than this in Frederick and Carroll Counties.

Listen to your constituents....we only have the best interests of Frederick in our hearts and minds.

I've been writing emails like these for going on five years now.

Thanks again.

Carroll County residents realize this is not a good deal for them....

Sent 07/04/10 by Carroll County resident:

My alternative is for Carroll County to withdraw as a partner from the project and plan to contract with the WTE plant as an outside county regarding our trash. This suggestion allows Carroll County to avoid guaranteeing $240 million in loans; avoids guaranteeing payments to the plant operator for 30 years; avoids having to sell excess capacity to neighboring counties; establishes a fixed cost per ton contractually; and eliminates the risk associated with possible cost overruns and revenue shortfalls at the plant.

Explanation of WTE financial plan, sent 06/2410 to Carroll County commissioners and candidates and others:

Attached are two documents related to the financial plan for the proposed Waste-To-Energy (WTE) plant. The analysis document describes the details of the plan titled, “Conservative Electric/Full Plant.” The critique document shows my evaluation of the plan and explains why I believe it is not beneficial for Carroll County residents.

Commissioners: You are familiar with most of the information in the analysis since 6 of you voted to proceed with the project. Nevertheless, you may find some additional information in the document.

Candidates for Carroll County Commissioners: Five of you are going to be elected in November 2010. Most likely, you will have to vote on whether to fund WTE incinerator.

I suggest you read the analysis document before reading the critique as I think it will make more sense to you that way.

I wanted you to learn the details about the financial plan adopted by both counties and why I believe it is a detrimental financial proposal for Carroll County residents.

The existing plan for the WTE plant shows Frederick County cost as $45 per ton of trash and Carroll County cost at $85 per ton of trash and Carroll County cost at $85 per ton. Carroll County has the higher cost per ton because of the partnership arrangement with Frederick County and means that we will be subsidizing Frederick County. My alternative is for Carroll County to withdraw as a partner from the project and plan to contract with the WTE plant as an outside county regarding our trash. This suggestion allows Carroll County to avoid guaranteeing $240 million in loans; avoids guaranteeing payment to the plant operator for 30 years; avoids having to sell excess capacity to neighboring counties; establishes a fixed cost per ton contractually; and eliminates the risk associated with possible cost overruns and revenue shortfalls at the plant.

Hopefully, this information will assist you in making a final decision about the WTE incinerator.

Sent 09/28/10 to Frederick County commissioner candidate Kirby Delauter:

Mr. Delauter,

Will you please explain your statement since I still don't see the basis for increase in projected savings? Where in Mr. Marschner's letter does it explain why the supposed cost savings jumped from ~$42M to ~$422M? Also the only choices evaluated are long-hauling vs. incineration. No professional study of less expensive alternatives has been presented, just tax-and-spend incineration which has been promoted by the NMWDA.

Also, have you had a chance to read the financial obligations contained within the contract? You're on record stating the facility will not cost Frederick anything, but I hope by now you realize the electricity revenue will not cover even 1/2 of the annual costs to operate, maintain and to then service the debt of the facility. And basic economics tells us that tip fees can only be raised so high before haulers will take their waste elsewhere. (Isn't this what happened last year when CC raised its tipping fees?)

The only thing left to pay for this facility is the SBC. Is your campaign position one in support of this increase? Thank you for any clarification of your statement and your position you can provide.

Marlylanders don't want trash incinerators either

Sent 05/04/10 by Carroll County Commissioner Michael Zimmer:

There are also a number of existing plants in the UK. If one community doesn’t want one that’s their choice.

Michael Zimmer

Sent 05/10/10 to Frederick and Carroll county commissioners and candidates:

Yes Comm. Zimmer, a community should not have a trash incinerator if they do not want one. Hundreds of citizens in this community have spoken out that they don't want a trash incinerator next to the Monocacy River and the Battlefield.

A community which doesn't want a trash incinerator (especially a regional facility) then needs wise elected officials to see through the smoke-and-mirrors of the incinerator lobbyists.

We need elected officials who can see that the financial spreadsheets created by the NMWDA are incorrect, (I understand you were included on the emails which were sent by a CPA.)

Here in the good ole U.S. of A (including areas of Maryland), there are elected officials who understand a trash incinerator is not the best choice....

St. Mary’s County has long been interested in WTE. The Tri-County Council prepared a WTE feasibility study in February,1990. The feasibility study identified potential WTE facility configurations and energy markets that could serve the County only, and, alternatively, one that would serve St. Mary’s, Calvert, and Charles Counties. The conceptual facility described in the feasibility study included all of the environmental controls required at the time, including state-of-the-art air pollution control equipment. SMECO was identified as the likely energy market to purchase electricity produced by a WTE facility. The study concluded that WTE was technically, but not economically, feasible and implementation was not recommended.

Since then, factors affecting economics of the sale of electricity have not improved, with expectations that the contribution to a WTE facility’s economics by the energy markets would remain unattractive. Also, federal regulations resulting from the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act have added more air pollution requirements to WTE facilities, increasing costs. General inflation in capital and operating costs for WTE facilities also has been experienced. Finally, the cost of landfill disposal in large, private landfills is substantially lower than waste-to-energy options, even considering transfer station and long distance transportation costs. Therefore, it is not expected that the economic feasibility would be different than when the study was prepared.

IV-59
a. Mass Burn
Mass burn WTE refers to combustion facilities that receive loads of MSW directly from collection vehicles and burn the MSW with no processing. Several designs have been commercialized and constructed in the mid-Atlantic and northeast regions, and there are more than 75 facilities operating throughout the US. Mass burn facilities have heavy-duty grate systems to handle the wide range of particle size experienced with MSW. Mass burn facilities generate steam, which is usually converted to electrical power and sold to an electrical utility.

Facilities have been implemented with modern combustion controls and air pollution control equipment to ensure complete combustion of the waste and the ability to meet the USEPA's stringent air emission standards. Representative facilities implemented since the mid-1980s in the region in Maryland include Baltimore RESCO (2,250 tons per day), Harford County (360 tpd), and Montgomery County (1,800 tpd), and in Virginia - Arlington/Alexandria (975 tpd) and Fairfax County (3,000 tpd).

In-depth studies of WTE options and feasibility, as noted above, have been conducted for the Tri-County Southern Maryland region. Due to the capital intensive nature of WTE, the conceptual WTE facility option was sized to include projected quantities of MSW generated from St. Mary's, Calvert, and Charles Counties. Projected economics would be better for this larger facility serving all three counties than for a facility serving only St. Mary's County.

A feasibility report was issued in 1990 with findings and recommendations regarding this option. Report recommendations indicated that the economics of a Tri-County WTE project, as well as various constraints to its development in the Tri-County region, precluded its viability at the time. Capital and operations costs for the conceptual Tri-County WTE facility were projected to be substantially greater than those to operate the St. Andrews Landfill. This was reconfirmed during preparation of the County Solid Waste Management Plan in 1994.

IV-60
The County remains open to the concept of WTE; however, the County understands that the economics and development constraints since that time have not changed to a favorable position. In addition, invalidation of local flow control ordinances that restrict movement of waste to out-of-state locations, by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994, removed a critical mechanism that numerous other local jurisdictions relied upon to secure the economic success of WTE facilities. Separately, since the mid-1990s, additional large scale privately operated landfills have commenced operation in Virginia. These landfills have offered disposal capacity at lower costs than those experienced by St. Mary's County in operating the St. Andrews Landfill and have been significantly more competitive than WTE options. It is anticipated that mass burn WTE will not be a feasible option in the near future.

b. Processed Fuel
 Processed fuel WTE facilities refer to waste combustion facilities with energy recovery that first process MSW prior to burning it. The process facility can be contiguous with the combustion facility or it can be separate. One such facility is located in Portsmouth, Virginia, with a capacity of 2,000 tons per day. This facility, operated by Southeastern Public Service

Authority, receives waste from the entire Tidewater region of southeastern Virginia. Processed fuel, with a nominal maximum particle size of four inches, is delivered via an underground conveyor to a US Navy boiler system located across the street from the processing facility.

Ferrous metal is recovered and recycled and some (but not all) other non-combustible materials are removed in the processing operation.

IV-61
Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) operates two electric generating stations near St. Mary's County that could be considered as a potential user of processed MSW. PEPCO's Chalk Point Generating Station, located adjacent to the Patuxent River and Swanson Creek in Prince George's County, includes two combination coal and oil units, two gas and oil units, and six combustion turbine units. The coal/oil units are of the pulverized coal type, burning the fuel in suspension. This is a similar design to the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BG&E) Crane Station in Baltimore County that burned limited amounts of processed fuel for several years in the 1980s that were produced at an MSW processing facility in Baltimore County. BG&E experienced numerous difficulties with burning processed waste fuel and eventually discontinued it. In addition, revisions to air emission regulations since that time would preclude burning processed fuel without making significant upgrades to existing air pollution control equipment.

PEPCO also operates the Morgantown generating station in Charles County, adjacent to the US Route 301 Potomac River Bridge. This station has two large coal/oil combination units. PEPCO conducted a test to burn processed fuel several years ago. PEPCO identified operational challenges associated with burning processed fuel and ruled it out as being a desirable alternative to coal and oil. In addition, in 1999, PEPCO announced its intention to sell all of its generating stations, and to remain in the electrical power business as an operator of transmission equipment and as a provider of local distribution service. As a result of operational challenges and costs identified to burn processed fuel, air emission requirements, and PEPCO's business plans, PEPCO does not have an interest in burning processed fuel. It is anticipated that a processed fuel

WTE will not be a feasible option in the near future.

A summary of advantages for WTE includes:

A WTE facility will convert waste to a form of energy that has value to existing utility or industrial energy systems. When properly sized to handle only the portion of the waste stream that is not recovered for recycling, WTE facilities can be compatible with waste reduction and recycling programs.

Disadvantages include:

Few WTE projects are now being planned or constructed in the U.S. Table IV-2 includes the preliminary estimated costs of a WTE facility.

Reply sent 05/11/10:

Some more wise officials in Maryland....

And didn't some of us hear that we are already planning to burn tires to "supplement" our waste stream?

Dennis Fleming
DATE: March 20, 2008
Subject: Waste-to-Energy Feasibility in Charles County

Background
 At the request of the Charles County Commissioners, the Department of Public Facilities has been asked to research the feasibility of a Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility for the county's municipal waste. This very topic was explored on behalf of the tri-county council in the early 1990s with a regional approach in conjunction with Calvert and St. Mary's counties. It was determined at that time that such an endeavor was not feasible due to the large capital costs, operating costs, and lack of a volume of refuse from the three counties to offset these costs.

WTE is a preferred management practice from Solid Waste managers, but it faces fierce competition with landfills, transfer stations, and the ever-increasing waste by rail disposal options. In Europe where there was a concerted movement to eliminate landfills as a disposal option, WTE is a viable waste management tool. The proliferation of large, cheap regional landfills has all but killed WTE facilities in America.

Tetronics Ventures LLC has solicited the county via an e-mail seeking a joint venture of constructing and operating a WTE facility utilizing an emerging technology known as gas plasma arc treatment to process municipal solid waste.

Discussion
WTE is truly a viable option for managing solid waste while reaping the benefit of a much needed resource of electricity. WTE facilities gained a lot of momentum in the 1970s and 80s when municipalities were faced with dwindling landfill space and increased tipping fees. However, only one WTE facility has been built in the US in the past 10 years, and it was expansion to an already existing facility in Lee County, Florida.

The Montmorency/Oscoda/Alpena Solid Waste Management Authority in Michigan is considering a WTE facility in Michigan using gasification technology, but admits that the cost for doing so will raise tipping fees $30-$50 per ton.

In 1994 the Supreme Court made a landmark decision when it ruled that municipal waste was a commodity and therefore subject to the free enterprise system. The resulting impact was that haulers were now able to dispose of waste wherever they so chose and were not subject to flow control legislation. This legislation had mandated that waste collected at certain geographic locales were to be disposed at municipally designated disposal points. This action proved to be the death knell of WTE plants in America. WTE plants are expensive to operate, and typically charge $70-$100 per ton and accept upwards of 1000 tons per day to be economically feasible. Large private landfills were built to accept waste at $20-$30 per ton, jeopardizing the economics of WTE facilities. Many municipalities, including local jurisdictions such as Fairfax and Montgomery counties, were suddenly faced with sharp declines in waste that was previously disposed at their facilities. Faced with servicing large capital debt and high operating costs, their solid waste programs burdened local governments financing. As a result, many of the local facilities have had to impose additional taxes and fees to offset these losses. Many have sought alternative fuels such as tires to supplement their waste stream in an effort to stay operable.

The Maryland counties of Fredrick and Carroll are currently considering a WTE plant at a cost of $323 million for a 1,500 ton per day facility. The economics for this operation have yet to be determined.

WTE plants have been under increased scrutiny by environmentalists for their smoke stack emissions, primarily mercury. Permitting a WTE facility is very costly, tedious, and time consuming and has ramifications for political backlash for elected officials.

Recommendation
 Charles County landfilled 60,000 tons of waste in calendar year 2007. WM, the county's largest trash hauler, hauled 37,000 tons of waste out-of-county in the same year. The average daily tonnage to the county landfill as a result is about 210 tons. With WTE plants requiring 1,000-3,000 tons per day and operating at approximately $70-$90 per ton, it is readily apparent that any potential facility would require a regional approach. Further aggravating the situation is the fact that neighboring King George County is currently accepting waste for $35-40 per ton. Any WTE facility to be built in Charles County would require flow control legislation to mandate that waste leaving the county be directed to the WTE facility. This would prove burdensome and due to the legal ramifications that this waste currently flows across state lines into Virginia; it would be a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's decision.

It is the recommendation of DPF staff that any further discussion of a WTE facility would be done in the context of a regional approach and is more than likely not going to be any more successful that it was 15 years ago. Emerging technologies include plasma gasification as well as waste-to-ethanol facilities, but both technologies are expensive and unproven. The waste industry is closely monitoring any development in this new technology with a plant that will soon be built in Florida. Until then, it is the recommendation of staff that we pursue the current goal of waste transfer/land disposal as the most cost effective and politically palatable disposal methods.

