projects and services

frederick/carroll county
renewable waste-to-energy facility

Frequently Asked Questions

Waste-To-Energy & How it Works

What is waste-to-energy?
How does waste-to-energy work?
Is waste-to-energy a renewable energy source?
Is waste-to-energy compatible with recycling?
How does the use of waste-to-energy result in a net reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG)?
Are waste-to-energy facilities good neighbors?

Waste-To-Energy & How it Works

What is waste-to-energy?

Waste-to-energy is a clean, renewable, efficient, and economical form of energy production and post-recycled waste disposal that also helps the U.S. achieve energy independence and decrease reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, to generate electricity.

Waste-to-energy facilities use municipal solid waste (MSW) as a fuel to generate renewable energy in almost the same way that traditional power plants produce electricity. The U.S. EPA has said that waste-to-energy facilities produce electricity "with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity" and "communities greatly benefit from dependable, sustainable capacity of municipal waste-to-energy plants." ¹

Modern waste-to-energy facilities use proven technology to take everyday post-recycled waste and convert it into clean, renewable energy by feeding mixed municipal solid waste into large power boilers through controlled combustion. The resulting heat energy produces steam, which turns a turbine-generator to produce electricity. The process of converting waste into energy is a key part of an integrated materials management plan that focuses on reduction, reuse, recycling, and recovery of energy.

¹ USEPA letter from Assistant Administrators Marianne Horinko, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Jeffery Holmstead, Office of Air and Radiation to Integrated Waste Services Association, 2/14/03.

How does waste-to-energy work?

Modern waste-to-energy facilities combust post-recycled waste in a highly controlled and efficient combustion system, recover energy from the combustion process, and are equipped with proven air emission control technologies that minimize potential emissions. Modern waste-to-energy facilities work very differently from old-fashioned municipal "incinerators" that burned trash inefficiently, had minimal, if any, air emission control systems, and did not recover any of the energy released during the combustion process.

The waste-to-energy process in modern facilities starts with incoming trash deliveries to an enclosed reception area where trash is unloaded into concrete storage pits. Overhead cranes then transfer the trash into a feed hopper to the boiler. Inside each boiler, an inclined, reciprocating, metal grate slowly moves the trash through a thermal (heating) process, where temperatures exceed 2000° F. The large utility-type boilers recover thermal energy in the form of high-pressure steam, which is then converted into electrical energy in the turbine-generator. With access to existing steam distribution lines, waste-to-energy facilities can produce and sell both steam and electricity. Air that is required to feed the combustion process is drawn from the refuse-receiving building, sustaining a negative pressure that prevents "garbage" odors or dust from escaping into the outside environment.

After the trash is completely processed, scrap metals are separated from the ash residue for recycling and the overall volume of incoming trash is reduced by more than 90%. The recycled scrap metals help offset the need to mine virgin materials for new products.

Is waste-to-energy a renewable energy source?

Yes. Waste-to-energy is a renewable energy source because its fuel - municipal solid waste - is sustainable and indigenous.

The U.S. Department of Energy recognizes waste-to-energy as a renewable energy source² as do 24 states in the U.S. plus the District of Columbia.³

Municipal solid waste has long been established as a renewable fuel and waste-to-energy has full renewable status under a number of statutes, regulations, and federal Executive Orders. These include: Executive Order 13514 of 2009;⁴ Executive Order 13423 of 2007;⁵ the Federal Power Act of 2005;⁶ the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000;⁷ the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act;⁸ and Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code.⁹

The United States Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution on Comprehensive Solid Waste Disposal Management in 2005. It said, "Generation of energy from municipal solid waste disposed in a waste-to-energy facility not only offers significant environmental and renewable benefits, but also provides greater energy diversity and increased energy security for our nation."¹⁰ The World Economic Forum has also listed waste-to-energy as one of the Eight Emerging Large-Scale Clean Energy Sectors in its Davos Report.¹¹

²US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=biomass_home
³Maryland Energy Administration. www.energy.maryland.gov/documents/meofinalreportjan2010.pdf
⁴Executive Order 13514 of 2009. www.ntis.gov/pdf/EO13514.pdf
⁵Executive Order 13423 of 2007. www.edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-374.pdf
⁶Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. www.ferc.gov/legal/fed-sta/ene-pol-act.asp
⁷Biomass Research and Development Initiative. http://www.brdisolutions.com/about/bio_act.asp
⁸Northwest Power and Conservation Council. www.nwcouncil.org/library/poweract/poweract.pdf
⁹Internal Revenue Service. www.irs.gov/irb/2009-19_IRB/ar07.html
¹⁰U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2005 Adopted Resolutions, Energy www.usmayors.org/resolutions/73rd_conference/en_04.asp
¹¹Davos Report. www.wte.org/userfiles/file/2009Jan_Davos_report.pdf.

Is waste-to-energy compatible with recycling?

