More News

Susan Chapman has one key message for Frederick County commissioners — scratch the proposed incinerator and look for other ways to dispose of trash.

"We, the citizens of Frederick County, deserve greener alternatives," she told commissioners during a Feb. 19 hearing. "… We don't want an incinerator, we deserve greener alternatives."

Commissioners heard many similar messages during the hearing on the proposed incinerator for Frederick and Carroll counties, but few viable alternatives.

So after Chapman finished her comments, Commissioner David P. Gray (R) challenged incinerator opponents to name specific alternatives they could support that would dispose of non-recyclable, non-divertible waste.

"I'd like to hear from people what they consider to be a greener alternative," Gray said.

Nearly three hours after his request, Gray took stock of opponents' answers, and by his count only four speakers answered his challenge, suggesting the county continue trucking trash out of state or build another landfill.

As board members contemplate when to move forward with a vote on the incinerator proposal, they are also considering several alternative means of disposing of the county's hundreds of tons of daily waste output — including those that residents suggested last week.

Because of limitations on the county's legislative authority, the inability of certain materials to be recycled and other considerations, the view of most board members is that recycling and diversion efforts alone will not be adequate to deal with all the waste the county produces.

Since 2000, Frederick County has shipped nearly all its trash by truck from the landfill on Reichs Ford Road in Frederick to landfills in Virginia.

Many incinerator opponents support continuing to truck the county's waste away to out-of-state landfills for a number of years, while the county waits for single-stream recycling and other waste reduction measures to take full effect.

That way, they argue, the county will not find itself with too large a facility for the significantly decreased waste-stream its residents will most likely produce once the programs are fully implemented. After a trial period for the single-stream program and any new waste reduction initiatives, the county should then re-evaluate its waste disposal needs, they argue.

These opponents often point to the new "green" era of increased environmental awareness and the far-reaching effects it could have on both waste reduction, and means of dealing with leftover solid waste.

"I think we should continue with out-of-state trucking," Tom Herrity of Adamstown said Thursday. "Let's let the recycling get legs under itself before we commit $500 million to build and incinerator."

RW Beck report

But a September 2005 report prepared by consultant RW Beck on behalf of the county suggests that the estimated cost to continue to truck waste out of the state costs too much.

When factoring in expected gas price increases beyond the 2005 levels — which in September 2005 were $2.74 per gallon, according to www.GasBuddy.com — the overall cost to the county of shipping its waste out of state would be about $628 million between 2005 and 2031, as opposed to the 2005 estimate for the waste-to-energy facility option, which ranges from $596 million to $599 million depending on how much capacity is used, according to the report.

Building a landfill is another option, according to commissioners President Jan H. Gardner (D).

But Commissioner John "Lennie" Thompson Jr. (R) said that building a landfill is a non-starter for the county, which has considered such an undertaking before.

"It's going to come down to our best estimate as to what the long-term costs are for a waste-to-energy facility versus the long-term costs of hauling it out of state. No one is going to build a land fill," he said.

The 2005 RW Beck report laid out a key reason why the county considers a landfill to be a less-than-desirable option: timing.

"[I]t could require as many as ten years to site, purchase, permit, design and construct a new landfill," the report says.

Ted Michaels, president of the Integrated Waste Services Association, which, according to its Web site is "a national trade organization representing the waste-to-energy industry and communities that own waste-to-energy facilities," cites the sustainability of building a waste-to-energy facility over other options.

Once the county pays off the incinerator, it will still have a means to deal with its waste, but other options would require higher ongoing costs.

"Landfilling is obviously not a sustainable option for Frederick County. Neither is hauling it out," he said.

Other alternatives

A third possibility looked at in the 2005 RW Beck report is the combination of a composting facility and either out-of-state hauling or landfilling.

Though both revealed cost savings of more than $15 million in the 2005 to 2031 period, the report said the cost estimates were "very conceptual in nature," and stated concerns that "to the extent that it is necessary for the county to pay some party to take some or all of the compost produced from municipal solid waste, the cost of the project would increase."

But incinerator opponents have more options for waste disposal that they would like the county to consider before pouring more than half a billion dollars into constructing an incinerator.

One of the most popular ideas opponents cite is for the county to wait several years for its recycling and other waste-reduction programs to go into full effect.

That way, officials could monitor any changes in consumer and manufacturers' behavior, and to see if any new waste disposal technologies — some of which are already being developed or are already in use — turn out to be a better option.

During this interim period, they say the county could continue to ship excess waste out of state. Coupled with this, most incinerator opponents said the county should focus more energy and effort into recycling, resource recovery, composting and other diversion programs.

"In our meetings in the community and speaking to our members this summer and last summer, we asked that the commissioners consider a five-year moratorium," said Andrew Galli, Maryland Program Coordinator for the Clean Water Fund, a national environmental nonprofit. "There are some technologies out there that are coming onto the market. I think that there's probably something out there that can address the waste that remains [after recycling and resource recovery is exhausted]."

No legislative authority

But Thompson said Tuesday that even with ramped-up recycling, composting, and other waste-reduction and diversion programs, it is inevitable that for many years to come, some leftover waste will need to be disposed of in more traditional ways.

According to Thompson and Gardner, the county does not have the legislative authority to pursue several recycling programs that could reduce the waste-stream, such as mandatory recycling or pay-as-you-throw and bottle deposit programs.

"We are trying to do a comprehensive job of expanding our recycling and diversion efforts, but we need to figure out what to do with what's left," Gardner said Tuesday night.

The county has asked the state delegation to bring such waste-reducing measures forward for seven to eight years in a row, but has been unable to get such legislation passed, she said.

"If you're in favor of mandatory recycling … we do not have the authority from the General Assembly to make people recycle," Thompson told the crowd on Feb 19. " … We do not have legislative authority under the county commissioners form of government to do pay-as-you-throw … though we'd like to do that or to do mandatory recycling. … We have done as much as we can do with voluntary efforts, we can not make people recycle."

However, Commissioner Kai J. Hagen (D) and many incinerator opponents argued that the county could do more to reduce and divert waste despite its limited authority.

"Even with the legislative authority we have … it's not fair to say we've done everything we can do … with what we can do legally to improve our recycling," he said Thursday.

E-mail Connor Adams Sheets at csheets@gazette.net.