Waste Not! Carroll

By Steve Cassis, From the Frederick News-Post

   It’s easy to understand why Harvey Alter is confused, as we all have been underinformed with details related to the incinerator issue. Even the name of the proposed regional Municipal Waste Combustor is confusing, as it is called a waste-to-energy (WTE) plant by the incineration industry.

   Waste management has dramatically changed since the proliferation of incinerators in the U.S. during the 1980s and ending in 1995. When disposable products became popular it was easy to toss cheap used stuff in the trash and forget about it. Plastic disposable products with a high heat value when incinerated create steam for turbines, generating electricity. The WTE would produce, after fulfilling its own energy requirements, a modest 35-40 megawatts in comparison with a power plant designed for the Eastalco site, which would produce 600 megawatts.

   When Alter states that “nowhere that I know of in the world has composting been a viable activity for managing the majority of the waste,” he is confusing composting trash, referred to as municipal solid waste (MSW), with composting just the organic fraction that’s predominantly food scraps. Composting MSW has not proved efficient or cost-effective.

   On the other hand, food scraps and related fiber (paper), which amounts to 20 to 25 percent of waste, can be composted effectively, creating products such as potting soil, green roof media, and soil amendments. Composting avoids methane generation from landfilling, costs less than incineration (food scraps are 70 percent water), and creates scientifically proven beneficial products.

   You can’t say WTE incinerators do not pollute; you can say they aren’t permitted to pollute as much as they did prior to 2006 when EPA, 40 CFR Part 60 Emission Guidelines for municipal waste combustors further restricted permissible emissions. However, post-combustion flue gas scrubbing cannot entirely eliminate pollution.

   Life Cycle Assessment is a reality of doing business in the 21st century, because waste minimization reduces production costs. This source reduction benefits business by saving material and energy. Recognized as efficient, Extended Producer Responsibility as well as sustainable packaging requirements by corporations like Wal-Mart cost Proctor & Gamble less to produce, reduce shipping costs, and generate less waste. Recycling of recovered commodities is cost-effective by saving 15 to 40 percent or more, compared to producing products from virgin feedstock, and waste as we know it will continue to decline.

   The 2005 R.W. Beck Report* predicted a 2 percent per year increase in waste, but that has failed to materialize as waste. In fact, it has declined every year since 2005. Would it be prudent to be contractually obligated for a 1,500 TPD WTE costing $500 million when we generate less than a third of the mandated waste? Economy of scale necessitates an oversized facility that would produce close to 450 TPD of ash and residual daily. Trash going in a boiler is constantly moving, so waste not completely burned exits as ash and residual that still has to be landfilled.

   No other community in the U.S. that doesn’t already utilize WTE has publicly committed to pursuing incineration. We appear to be the only local government still attempting to facilitate an outmoded $500 million inflexible reduction system creating approximately 40 full-time jobs. What’s required is an efficient, sustainable and flexible integrated system of elements operating in unison as a comprehensive system (relifecycle.org, Purpose and Scope, page 2) including recycling, composting, minimization, and a modern, low-volume landfill. This will be cost-effective and have the potential to generate hundreds of local jobs.

   (*frederickcountymd.gov search for 2005 R.W. Beck Report, pages 5-7, 5-11, 6-4)

   Steve Cassis

   writes from Libertytown.