Yes, waste-to-energy is complementary and compatible with recycling. Communities with waste-to-energy facilities often have higher recycling rates compared to the national average.¹² According to a recent study, in those communities with waste-to-energy facilities, recycling rates are on average 18% higher than the national average-recycling rate.¹³

In Europe, the countries with the highest use of waste-to-energy also have the highest recycling rates.¹⁴

¹²Kiser, Johnathan V.L. Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: The Ongoing Compatibility Success Story. MSW Magazine. May/June 2003. www.mswmanagement.com/may-june-2003/recycling-and-waste.aspx.
¹³ A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy Work in Concert. Eileen Berenyi, PhD, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc., prepared for the Energy Recovery Council (formerly Integrated Waste Services Association, IWSA). www.energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/file/2009%20Berenyi%20recycling%20update.pdf
¹⁴German Federal Environment Agency. Waste Incineration and Waste Prevention: Not a contraction in terms. www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3820.pdf

How does the use of waste-to-energy result in a net reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG)?

According to the U.S. EPA Decision Support Tool for Strategic Waste Management Planning, waste-to-energy facilities reduce GHG emissions by displacing the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation, avoiding possible methane emissions from landfills, and recovering and recycling metals.¹⁵ U.S. EPA also credits waste-to-energy plants with reducing GHG emissions from steel mills through recovering ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal (particularly steel) for recycling. Use of recycled metal to produce new steel significantly reduces energy consumption and GHG emissions as compared to virgin metal production. Overall, the EPA finds that waste-to-energy reduces GHG emissions when considering these benefits.¹⁶

¹⁵ Energy Recovery Council. Waste Not, Want Not. www.wte.org/userfiles/file/Waste%20Not%20Want%20Not.pdf
¹⁶U.S. EPA, "Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks" third Edition, September 2006; KA, Weitz, S.A. Thorneloe, PA, , S. Nishtala, S. Yarkosky, and M. Zannes, , The Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 52:1000-1011. Sept. 2002.

Are waste-to-energy facilities good neighbors?

Yes. Modern waste-to-energy facilities are good neighbors, operating in close proximity to commercial business parks, restaurants, marinas and other activities important to the community. The plants often contribute to increased economic growth and local quality of life enhancements and are built to eliminate nuisance conditions. Trash coming into a waste-to-energy facility is handled in enclosed tipping halls maintained under negative pressure to pull air and dust directly into the boilers and destroy odors. This prevents dust and odors from escaping the waste-to-energy facility building. Waste-to-energy facilities are also designed to enclose all stationary equipment and machinery indoors or within noise shrouds to minimize or eliminate noise.

Waste-To-Energy in Maryland, the US and the World

Do waste-to-energy facilities operate successfully in Maryland, the US and throughout the World?

Yes. Eighty-six waste-to-energy plants operating in 24 states safely dispose of approximately 28.4 million tons of municipal solid waste per year. These plants generate approximately 17 million kilowatt hours of clean, renewable energy per year-enough to supply an estimated two million homes. In 2006, this accounted for approximately 20% of the nation's non-hydroelectric renewable energy.¹⁷ New or expanded facilities are under development in Florida, Hawaii, California, Minnesota, and Canada.

Three waste-to-energy facilities are located in Maryland, currently managing all or a portion of the trash produced by many of Maryland's largest jurisdictions: Baltimore City, Montgomery, Harford, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties. These three facilities, located in Baltimore City, Harford County and Montgomery County, also accounted for about 17% of Maryland's overall renewable energy generation in 2007.

Baltimore's waste-to-energy plant has operated for 25 years, serving the disposal needs of hundreds of thousands of residents by processing up to 2,250 tons per day of municipal solid waste. The plant has an electric generating capacity of 60 megawatts - the equivalent of providing power to 68,000 homes - while also supplying steam to downtown buildings.

Waste-to-energy is a growing part of waste management solutions worldwide with more than 600 waste-to-energy facilities in successful operation around the globe.

In Europe, 216 new facilities, expansions, or retrofit waste-to-energy projects went into operation between 2000 and 2009. Market forecasts project 117 waste-to-energy facilities to be built in Europe from 2010 to 2014. Currently, waste-to-energy plants in Europe supply enough electricity to power seven million households and heat 13.4 million homes. There are about 430 waste-to-energy plants across Europe, some located inside European capitals, which in combination with recycling at the source, are critical components of an integrated and proven waste management system.

As part of its long-term waste management plan, Switzerland opened its latest waste-to-energy facility in August 2009. Today, there are 29 waste-to-energy plants in the country. Norway has banned landfilling combustible waste, and has six new waste-to-energy plants under construction as a result. Today, there are 20 waste-to-energy plants in this country.

Denmark has 29 waste-to-energy facilities in operation.¹⁸ Finland has two waste-to-energy plants operating and five others are under construction or advanced planning. Germany currently has 67 plants. Germany and other countries with advanced waste management systems and significant use of waste-to-energy, also achieve the highest recycling rates.¹⁹ These plants will utilize the latest technology to produce some of the cleanest renewable energy available.

Official European Union (EU) policy emphasizes reuse, recycling and energy recovery through modern waste-to-energy facilities. The EU has adopted a five-step hierarchy of waste management options to be applied by its 27 member states when developing their national waste policies. The first step focuses on waste prevention, followed by reuse, recycling, energy recovery options (modern waste-to-energy facilities), and safe disposal.

¹⁷Energy Recovery Council. The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants. www.wte.org/userfiles/file/IWSA_2007_Directory.pdf
¹⁸www.cewep.eu/storage/med/media/wastepol/242_Waste_to_Energy_Denmark.pdf?fCMS=8d321416b94a006308878fa27cd1686f
¹⁹German Federal Environment Agency. Waste Incineration and Waste Prevention: Not a contraction in terms. www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3820.pdf

The Frederick/Carroll Renewable Waste-To-Energy Facility

How will waste-to-energy work with recycling, composting and waste reduction to help Frederick and Carroll Counties meet their long-term environmental needs?

In 2009, after more than five years of evaluating long-term waste management alternatives to the current practice of trucking waste to other states, a majority of the Frederick and Carroll Boards of County Commissioners voted to enter into agreements with the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (Authority) to develop a 1,500 ton-per-day waste-to-energy facility. The facility will work in combination with the Counties' aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs as the most cost-competitive and environmentally sound solution for handling post-recycled waste.

Will the planned Frederick/Carroll facility produce clean, renewable energy?

Yes. The Frederick/Carroll County Renewable Waste-to-Energy Facility will provide environmentally safe disposal of post-recycled waste, while generating clean, renewable energy and valuable green jobs for Frederick and Carroll Counties. The facility is capable of generating up to 55 megawatts of electricity, and will export 45 megawatts or more for sale. This is enough electricity to power 45,000 homes, offsetting the use of 130,000 tons of coal or 500,000 barrels of oil per year.

The federal government defines waste-to-energy as a renewable energy source.²⁰ Frederick and Carroll Counties may choose to purchase a portion of this renewable electrical power supply to meet their long-term renewable energy goals at a lower cost than using other renewable sources of energy. The revenue from the sale of the electricity will be used to pay most of the debt service for the facility, which will significantly lower the cost of using the facility for taxpayers.

While the Counties will always need some conventional electricity, the waste-to-energy facility may provide most of the energy to power their publicly owned buildings (offices, water and wastewater treatment plants, etc.), and since waste-to-energy output is "renewable," these two Counties could be the first in Maryland to be operated on mostly renewable energy.

Adding new power to Central Maryland is also important for business and industry. Central Maryland struggles with electricity congestion issues. There is not enough in-state electric generation nor is there enough capacity within existing transmission lines to deliver additional electricity from out-of-state power plants. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has designated the Mid-Atlantic region as a "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor," recognizing that generation and transmission capacity needs to be increased. The waste-to-energy facility would provide a new source of clean renewable power to help relieve some of that pressure.²¹

²⁰US Energy Information Administration www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=biomass_home
²¹ Source: Maryland Energy Administration Outlook 2010

How will the facility's location support sustainable long-term trash and sludge disposal?

The facility will be located at Frederick County's McKinney Industrial Park, adjacent to the County's Ballenger-McKinney Sewage Treatment plant. The planned facility will utilize treated effluent generated by the County's Ballenger-McKinney Sewage Treatment plant for its process water and will thermally treat up to 50,000 tons per year of sewage sludge generated by the same sewage treatment plant, precluding the need to construct a $48 million sludge digester facility.

The McKinney Industrial Park was selected as the preferred site for the Frederick/Carroll County Renewable Waste-to-Energy Facility after a comprehensive analysis of potential locations. The Frederick County Division of Utilities and Solid Waste Management (DUSWM), the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, the Authority, and County citizens all participated in the evaluation and selection process.

The McKinney Industrial Park possesses a number of advantages, including its close proximity to a water source and an electrical substation, an industrial zoning designation, minimal traffic impacts, and the County's ownership of the land. The presence of waste-to-energy facilities at similar types of locations has helped lead to commercial and economic growth for neighboring businesses, industrial parks, marinas, and other enterprises.

The County's ownership of the McKinney site also precludes the need to purchase land to locate the facility, saving the County a significant additional expense. The McKinney site is already zoned as industrial land and is surrounded by a variety of industrial and commercial buildings. The selection of the McKinney Industrial Park location as the site for the waste-to-energy facility is consistent with the County's agricultural preservation programs.

Is the planned waste-to-energy facility a cost savings over alternative disposal options?

Yes. Waste-to-energy will provide Frederick and Carroll Counties with the lowest cost, most economically stable and predictable solid waste management solution when compared to the current practice of out-of-state, long-haul landfilling. The facility will eliminate both Counties' reliance on out-of-state disposal and unpredictable costs. As the host community, Frederick County's cost savings could exceed $420 million ($490 million with sludge disposal savings) over the first 30 years of facility operation. Carroll County's cost savings could reach as much as $229 million over 30 years. The Counties also benefit from economies of scale through their partnership.

Will this project create jobs and economic benefits locally?

Yes. The construction of the Frederick/Carroll County Renewable Waste-to-Energy Facility will create an estimated 1,678 private sector jobs in the region during the two and a half year construction period, including over 600 full-time equivalent construction jobs and an additional 1,000 jobs in supporting industries. Approximately 51 full-time jobs at the plant and more than 30 jobs in supporting businesses will be created during facility operations. The local economic stimulus during construction is expected to be over $260 million in local spending and additional positive economic impact, and over $12 million in local spending and additional positive economic impact every year for the life of the facility.²²

²²Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc., "Regional Impact on Output, Earnings, and Jobs Associated with the Construction and Operation of a Waste-to-Energy Facility, Frederick County, MD." (Westport, CT: 2010). Numbers are based on the Regional Input Output Modeling System (RIMS II) developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

How will the project be financed?

The project will be financed and owned by the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, a public authority that has successfully developed waste-to-energy facilities in Montgomery County, Harford County and Baltimore City. This precludes the need for Frederick and Carroll Counties to issue bonds to fund the project. Once built, 60% of the facility's capacity will be available to Frederick County and 40% will be available to Carroll County.

Instead of paying fees to out-of-state landfills to accept their post-recycled waste, Frederick and Carroll Counties will pay the Authority a fee each year to dispose of their solid waste at the waste-to-energy facility. The Authority will finance the project's capital cost through the issuance of tax exempt and taxable revenue bonds. The total bond size is projected to be $527 million. The Counties do not pay any of the upfront capital costs for this project, nor are the Counties responsible for paying back the bond holders. The total project upfront cost includes all construction costs, financing costs, and required reserve funds. The revenues from the sale of electricity and recovered metals will cover the cost of the project debt service.

Is the planned Frederick/Carroll facility compatible with recycling and metal recovery?

Yes. The Frederick/Carroll County Renewable Waste-to-Energy Facility is one element in both Counties' efforts to move toward a more fully integrated waste management system. These systems include aggressive waste prevention and recycling programs with ambitious goals for increasing public participation and materials' diversion rates. The planned facility is sized to meet the current and future needs of the two Counties and will complement the recycling goals of both Counties.

The planned facility will also recover approximately 15,000 tons of ferrous and nonferrous metals annually, which would not otherwise be recovered through the Counties' recycling programs. The recycled metals offset the need to mine and process virgin materials for new products.

Montgomery County recycled over 7,000 tons of scrap metal from its waste-to-energy plant in 2009. In addition, more than 700,000 tons of ferrous metals are recovered each year by U.S. waste-to-energy facilities.²³ If the166 million tons of MSW landfilled in 2005 in the U.S. were instead processed in waste-to-energy facilities, an additional 3,320,000 tons of ferrous metals could have been recovered for recycling, increasing the total amount of ferrous metal recovered for recycling from waste-to-energy to over four million tons. This amount is over one and a half times the amount of ferrous and other packaging metals reported by the U.S. EPA to have been recycled in 2006.²⁴

Studies have shown that communities with waste-to-energy plants have higher recycling rates than the national average.²⁵ For example, in those communities with waste-to-energy facilities, the average recycling rates are 33%, as compared with the national average of 28%.

Countries with the highest recycling rates in Europe are also the countries with a significant focus on waste-to-energy. (See also Waste-To-Energy in Maryland, the US and the World)

²³Energy Recovery Council. Waste Not, Want Not. www.wte.org/userfiles/file/Waste%20Not%20Want%20Not.pdf
²⁴Franklin Associates. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. 2006 Facts and Figures.
²⁵Jonathan V.L. Kiser, "Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: The Ongoing Compatibility Success Story." MSW Magazine. May/June 2003.

Will the planned facility be subject to federal and state oversight?

Yes. The planned Frederick/Carroll Renewable Energy plant with comply with stringent environmental standards mandated by federal and state law. Waste-to-energy is one of the cleanest sources of power in use today. An extensive State and Federal permit process which spans 18-24 months will provide numerous opportunities for public input and regulatory oversight.

Why have the estimated costs and savings changed between 2009 and February 2011?

In 2009, the Authority did a projection of Carroll County's avoided cost starting in 2016. The Authority presented a range of annual costs based on information it had at the time regarding fuel costs, CPI and the County's projected waste receipts. The lower band started at $9.4 million and the higher band started at $12.6 million. In February 2011, the Authority revised the cost estimates to reflect the stabilization of fuel costs and CPI, the current market costs for long hauling and disposal and the 2010 waste receipts at the County's landfill. The result is that the lower band for out of County transportation and disposal moved from $9.4 million to $5.2 million. This is before the March 2011 increase in fuel costs, so the next revision can be expected to be higher. The February 2011 forecast results in a Net Present Value Savings for Carroll County of $62.7 million.

I've heard people refer to the "special deal" or "better deal" that Frederick gets in the agreement with Carroll. When people use these terms, what are they usually referring to, and if they are misunderstanding the terms of the agreement, what are the facts?

