More News

If you don't fuel the fire, it will burn out eventually.

That was one of the overarching themes of a forum held last week during which about 15 Frederick city election candidates were probed about their positions on the incinerator that Frederick and Carroll counties have proposed to build to handle its waste disposal.

Under the assumption that Frederick is the largest municipality serviced by Frederick County waste management, and thus has significant leverage in the county's decision to move forward with the incinerator, representatives from the two host groups — Waste Not Frederick and Our CommonWealth — asked candidates if they were prepared to sign-off from the proposed facility if they were elected.

Some candidates explored ways that the city could produce less trash for incinerator to burn. Others suggested that the city handle its own trash. Others said they didn't have enough information to decide.

But most all suggested that the question of: "If they build, will you go?" should be on the next the next administration's radar.

However, according to county and city officials, a decision not to go would be costly and next to impossible. And more importantly, the decision to build the waste-to-energy facility — as some people call it because it burns trash for the purpose of generating electricity — will move forward whether Frederick's trash fuels it or not.

"The city has no obligation to bring their waste to us today, tomorrow, or ever," said Mike Marschner, director of Frederick County's division of Utilities and Solid Waste Management. "We're not working under the assumption that we need the City of Frederick to commit to this project, to make it a viable option."

Not only is the city not the largest producers of the trash for the county landfill — it's third next to BFI and Waste Management — but it has also not entered into a formal agreement with the county to use the incinerator, said Jan Gardner (D), president of the Frederick County Board of Commissioners.

She also said that there would be "little to no impact" if the city did not participate.

"There are no agreements with the municipalities because no agreements are necessary," Gardner said. "The [waste-to-energy] project will be competitive and actually provide a lower cost of disposal than other waste disposal options that may exist."

The city currently pays $76 a ton in tipping fees to the county, and the proposed incinerator would cost the city a maximum of $50 per ton, Marschner said. According to the city's finance department, the city paid $1.5 million for the county to handle about 20,000 tons of its trash last fiscal year.

The city is included in the county's 10-year waste management plan, which is required by the state and has to be up to standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

If the city were to opt out of the county's plan, the city would need to develop its own full service solid waste management plan and provide other services, such as recycling which is currently handled and paid for by the county at about $175 per ton.

The city would have to acquire land for a landfill or building a transfer station to haul out-of-state. It took the county about seven to 10 years to acquire land for a landfill. A transfer station alone costs $10 million, Marschner said.

"It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the City of Frederick to develop a full service plan that would cost less per ton for disposal, recycling, composting, etc," Gardner said.   

Keith Brown, deputy director of public works for the city, attested to the fact that the city handling in its own trash in not feasible.

"The cost would be overwhelming," Brown said. "We would have to duplicate what the county has as far as landfill, transfer station or some other means of handling."

Mayor W. Jeff Holtzinger (R) said he believed it would be a mistake if the city chose to sever ties with the county's waste management plan.

"We get a very good service," Holtzinger said. "I don't think there really are options that would cost us less money. We are very fortunate to get that service, so it's not a huge headache to us — and believe me it's a headache."

The mayor said he believed that the city does need to step up its recycling to reduce the amount it pays in tipping fees and because it's more environmentally friendly, but he doesn't believe it's going to have a significant effect on the overall problem.

"You're not going to be able to get the recycling rate to where you're going to be able to reduce the landfill or waste to energy," he said.

Caroline Eader, of Waste Not Frederick, disagrees, and says that she will continue to challenge those vying for spots in the city's next administration to not only think about reducing waste, but a more efficient way to dispose of it other than the incinerator option.

"Until we start looking at making less waste, I don't think we have a good grip on how much less trash we could have," Eader said. "It really seemed that a lot of candidates understood that concept, and the county commissioners don't."

She said it was encouraging to see that candidates were open to discussing their ideas last week despite questions about whether or not the incinerator was truly a city issue, and being cautioned against making promises that they couldn't keep.

"I'm really pleased that so many of the candidates can see for very different reasons, that we should look at going in another direction — whether it's for environmental reasons, public health reasons, and economic reasons."

Email Erica L. Green at egreen@gazette.net.