Baltimore's waste processing infrastructure faces high renovation costs

For decades, most of Baltimore City's trash has been handled by a waste-to-energy incinerator operated by WIN Waste Innovations. However, in the city's latest draft ten-year solid waste plan, which is expected to be voted on later this year, municipal leaders are seeking ways to divert as much waste as possible from the facility, although they also acknowledge that the facility may continue to operate.

The city's environmental and community advocates have long criticized authorities for a lack of action in addressing pollution and closing the plant formerly known as BRESCO. Marvin Hayes, founder of the Baltimore Compost Collective, frequently visits schools near the facility for educational outreach campaigns. He says he asks students two questions: what is your favorite fruit or vegetable, and whether they or their family members have been affected by asthma or cancer.

"In these school communities surrounded by incinerators, 95% of students are affected by asthma," Hayes said. "We have to build infrastructure here to separate these materials and handle them in a sustainable way that avoids harm to people's health."

WIN Waste, for its part, says there is "no association" between emissions and asthma and defends its record in the community. Although the facility is cited as one of the region's major industrial emission sources, independent reports have also found that vehicles are the largest source of overall air pollution in Baltimore. WIN Waste market manager Michael Dougherty describes the incineration facility as a "Ship of Theseus," noting that since it began operations in 1985, the facility has undergone multiple equipment upgrades and renovations, including refurbishment completed this summer. These $45 million upgrades, which WIN Waste agreed to after a legal dispute with the city, have reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides, lead, and other pollutants.

Although the incinerator remains a focal point, the city is also driven by climate action goals to reduce landfill emissions and a state-mandated 35% recycling rate target. These goals, along with a renewed focus on waste prevention and sustainable materials management, form the framework the city's Bureau of Solid Waste plans to follow through 2033 with support from the Department of Public Works.

Building alternatives to the incinerator will require funding and time. Proposals in the city's draft plan include a new eastern transfer station operating by 2030, a larger regional transfer station operating later this decade, and increased capacity at the city's MRF. The city reserves the option for private contractors to operate new facilities and estimates that capital expenditures for expanding transfer capacity alone could approach $90 million.

After receiving approval from the Maryland Department of the Environment, the Baltimore City Department of Public Works now needs to submit the solid waste plan draft to the City Council for approval.

Despite activists' long-standing calls to close the incinerator, WIN Waste believes it has a role in Baltimore's future. The company says it provides a net benefit to Baltimore by reducing the city's waste volume and has worked to partner with local organizations such as 4MyCiTy to offer alternative solutions for food waste.

After a May tour of the facility showcasing recent emission upgrades, Dougherty said the region provides "more than enough waste volume" to keep the facility operating at full capacity for some time.

"We are strong supporters of the path to zero waste. But the road to zero waste is long, and we feel we will play an important role along that road," Dougherty said.

The Future of Incineration and Landfilling

The Bureau of Solid Waste's roadmap to divert waste from landfilling and incineration has earned some praise, although advocates are dissatisfied that the plan anticipates the WIN Waste facility will continue operating.

In 2021, Baltimore handled 414,000 tons of waste, with 136,000 tons sent to the incinerator and 210,000 tons sent directly to the Quarantine Road Landfill. WIN Waste's ash is also sent to that landfill under its contract with the city.

The bureau's waste volume accounts for only about 20% of the total sent to the WIN facility. Therefore, the bureau's plan takes a cautious stance on the incinerator's future. While the city's current contract with WIN extends through 2031, the ten-year plan anticipates that WIN Waste will continue doing business with Baltimore County and private haulers in the future.

"Unless waste diversion practices are broadly coordinated across the public and private sectors, the facility is likely to continue operating at near-current throughput levels," the plan's authors write.

Beyond steering clear of the controversial incinerator, the plan's authors are also seeking to reduce the amount of waste sent to the Quarantine Road Landfill, even as the bureau moves forward with expanding that facility. The expansion, which aims to connect the facility with the adjacent Millennium Landfill, could cost $99.5 million and is expected to extend the landfill's service life from 2028 to 2035.

For Brenda Platt, who has long served as co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and was involved in the city's 2018 commissioned report "Less Waste, Better Baltimore," much of her dissatisfaction with the Bureau of Solid Waste stems from its willingness to perpetuate disposal methods rather than committing to reducing, recycling, and reusing materials.

"There's always money to expand the landfill," Platt said. "But somehow, there's never enough money to do the things we need to do to reduce waste at the source and save landfill capacity. I think that's the crux of the issue."

She is pleased to see more focus on waste diversion practices in the plan, but she feels these ideas fail to address the fundamental complaints of environmental justice advocates: that the incineration facility has operated in underserved communities for too long.

"Suppose the city successfully reduces waste flow. So what? We're still going to have out-of-city waste from Baltimore County coming into that community, burning waste in an environmental frontline community? That really doesn't mean much," Platt said.

Jennifer Combs, public relations coordinator for the Department of Public Works, when asked about the draft plan's lack of explicit mention of environmental justice concerns, did not directly respond to questions related to continued incineration. Instead, she pointed to the plan's waste diversion initiatives, saying they include "calls for coordinated cross-departmental efforts to reduce waste and adopt more sustainable materials management practices."