They are misinterpreting some of the details of the agreement. Frederick County is the host community. In situations like this, it is customary for the host to receive a payment by the other users to compensate for the provision of public services - fire, police, road maintenance, etc. The host fee in this case will be a small percentage of electric revenues. This host fee reimbursed to Frederick County will be equivalent to the host fees charged by other Maryland jurisdictions providing similar services. Also, Frederick will be disposing of sewage sludge at the WTE facility, and because of this Frederick's revenues from the facility will be higher than Carroll's. The extra revenue for Frederick from the disposal of sewage sludge will come from the Frederick County Wastewater Fund, so in effect it will be a transfer of funds from one part of the Frederick County budget to another. Finally, because the WTE facility is located in Frederick County, Frederick's costs to haul solid waste from other parts of the County to the nearby facility - time and fuel and vehicle maintenance - will naturally be lower than Carroll's costs to haul solid waste over a greater distance.

What are the assumptions behind the financial projections that some people are calling "aggressive" and how accurate is this observation?

Some of the project costs are estimated or assumed, such as interest rates on the bonds, inflation rates, energy prices, etc. Frederick County hired an independent company to review all of the assumptions used by the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (referred to as the "Authority") - the organization that developed the projections and made a few changes as a result. The independent review is posted as a PowerPoint presentation on the Authority's website. The bottom line was that the Authority's assumptions were judged to be too conservative in some areas, and the Authority made the recommended changes, which resulted in substantial savings to Frederick County for proceeding with the project. The Carroll County Commissioners enjoy the same option of having an independent financial analyst review the final costs and projected savings before voting on whether to approve financing for the project. Such a review by a party with no vested interest in the outcome is completely appropriate and highly advised.

I've heard that there have been no new waste-to-energy facilities built in the U.S. for years. Why is this? Will WTE soon be replaced with a better technology?

The last brand new WTE facility in the U.S. was built in Montgomery County, Maryland in 1995. No new facilities have been built in the U.S. since then primarily for reasons having to do with energy prices and the cost of diesel fuel. However, there have been several expansions of existing facilities in the U.S. over the past five years including those in Lee County, Florida, Olmstead, Minnesota, and Kapolei, Hawaii. And brand new WTE facilities are currently being planned in Los Angeles, California, and West Palm Beach County, Florida, in addition to Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Poland and China. As the choices of waste disposal professionals around the world demonstrate, waste-to-energy remains a state-of-the-art technology and nothing better is on the horizon.

What is the "flow control" issue that concerns the waste haulers in Carroll County, and why are they concerned?

The term "flow control" describes a situation in which the County would ensure that Carroll County waste is brought to a Carroll County site so that it can be used in accordance with the County's waste disposal processes. If Carroll County were to remain a partner in the WTE project, flow control would become desirable in order to ensure that the cost of the County's waste and recycling systems are equitably shared by all residents and businesses in the County. The main benefit of flow control would be to keep the cost of waste disposal as low as possible. An alternative to flow control is a System Benefit Charge which is in place in Montgomery and Frederick Counties.

There would be two ways for the County to control the flow of waste. One would be for the County to keep the fees for haulers to bring Carroll County waste to the County site at market rates so that it would make good business sense for them to do that. The other would be to divide the County into waste-hauling districts and to contract with haulers to collect the waste in those districts and bring it to a County site. The County rather than the waste haulers would then bill residents for waste collection. (Most municipalities in the County currently operate this way.)

The haulers are concerned with this latter option because it would be a change in the way they currently handle non-municipal waste and they are not sure how it would affect their businesses. In fact, flow control typically helps small and medium size haulers. The County, however, is not considering changing the way waste hauling is currently handled.

Projects this size almost always have cost overruns. Do the WTE project's financial projections take this into account? Also, I've heard that Wheelabrator, the company that will run the plant when it is built, has guaranteed certain of the facility's expenses. What is involved in this guarantee?

None of the Authority's three WTE projects have had cost overruns. Wheelabrator has guaranteed to design, permit, and construct the facility for a fixed price, quoted in November, 2008 dollars, and adjusted by an inflation/deflation formula. This guarantee is reflected in the project's financial projections. Wheelabrator has also guaranteed a fixed operating cost at the facility for up to 30 years. This cost, of course, is adjusted for inflation/deflation, and includes all maintenance and replacement of equipment needed to run the facility.

Perhaps most importantly, Wheelabrator has guaranteed the performance of the WTE facility, including energy production, environmental performance, and residuals production. If the facility fails to meet performance guarantees, Wheelabrator must compensate the Counties for lost revenues.

I've heard that the ash that results from burning solid waste at waste-to-energy facilities is toxic. Is that true?

As you might expect, the ash produced at the Harford Waste-to-Energy Facility, which has been operating since 1988, and at the Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility, operating since 1995, is tested regularly for toxins. The results of tests from the period 2008-2010 show that the presence of toxins in the ash at both facilities is substantially below the regulatory limits of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The ash is tested for the presence of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver. At neither facility was a toxin present at higher than 45% of the regulatory limit, and in most cases the level of toxins was substantially below that percentage, with the average of the presence of all toxins at 10% of EPA regulatory limits.

I understand that the city of Harrisburg, PA built a waste-to-energy facility years ago and that the facility not only did not work as planned but has been a major headache for the city. Is that true, and if so, how would the Frederick-Carroll facility avoid the same result?

