Chesapeake Currents|Online, Summer 2009

In Western Maryland, the Frederick County Board of Commissioners is considering building a solid waste incinerator, and hoping to do so in partnership with Carroll County. During the past few years, over 3,000 Clean Water Action members, staff and allies have been working to persuade the Board to scrap the idea, or at least institute a 5 year moratorium on its construction to study alternative solutions like a Resource Recovery Park for waste diversion and recycling.

On February 3rd incinerator proponents and industry representatives confirmed in a 500 plus page report issued a few days earlier, that the incinerator would cost $527 million, a $200 million jump in the three years since Frederick officials had been discussing the project. Under the report's proposed scenario, Frederick's would pay $316 million (about 60 percent) of the cost, with Carroll County paying the rest.

The proposed incinerator would burn 1,500 tons of trash per day, with 900 tons of that waste coming from Frederick County. Skeptics believe that incinerator advocates are planning for a regional facility. Frederick's population would have to double to reach the amount of waste required for the operation of the incinerator at the proposed capacity. Contrary to all official prior statements that Frederick would be able to handle the capacity, now these same officials admitted that other jurisdictions would have to assist the county with its 900 tons, and that they "knew" Howard and Washington Counties were interested. In addition, the proposed incinerator would generate 450 tons of highly toxic ash to be dumped at a landfill.

On February 17th and 19th public hearings were held for citizens to respond to the proposed incinerator as outlined in the report. Clean Water Action staff and over 200 people spoke with some 500 attending in the two days. Of all those speaking on the two days those individuals speaking in favor of the incinerator numbered less than ten. Concerns expressed included cost, health, environmental damage and facility siting.

Public outcry was so strong during the hearing that on March 4th, two commissioners who have expressed support for the incinerator announced they had contacted a company regarding an alternative process for dealing with solid waste called Arrowbio, and would be attending a conference later that month on alternatives to incineration of solid waste.

That announcement bodes well for consideration of alternatives to an incinerator, but this can't be a one-time consideration of a single alternative by the Commissioners. It will take between 6 and 8 years before an incinerator could be built and made operational. During this timeframe, it is nearly certain that both behaviors and technologies will increase waste reduction and re-use.

Six potential locations have been discussed, with the currently expressed favorite site one that is adjacent to a national park (the Monocacy Civil War Battlefield.)

In response, State Senator Alex Mooney introduced a bill in the state legislature in Annapolis that would prohibit the issuing a permit to construct an incinerator located within one mile of a National Park. Clean Water Action staff and Frederick allies testified in favor of the bill, and though unsuccessful, it is likely to be re-introduced in the 2010 session.

In addition, community residents and environmental advocates held a highly successful "Waste Not Expo" at a local high school to exhibit and discuss alternatives to incineration with expert speakers from Eco-Cycle in Denver and Sierra Club of Toronto, Canada.

Today, sustainability, waste reduction, recycling and reuse are front and center of community issues. Both citizens and industry better understand the cost and harmful effects of green house gases and the concept of the carbon footprint. They understand that mass burn incinerator technology belongs to a bygone era evidenced by the fact that communities are unwilling to accept the financial, environmental and public health liabilities of incineration. Clean Water Action has advocated for and proved that alternative plans to incineration, having the opportunity for consideration have resulted in communities choosing such alternative. In the United States, Canada and around the world communities continue to reject waste incineration proposals and implement alternative solid waste management technologies. Once the decision making process becomes transparent, communities engaged, and alternative options genuinely reviewed, incineration is rejected.

Clean Water Action, its Frederick membership and residents will continue to call on County Commissioners to institute a 5-year moratorium on the construction of any incinerator and study alternative solutions based on other technologies, good science and the creation of a state of the art Resource Recovery Park for waste diversion and recycling.

In this issue of Chesapeake Currents|Online:

Keep Virginia Uranium Mining Ban
Uranium and mining industry lobbying to lift a twenty-five year ban on uranium mining persuaded Clean Water Action and allies to mount a counter-effort that will last at least through the 2009 election year, and likely into the 2010 legislative session. Clean Water Action involvement stepped up following a Virginia state panel vote for a uranium study after a House of Delegates panel had killed a similar proposal during the 2008 session. The renewed prospect of uranium mining was initially generated by Virginia Energy Plan 2007, a plan on meeting future energy needs developed by the administration of Governor Tim Kaine under a General Assembly mandate.

Climate Crisis Bill Passes Maryland Legislature
The warming up of the planet poses tremendous challenges for the entire world. For America's Atlantic coast, rising sea levels will dramatically affect shorelines, with increasing flooding, droughts and severe storms having devastating consequences for water quality, quantity and residents of the region. Maryland's 3100 miles of coastline make it the fourth most vulnerable state to the coastal effects of climate change.

Incinerator Battle Heats Up
In Western Maryland, the Frederick County Board of Commissioners is considering building a solid waste incinerator, and hoping to do so in partnership with Carroll County. During the past few years, over 3,000 Clean Water Action members, staff and allies have been working to persuade the Board to scrap the idea, or at least institute a 5 year moratorium on its construction to study alternative solutions like a Resource Recovery Park for waste diversion and recycling.

For California Woman, Protecting A River Can Cost You A Job
Heather Wylie traded her job for a river. And, given the choice, she'd do it again.

During the summer of 2008, Wylie joined a handful of protestors for a canoe and kayak trip down the LA River, earning the wrath of her employers and the attention of a nation. Why? At the time, Wylie was a biologist with the US Army Corps of Engineers. The agency had just declared the LA River as not navigable--a designation that put the watershed at risk and would have set a.dangerous precedent. Wylie and her compatriots were making their voyage to prove the Army Corps wrong. If their fleet could make the journey, they reasoned, then the LA River must be in-fact navigable, a critical first step in retaining Clean Water Act safeguards for the LA River system.

Restoring the Clean Water Act Must Top Congress' Agenda
Restoring the ability of the Clean Water Act to protect water resources must top Congress' water agenda. Supreme Court and agency decisions put at risk Clean Water Act protections for headwater, intermittent and ephemeral streams that supply drinking water systems that serve more than 110 million Americans. In total, 59 percent of the nation's waterways and millions of acres of wetlands are currently at risk.

What You Won't See In Those 'Clean Coal' Ads: Dirty Air, A Wall of Sludge, Poisoned Rivers
Surely you've seen the ads. They are scattered around the internet and splashed across our newspapers and magazines. Their commercials interrupt our favorite television shows and invade our local radio station's airspace. Yes, the ads are everywhere. But that doesn't make them true.

No PR campaign, no matter how well executed, can make coal clean. It's simply not possible.

Advocates for "clean" coal argue that technology exists-almost-that will allow coal-fired power plants to capture their carbon emissions and store the climate-changing gas deep under ground. Technically, this is true. Realistically, this would be extremely expensive, and wouldn't even begin to address most of the impacts felt by water. From mines to power plants, the process of wresting energy from coal is dirty and unhealthy for our waters, our communities and ourselves.

How Safe is Your Bath Tub?
Children's bubble baths should be clean, safe and fun. But No More Toxic Tub, a report published in March 2009 by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in partnership with Clean Water Action and other organizations, found contaminants and other hazardous ingredients in numerous popular shampoos, soaps and body care products marketed to babies and children.

Get this issue of Chesapeake Currents as a PDF (pdf, 490 kb)

You will need to have the Adobe Acrobat Reader properly installed to view PDF documents. You can get it free from Adobe.