"Throughout the plan, the city has identified and committed to expanding waste diversion initiatives over the ten-year planning period," Combs said in an email. "As these initiatives are implemented, the city expects to reduce its reliance on incineration and landfilling, while recognizing the environmental impacts of both waste management practices."

The plan's ideas for diverting waste from landfilling and incineration, or at least from the in-city facility, are ambitious. In addition to waste reduction strategies, the plan calls for increasing the daily processing capacity of its Northwest Transfer Station and expanding long-haul transfer capacity to reduce dependence on the WIN Waste facility.

The proposed new regional transfer station would include a rail spur and have an annual processing capacity of up to 640,000 tons, capable of handling all of the city's residential and commercial municipal solid waste. The plan estimates such a facility would cost approximately $70.5 million and anticipates it could be operational around 2037.

The plan's authors note that the Quarantine Road Landfill, even with expansion, could reach full capacity by 2035, and the regional transfer station would provide "a long-term method for managing its solid waste." They say this could facilitate the transfer of Baltimore's waste to regional landfills or "facilities even farther away as needed," thereby bypassing the incinerator.

The bureau lists several possible locations for the proposed regional transfer station, including two sites at the Port of Baltimore and one at a western Baltimore County receiving facility. Meanwhile, the related eastern transfer station proposal would, for the first time, allow small haulers, mixed waste loaders, and single-stream recycling collectors to consolidate waste volumes in southern and eastern Baltimore. If approved, the facility could be ready by 2030 at a cost of approximately $18.6 million.

Despite concerns, Platt says the plan is "a step in the right direction" compared to previous proposals.

ILSR hopes to eventually contract with the city to provide educational materials on composting to residents, Platt says. She is encouraged by the city's robust educational programs in schools, communities, and through specialized training facilities. But she notes that while the plan looks good on paper, it needs strong support to achieve the bureau's goals.

"If you compare this plan to the previous ten-year plan, it's night and day," Platt said. "What really matters is the plan's implementation and funding support."

A Strained Collection System

The city's trash and recycling collection issues are worsening as the Bureau of Solid Waste works to recover from a series of challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic, an aging collection fleet, and a lack of education mentioned in the plan have all contributed to a recycling system plagued by contamination and inconsistent service.

According to the draft plan, the city serves approximately 210,000 households as well as hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and other locations. The city has a significant amount of material that could be diverted to its single-stream recycling program—the plan estimates that recyclables make up nearly half of the city's waste stream.

But the Bureau of Solid Waste reduced recycling collection from weekly to biweekly in January 2022, attributed to pandemic-related staffing challenges, which reportedly violated the city charter. Baltimore City Council leaders called the bureau's service reduction and slow recovery "completely unacceptable." The bureau says it could restore weekly service in 2024 if new equipment arrives.

The city's reduced collection frequency has also negatively affected service in other ways. The plan notes that once Baltimore stopped collecting trash twice a week, residents began throwing it into recycling bins, leading to "serious contamination problems."

Last year, the city commissioned Rubicon to write a report to identify ways to improve collection. Rubicon found that Baltimore's collection routes have more stops per route than many comparable cities and recommended reducing the number of stops to address marathon shifts that can last up to 14 hours.

The report also recommended increasing recycling collection drivers to 29 and recycling laborers to 58. The Department of Public Works has acknowledged for months the need to hire dozens of new drivers. The department announced $10,000 signing bonuses in March and held multiple recruitment events this spring.

This month, the department said it still needs to hire 23 drivers to meet short-term goals for single-stream recycling service, at a cost of just over $1 million. The department also said it needs to hire 48 solid waste workers to meet short-term goals for collection staffing, at a cost of just under $1.8 million. The department expects to reach required staffing levels by February 2024.

Kristyn Oldendorf, who worked on waste issues for the city for eight years and now serves as an associate director at consulting firm Anthesis Group, says the bureau has worked to digitize routes based on the Rubicon report, which she believes also helps rationalize routes.

"During this time, imagine driving to an unfamiliar place without GPS. These routes rely heavily on drivers knowing where they're going," said Oldendorf, a former director of the Office of Waste Diversion. "Working with Rubicon is a big step in the right direction."

Still, when she left the bureau in June 2022, Oldendorf says there was "no real vision" for addressing long-term staffing issues. The plan identifies the need for increased funding so the bureau can maintain a 20% reserve of vehicles and personnel, but Oldendorf says the bureau also needs to focus on safety, health, and compensation to meet its staffing needs.

"We really want every household to recycle, so it's important that routes are manageable for workers, but you also have to ensure they cover all households," Oldendorf said.

Executing this vision also requires sustained leadership, which the city's Department of Public Works has lacked in recent years. Since 2020, the department has had four different leaders, while recycling collection services, contracts, and water issues have piled up. In August, the Baltimore Banner reported that the department had let its electronics recycling contract lapse, possibly for months.

On July 10, Craig Jeter began serving as acting head of the Bureau of Solid Waste, pending confirmation. Former DPW deputy director Richard Luna became the department's interim head on June 30, following Jason Mitchell's departure.

"When there are many people in acting roles, or you're not sure who the long-term leader is, it can be difficult to think about long-term planning," Oldendorf said.

This is the first part of a two-part series on Baltimore's solid waste challenges. Look for the next part, which will focus on organics recycling, expected in the coming weeks.