The Frederick/Carroll project could not be more different from the situation in Harrisburg. First, Harrisburg was built as an incinerator, not a waste-to-energy facility, and it was constructed in 1972 without modern emissions controls. When the U.S. EPA developed federal Clean Air Act standards, most similar incinerators made the smart financial decision to close, rather than try an expensive retrofit to meet the new standards. Harrisburg decided to retrofit its facility - and it chose an inexperienced company that had never previously worked on a project of that size. The company had so little experience that it was unable to obtain performance or payment bonds, yet the city went ahead anyway. The project encountered numerous costly overruns, and the inexperienced company went into bankruptcy protection - leaving Harrisburg to pick up the debt. The bottom line is that Harrisburg relied on faulty technology and the project was plagued by financial mismanagement, which ultimately resulted in today's financial crisis for the community.

By contrast, the Frederick/Carroll County Renewable Waste-to-Energy Facility will be owned by the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, which will be financing the debt. Here in Maryland, the Authority has an established record of successfully developing and operating waste-to-energy facilities for more than two decades, and hundred's of waste-to-energy facilities operate around the country and the world with no financial problems. For this project, the Authority has selected a contractor with the most extensive experience in the industry to build and operate the facility, and that contractor has the financial wherewithal to complete the project and operate the facility properly for many years.

I understand that the position of many who object to the proposed Frederick-Carroll waste-to-energy facility is that government should not be taking over functions performanced by the private sector. What are they referring to?

Right now, the waste disposal functions being performed by the private sector in Carroll County are collecting residents' trash for a fee that the residents pay, and then hauling the trash to a dumping site, where the haulers pay a fee to the owner of the site for dumping the trash. The disposal of the trash that is dumped at a Carroll County site then becomes the County's responsibility. All that would change after the waste-to-energy facility is built in that Carroll would dispose of the trash differently - burning it and turning it into energy rather than burying it. The haulers would continue to do what they are doing now. At one time, the Carroll County government considered dividing the County into trash-hauling districts and then contracting with local haulers to collect the trash in those districts, as some jurisdictions in Maryland and elsewhere do. That would have been a change in the current arrangement. In part because of the objections of local haulers and of many people who felt that the County ought not be taking over this function, the County decided not to consider further any change in the arrangement and that option is now "off the table."

It has apparently been proposed that rather than building our own waste-to-energy facility with Frederick County, we should simply truck our waste to a waste-to-energy facility in Baltimore and avoid all of the capital expense of building a new facility. Is that an option for us, and if so, how viable is that option?

There is an existing WTE facility in Baltimore City - the BRESCO facility - that was developed for Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County, and has operated continuously and successfully for 25 years. It is privately owned, and charges a "tipping fee" to all users. There is also a plan to build another privately owned WTE facility called Energy Answers in Baltimore City. There are several disadvantages for Carroll County's use of these Baltimore facilities, which are similar to the disadvantages of the current practice of sending waste to landfills in Pennsylvania.

Carroll County would pay tipping fees to the ower of these disposal facilities, but much like renting rather than owning a home, the County would not be acquiring equity in the project. By owning its own facility, Carroll County would pay the same level of tipping fees, but would be building equity and in addition would have a stable disposal location for more than 30 years. Carroll County would also be able to purchase electricity and renewable energy credits through a regional buying cooperative.

Carroll County currently pays host fees to Pennsylvania. These fees support recycling programs in Pennsylvania. By spending its disposal dollars at its own facility, the County would be investing in its own disposal/recycling programs instead of supporting programs in other states. And finally, the County's WTE facility would recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and all of the revenues would be credited to the County. Revenues from metals recovered at privately owned facilities are the property of the private owners.

Health, Environment & Safety

Are waste-to-energy facilities safe for nearby residents and the environment?

Yes. According to the U.S. EPA, waste-to-energy plants produce electricity "with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity."²⁶

Waste-to-energy facilities in the United States must operate in accordance with some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world designed to protect public health and the environment.

They employ the most advanced air emissions control equipment available, including acid gas "scrubbers," fabric filters to control particulate matter, an advanced nitrogen oxide removal system to control nitrogen oxides, and carbon injection to control emissions of mercury, and also dioxins and furans.

Scientific studies show that modern waste-to-energy facilities that are operated in accordance with state and federal regulations are safe. Human population studies indicate that modern waste-to-energy facilities do not adversely affect the health of communities in which they are located. In addition, risk assessments have been conducted for specific facilities to calculate the likelihood of adverse impacts from emissions. These risk assessments show that waste-to-energy facility emissions are well within, or lower than, the guidelines set by the U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies for protection of public health. Studies have also been conducted to determine whether measurable impacts to the environment occur in areas surrounding waste-to-energy facilities. These studies have shown that emissions from modern waste-to-energy facilities do not result in measurable increases of chemicals in the environment. Overall, the conclusions of these studies have found that modern waste-to-energy facilities are not associated with adverse impacts to either public health or the environment.²⁷

²⁶USEPA letter from Assistant Administrators Marianne Horinko, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Jeffery Holmstead, Office of Air and Radiation to Integrated Waste Services Association, 2/14/03
²⁷For example: National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. 2000. Waste Incineration & Public Health. NAS Press, Washington, D.C.; Public Health Assessment, Final Release, Ambient Air quality in Claremont, Sullivan County, New Hampshire, Prepared by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, December 16, 2009; Final Report Update of Health Risk Study for the Montgomery County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility, September 2006 www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/dep/solidwaste/documents/rrf/Update-Health-Risk-Study-2006.pdf; Jacques Whitford. 2009. Review of International Best Practices of Environmental Surveillance for Energy-from-Waste Facilities. Prepared for Durham Region, Ontario, Canada. Final Summary of Non-Air Media Monitoring for the Montgomery County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility near Dickerson, Maryland. Prepared for Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation. West Chester, PA. July 2000; AECOM Inc., Final Report: Report on the Third Operational Phase Air media Sampling Program - Winter 2008, March 2010.

Is ash residue from waste-to-energy facilities safe?

Waste-to-energy facilities reduce the volume and weight of incoming trash by about 90% and 75%, respectively. The bottom ash and fly ash remaining after the combustion of waste²⁸ is strictly regulated by the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). All ash must be tested for toxicity using the U.S. EPA-required Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).²⁹ The U.S. EPA reports that waste-to-energy facility ash consistently passes the TCLP test, despite the fact that the TCLP test greatly exaggerates the potential for compounds found in the ash to leach into the environment.³⁰ The proper handling and management of ash, including either disposal in a landfill, the most commonly used method, or reuse (for example as landfill roadbed and daily cover or road aggregate) ensures that compounds present in these materials are encapsulated and not released into the environment. ³¹

U.S. EPA studies also show that dioxin is essentially non-existent in ashfill leachate. Ash landfill studies conducted during the past decade show that leachate is like salty water, with a metal content at about the same level as standards for drinking water. ³²

²⁸ Bottom ash is the non-combustible residue collected from the furnace or combustion chamber. Fly ash is the residue collected from the boiler and fabric filters or ESP.
²⁹USEPA "Guidance for the Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash for the Toxicity Characteristic" EPA/530-R-95-036 (June 1995) and 40 CFR 262.11(c).
³⁰USEPA "Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash, Ash Extracts and Leachates" EPA/530-SW-90-029B (March 1990).
³¹For example: W.C. Ormsby, Federal Highway Administration, "Paving with Municipal Incinerator Residue," in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Combustor Ash Utilization (Oct. 1988); C.N. Mussleman et al., "Utilizing Waste-to-Energy Bottom Ash as an Aggregate Substitute in Asphalt Paving," in Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion Ash Utilization (November 1995); C.M. Jones et al., "Utilization of Ash from Municipal Solid Waste Combustion,+ Final Report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Subcontract N XAR-3-1322 (1994); F.J. Roethal & V.T. Breslin, "Stoney Brook MSW Combustor Ash Demonstration Programs," in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion Ash Utilization (November 1990); The 2002 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-energy Plants, J.V. Kiser (March 2002). C.A. Andrews, "Analysis of Laboratory and Field Leachate Test Data for Ash From Twelve Municipal Solid Waste Combustors," in Municipal Waste Combustion: Conference Papers and Abstracts for the Second Annual International Specialty Conference (April 2001). A. Andrews, "Analysis of Laboratory and Field Leachate Test Data for Ash From Twelve Municipal Solid Waste Combustors," in Municipal Waste Combustion: Conference Papers and Abstracts for the Second Annual International Specialty Conference (April 2001).
³²USEPA "Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash, Ash Extracts and Leachates" EPA/530-SW-90-029B (March 1990); see also C.A. Andrews, Analysis of Laboratory and Field Leachate Test Data from Ash from Twelve Municipal Solid Waste Combustors," in Municipal Waste Combustion: Conference Papers and Abstracts for the Second Annual International Specialty Conference, April 1991.

Do waste-to-energy facilities produce ultrafine particles?

Many natural and manmade sources are responsible for the presence of ultrafine particles in the environment, some of which have existed for thousands of years. These include household cooking, home heating, sea spray, pollen, motor vehicles, manufacturing facilities, fossil fuel-fired power plants, waste-to-energy facilities, and numerous other activities common to modern life. The appropriate context for a discussion of public policy, legislative, and regulatory questions related to ultrafine particles should include the full spectrum of sources, rather than focus on a single technology. Available data indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations in air from waste-to-energy facilities are much lower than background ambient air concentrations, much lower than those produced from some common household activities, and much lower than those resulting from oil and coal-fired power plants, residential heating units, and vehicle sources.

General Information

Do waste-to-energy plants produce enough energy to supply a stable source of electricity?

Yes. Waste-to-energy plants supply much needed base load renewable power to the nation's power grid. Waste-to-energy facilities operate 365 days a year, 24 hours a day and can operate under severe conditions. For example, Florida's waste-to-energy facilities have continued to operate during hurricanes. In the aftermath of the storms, they have provided clean, safe and reliable waste disposal and energy generation. Waste-to-energy facilities operate at an average of greater than 90% availability, which is higher than most forms of energy production.³³

³³Energy Recovery Council. Waste Not, Want Not. www.wte.org/userfiles/file/Waste%20Not%20Want%20Not.pdf

How can the Authority guarantee that the anticipated energy output will be met?

