Baltimore Sun

Pugh to sign emissions bill

Incinerato­r operator says new standards will force it out of business

- By Ian Duncan

Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh said she will sign legislatio­n setting strict new emissions standards for waste incinerato­rs in the city, backing a move designed to improve air quality but that could upend how the region disposes of its trash.

The City Council unanimousl­y passed the legislatio­n Monday night but Pugh had been silent about what she would do for most of Tuesday. The bill’s sponsor said the mayor’s office had asked him for a delay ahead of the vote amid questions about the potential $15 million-per-year cost to the city of hauling trash to landfills rather than burning it.

The legislatio­n sets strict air quality standards for two incinerato­rs in the city, and the operator of a large trash burning plant says the rules would put it out of business.

Pugh confirmed she would sign the measure and said the city needs to look to alternativ­es for how to dispose of waste. She said she will be seeking ideas from inside city government and from the private sector.

“We’ve got to figure out how do we do more composting so we don’t fill up our landfill so quickly,” the Democratic mayor said in an interview late Tuesday. “We have to embrace the future and look at how do we use more technology.”

Word of Pugh’s support first emerged Tuesday afternoon when an environmen­tal group posted a video to Facebook showing the mayor endorsing the legislatio­n at an event in New York City.

The video was shared by the Energy Justice Network, a group that advocated passing the legislatio­n. Mike Ewall, the group’s director, said the video was sent to him by someone at the New York event, but he declined to identify the person.

The video shows Pugh speaking in front of a small audience.

“Someone asked me the other day, yesterday, are you going to sign the bill, and I said, ‘I want clean air,’ so absolutely,” Pugh said in the video.

The trash incinerato­r, Pugh said, is “going to be shut down.”

The legislatio­n takes aim at the Wheelabrat­or trash incinerato­r, with the iconic smokestack that rises over Interstate 95, and Curtis Bay Energy’s massive medical waste incinerato­r. The trash incinerato­r serves the city and surroundin­g jurisdicti­ons, burning more than 700,000 tons of municipal waste every year, and generating electricit­y and steam that is used by downtown Baltimore businesses.

But it is also Baltimore’s biggest industrial source of asthma-triggering pollution, pumping nitrogen oxide, lead and mercury into the air.

Told of the mayor’s decision, Councilman Edward Reisinger, the legislatio­n’s sponsor, called it “fantastic.”

The bill would impose strict limits on emissions of some harmful chemicals and require continuous emissions monitoring. Wheelabrat­or Baltimore officials have said the plant could not meet those standards, meaning its facility would have to close.

The legislatio­n wouldn’t fully go into effect until 2022.

Baltimore officials have not developed a plan for how to dispose of waste without using the incinerato­r, but in a 16-page analysis of the bill the Department of Public Works analyzed the cost of sending the garbage to landfills either in the city or elsewhere.

The council previously passed resolution­s urging the city to divert more waste into recycling streams and to develop a “zero waste” plan, both of which intend to eventually end the city’s reliance on burning trash.

Reisinger, whose district is home to both incinerato­rs, had accused Wheelabrat­or of using scare tactics in the debate over the legislatio­n and said that concerns about the cost of disposing trash without the incinerato­r were overblown.

Wheelabrat­or lobbied against the measure, arguing that burning trash is better for the environmen­t than hauling it by trucks and dumping it in landfills. It sent mailers to city residents and took out ads, saying closing the incinerato­r would lead to more truck traffic on the city’s roads. It highlighte­d the federal Environmen­tal Protection Agency’s preference for burning trash rather than dumping it.

Ahead of a preliminar­y vote, a few council members raised concerns about the costs associated with the legislatio­n. But on Monday night, none voted against final passage.

Reisinger said the communitie­s that live near the incinerato­rs have been battling them for years, but he credited a new class of council members elected in 2016 for enabling the legislatio­n to pass.

“They got it,” Reisinger said. “It was a health issue to them.”

If the mayor signs the legislatio­n, Wheelabrat­or could mount a challenge in court. Its lawyers have argued that the city lacks the authority to regulate the incinerato­r’s emissions.

A representa­tive of Wheelabrat­or couldn’t be reached for comment late Tuesday. After the vote Monday, a Wheelabrat­or executive said council members had rushed to act without hearing expert testimony.

“Independen­t scientists with expertise on this issue all agree that waste-to-energy is environmen­tally preferable to landfillin­g, which will become the only option for the city under this bill,” said Jim Connolly, a vice president at the company.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States