Reply from Michael Zimmer 05/11/10:

Thank you for that additional context. I’ll see if I can’t find some information about the Durham region in Ontario Canada and their decision to build a new WTE plant. Perhaps you are familiar with the new replacement plant currently being sited in Harford County Maryland. I’ll try to get some additional background on that project for you as well.

Thanks for continuing to discuss this topic. It is extremely important to discuss. I’m eager to continue to do so.

Fllow-up 05/11/10:

Comm. Zimmer, you said, "Perhaps you are familiar with the new replacement plant currently being sited in Harford County Maryland. I’ll try to get some additional background on that project for you as well."

Perhaps you missed this information the first time I provided it to you about the Harford trash incinerator expansion.

"The existing facility is approaching the end of its useful life which will make complete upgrades uneconomical and unsuccessful at achieving an increase in operational efficiency." (Scroll to 29: Harford Final Environmental Assessment. )

And please note these comments,

"The normal useful life of such facilities is at least 30 years..."

"The existing combustion and process equipment will approach its projected service life in 2016..."

"The Harford County Waste to Energy Facility, now an Authority owned facility, began operations in 1988." - from the NMWDA website

So, "these facilities" are suppose to have "at least" a 30 year life, but the Harford facility is only going to have been in service 28 years when it's worn out.

Comm. Zimmer - will the NMWDA's trash incinerator which is to be located in Frederick reach its "projected service life" before the bonds are paid off? I didn't see any guarantees in our contract about the life expectancy of this facility.

AND:

Harford County residents also have some complaints about their current trash incinerator. Please scroll to 38 Harford Final Environmental Assessment.

"Some nearby residents have reportedly noted odor from the existing [WoE] facility. Most likely this emanates from the waste receiving and storage areas of the facility."

AND:

If you scroll to page 94 of the Harford Final Environmental Assessment, you will see the comments made by Maryland State Delegate B. Daniel Riley about the proposed expansion of the Harford facility.

Del. Riley writes:

The issues remain the same as when the facility first opened. They are as follows:

  1. Smell
  2. Fly ash deposited throughout Edgewood Community.
  3. Truck traffic through the community.
  4. Traffic to and from the facility use Route 24 gate (only).

Increasing the size of the facility will only increase existing problems.

So it appears the wise politicians listen to their constituents. (Thank you Del. Riley.)

When is the location of the trash incinerator going to be put on the BoCC's agenda?

Sent 05/13/10 to Frederick County commissioners:

Hello BoCC:

Considering the position statements of Kai, Blaine and Lennie, when is the location of the trash incinerator going to be put on the BoCC's agenda?

From December 2007:

"According to Frederick Commissioner Lennie Thompson the current plan — is not an equal partnership. You're shifting the entire political issue from Carroll County to Frederick County and Frederick County gets all the grief. The only way you can make an equal partnership is to site it on the border of Carroll and Frederick counties."

AND

Sent 03/03/10 by Lennie Thompson, Frederick County commissioner:

Madam President:

During our June 23, 2009 administrative business session , a majority of the BOCC (Commissioners Gray, Jenkins & Thompson) approved a motion that, inter alia, selected the McKinney site for the County's contemplated waste-to energy ("WTE") facility. The BOCC's meeting minutes for that day are on the web.

The BOCC formalized its selection of the McKinney site on July 9, 2009 by the adoption of Resolution #09-19, which is on the web.

Commissioner Gray and myself continue to support the McKinney site. However, with the departure of Commissioner/Delegate Jenkins and from the public statements made by Commissioners Gardner, Hagen & Young, the McKinney site no longer enjoys the support of a majority of the BOCC.

I am concerned that political pressure from anti-WTE activists to abandon the McKinney site will intensify as we get closer to election day. If there is to be a volte face on the McKinney site, it will be far less costly if it comes sooner rather than later.

I respectfully request that you place the reconsideration of the following BOCC actions on a future work session agenda:

As I understand it, the mechanics of a reconsideration would go something like this:

Thank you very much for considering my request.

Lennie

And Jan, are you still against the McKinney location for the NMWDA's trash incinerator?

Sent 05/14/10 to Jan Gardner, Frederick County commissioners president; Frederick County commissioners; and others:

Comm. Gardner,

As Comm. Thompson has requested, when will the reconsideration of the June 23, 2009 motion selecting the McKinney site be on the agenda?

Most Endangered Battlefields 2010

"Monocacy, Maryland – July 9, 1864

Despite community outcry and deep divides in the local government, the Frederick County Board of Commissioners has approved construction of a trash incinerator, complete with 350-foot smokestack adjacent to the Monocacy River, opposite the battlefield’s historic Worthington Farm. Two bills that would have blocked incinerators so close to national parks have failed in the state legislature."