The Authority signed an agreement with Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. to design, build, and operate the facility for 20 years. The contract contains performance guarantees, including the amount of electricity generated from each ton of trash. The guaranteed amount of electricity that will be generated from each ton of trash varies based on the heating value of the waste. If the heating value of the waste declines, then the facility will have the capability to process more trash to generate the anticipated energy output. If the heating value of the waste increases, then the facility will process less trash to generate the anticipated energy output.

What happens if the electricity output is not achieved?

If Wheelabrator fails to meet its electric output guarantees, it must compensate for the lost revenues to the Counties.

What locations were considered for the Frederick/Carroll project?

The following sites were evaluated: the Reich's Ford Road Landfill, the McKinney Industrial Park, Mount Saint Mary's University, the Victor Cullen Center, Baldwin Road in Monrovia, ESSROC, TAMKO, the Offutt Property, EASTALCO, and a site owned by Potomac Edison on MD Route 28 in southern Frederick County. These locations were evaluated with a wide range of issues in mind including: industrial zoning designation, buffered area with access to a suitable and reliable water source, adequate land area for the facility, distance to an electrical interconnection such as a substation, roads and transportation impacts, and overall design, construction and operational costs.

How does the inclusion of biosolids in the waste stream in Frederick help the environment?

Sewage sludge, also known as biosolids, is the byproduct of wastewater treatment. Today, Frederick County biosolids from the facility are transported to open fields in the County and elsewhere, and applied in limited quantities for use as fertilizer. A permit controls the frequency of land application. By sending biosolids to the Frederick/Carroll Renewable Waste-to-Energy Facility instead, potential environmental concerns associated with land application are eliminated and the energy in the biosolids can be recovered to produce electricity.

How will traffic be impacted in the area of the planned Frederick/Carroll facility?

The facility is sited in the McKinney Industrial Park and will be close to major roads to avoid impact on residential areas. Traffic related to the waste-to-energy plant will represent only a small portion of the overall traffic on Route 85. A preliminary traffic study by a well-respected traffic-engineering firm found that Route 85 has adequate capacity to accommodate the expected waste-to-energy generated traffic. Improvements will be made to Route 85 near the facility should further studies indicate upgrades are necessary to prevent congestion. Traffic patterns will be thoroughly evaluated during the state permitting process.

How is the Frederick/Carroll County Renewable Waste-to-Energy Facility structured to protect the Counties from a situation like Harrisburg, PA?

The Frederick/Carroll project could not be more different from the situation in Harrisburg, which was caused by fiscal mismanagement, an inexperienced operator, and an inferior and much different technology. First, Harrisburg was built as an incinerator, not a waste-to-energy facility as planned in Frederick/Carroll, and it was constructed in 1972 without modern emissions controls. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed federal Clean Air Act standards, most similar incinerators made the smart financial decision to close, rather than try an expensive retrofit to meet the new standards. Harrisburg decided to retrofit its facility - and it chose an inexperienced company that had never previously worked on a project of that size. The company had so little experience that it was unable to obtain performance or payment bonds, yet the city went ahead anyway. The project encountered numerous costly overruns, and the inexperienced company went into bankruptcy protection - leaving Harrisburg to pick up the debt. Again, the bottom line is that Harrisburg relied on faulty technology and was plagued by financial mismanagement, which ultimately resulted in today's severe financial crisis for the community.

By contrast, the Frederick/Carroll County Renewable Waste-to-Energy Facility will be owned by the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, which will be financing the debt. That means neither Carroll County nor Frederick County is selling bonds or assuming debt. Instead of continuing to pay fees to out-of-state landfills that accept their waste, both jurisdictions will simply pay an annual fee to the Authority for solid waste disposal services. Carroll County and Frederick County are protected from the kind of debt situation that is facing Harrisburg.

Finally, there is the issue of experience. Hundreds of waste-to-energy facilities operate around the country and the world with no financial problems. Harrisburg is an aberration amid a multitude of successful facilities. Here in Maryland, the Authority has an established record of successfully developing and operating waste-to-energy facilities for more than two decades. For this project, the Authority has selected a contractor with the most extensive experience in the industry to build and operate the facility, and that contractor has the financial wherewithal to complete the project and operate the facility properly for many years.

projects and services

frederick/carroll county renewable waste-to-energy facility

Frequently Asked Questions

Waste-To-Energy in Maryland, The US & The World

The Frederick/Carroll Renewable Waste-To-Energy Facility

Health, Environment & Safety

General Background

Waste-To-Energy & How it Works

Waste-To-Energy in Maryland, the US and the World

The Frederick/Carroll Renewable Waste-To-Energy Facility

Health, Environment & Safety

General Information

frederick/carroll county
renewable waste-to-energy facility

The Frederick/Carroll
Renewable Waste-To-Energy Facility