How much do incinerators cost?

"Recycling programs, when designed properly, are cost-competitive with landfills and incinerators, and provide net pollution prevention benefits. Recycling materials not only avoids the pollution that would be generated through landfilling and incinerating these, but also reduces the environmental burden of virgin materials extraction and manufacturing processes.

"Even when landfill tipping fees are low, recycling and composting may still be preferable to other disposal options. At least 22 states have less than 10 years of landfill capacity left. Southern states reportedly average five years of remaining capacity.

New landfills may cost far more than existing ones. Recent U.S. EPA rules requiring municipal landfills to install liners and leachate collection systems are closing hundreds of landfills. One result is the trend toward fewer but larger and privately owned landfills. Fewer landfills will mean increased transportation costs. There may be no scarcity of land for new landfills but new landfills being built tend be quite remote from population centers. Long hauling and disposing municipal solid waste at distant landfills is already costing some cities on the West and East Coasts between $40 and $70 per ton.

Privately owned landfills may increase costs. One study found that publicly owned landfills are 20% less expensive than privately owned landfills and provide greater local control over disposal activities.16 Thus, existing landfills are a precious possession. Recycling extends their lives. Projected as well as current costs and availability of landfills should be taken into account in any evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of waste reduction and recovery options.

In addition, while we may have no shortage of nearby land to dump our trash, few communities want to be dumped upon. Thus, national policy should be to reduce the burden on the environment and on local communities from the transportation and dumping of trash.

"Many communities have turned to incineration as an alternative to landfills. But incinerators are expensive. Tip fees at incinerators built between 1989 and 1993 average $60 per ton.17 Some more recent incinerators have had to lower tip fees in order to compete with other disposal facilities. Montgomery County, Maryland, for instance, increased taxes to property owners to cover the operating costs of its newly built incinerator after it lowered the facility's tip fees in order to attract waste.

Incinerators are always the most capital-intensive solid waste management option; materials recovery can be the least. While landfills pollute - one out of every five Superfund toxic waste sites is a former municipal solid waste landfill, and, even the best landfills will eventually leak contaminating groundwater - incinerators are potentially more polluting. Thirty percent by weight of trash entering incinerators exits as ash, a waste product that may contain high levels of toxic residues. Moreover, incinerators emit organic compounds, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and other acid gases that landfills do not. Incineration has another drawback-it competes with recycling and composting programs for the same materials. A study evaluating Florida's seven largest incinerators found that these facilities regularly burn significant amounts of highly recyclable materials.18 "Put-or-pay" contracts, which require local governments to deliver guaranteed tonnage of waste to incinerators, are a major disincentive to maximizing recycling or waste reduction, and thus an obstacle to low-cost materials recovery programs" (The Five Most Dangerous Myths About Recycling).

How much is too much?

Harrisburg, Pa.: The City Council is considering borrowing another $43 million, on top of their $228 million in debt, to upgrade the incinerator there. This amount doesn't include the interest, so it's really closer to half a billion. Covanta has stepped in to rebuild and operate the improperly built third boiler on the incinerator that was completely rebuilt by Barlow Group (now in bankruptcy) in the past few years.

The contract with Covanta calls for Covanta to receive incentive payments up to 20 percent plus other fees. City projections show the incinerator racking up deficits totaling $14 million in each of the next two years until improvements are finished and revenue starts rising in 2009. Already, the plant's woes are expected to push up city trash bills, beginning Sept. 1. Learn more by searching for "incinerator" at http://www.pennlive.com.

Montgomery County, Md.: The 1,500 TPD Montgomery County facility in Dickerson, Md., was built and is owned by the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority. It came online in 1995; the county will take ownership in 2016 once taxpayers retire the debt, which is expected to be $750M with interest. The facility is operated by Covanta Energy, which declared bankruptcy in 2002 on the heels of Enron, re-emerging in 2004 when it was purchased by Danielson Holding Corp.

According to budget reports, the facility processed 640,101 tons of waste in 2004, generating 387,141 megawatt hours of electricity valued at $15M, or $23.43 per ton. But, per ton, the net operating cost was $21.78 and the net debt service cost was $42.36.

That year, Montgomery County spent $41M to operate and upgrade the facility. Not included in this figure: non-financed capital of $2.09M; non-contract operating costs of $772,000 for risk management; county work worth $275,134; residue disposal of $10.80 per ton; and charge backs to the Department of Environmental Protection worth $43,603.

Montgomery County continues to budget in excess of $40M a year for the incinerator. This is in addition to the money it spends on recycling programs.

Harrisburg is embroiled in a lawsuit regarding its incinerator and its authority. Residents throughout Michigan are working and succeeding at closing incinerators there. Residents in Philadelphia and towns in New York are questioning the viability of incinerators in their neighborhoods as capital and operating costs continue to rise. When it comes to costs, landfills are cheaper than incinerators (Burn or Bury? A Social Cost Comparison of Final Waste Disposal Methods).

Incinerators are capital intensive projects that will always require more money for pollution control upgrades as citizens around the world continue to work to make our air, water and soils cleaner.

If waste-to-energy through mass-burn incineration is such a viable industry as proponents claim, why don't companies such as Wheelabrator, Covanta and the Barlow Group take on the financial risks themselves? Why do some of these companies go bankrupt during operations? If these business entities won't assume the financial risks by putting up the capital to build the facilities themselves, why should taxpayers?

References: