Externality Low Central High Group Geographic Division (20%) (average) (80%) Air Local 0.068 0.128 0.183 Rest-of-Region 0.023 0.040 0.054 Rest-of-State 0.453 0.611 0.735 Out-of-State 0.323 0.493 0.629 Air Subtotal 1.030 1.270 1.460 Water Local 0.009 0.015 0.020 Rest-of-Region 0.000 0.000 0.000 Rest-of-State 0.000 0.000 0.000 Out-of-State 0.000 0.000 0.000 Water Subtotal 0.010 0.015 0.020 Land / Waste Local 0.017 0.025 0.032 Rest-of-Region 0.000 0.000 0.000 Rest-of-State 0.000 0.000 0.000 Out-of-State 0.000 0.000 0.000 Land / Waste Subtotal 0.017 0.025 0.032 Other Local 0.000 0.000 0.000 Rest-of-Region 0.000 0.000 0.000 Rest-of-State 0.000 0.000 0.000 Out-of-State 0.000 0.000 0.000 Other Subtotal 0.000 0.000 0.000 TOTAL EXTERNALITIES,ALL LOCATIONS 1.070 1.310 1.510 Notes: Low and high totals may not sum because of Central Limit Theorem. 1 mill =3D $0.001 Source: EXMOD v1.0a Sponsored by ESEERCOTABLE 2-II
Facility: Coal Fluidized Bed, Atmospheric Capacity: 200 MW
Scenario: User Baseline Lifetime: 30 yrs
Run Date: 06/15/95 Time: 16:05 User: KA Annual Prod: 1138 GWh
Source Group Low Central High x Impact Mode Impact Measure (20%)(average) (80%) 10 AIR EXTERNALITY GROUP Greenhouse Gas / CO2 Climate Change-CO2 Tons of CO2 1.309 1.310 1.310 6 Lead Lead Exposure Population*ug/dL 6.258 8.502 10.746 2 Mercury Health Effects,Misc Dollars 0.147 0.409 0.643 3 Nitrogen Oxides Asthma Attack Day Occurrence-Day 0.079 0.192 0.282 3 Child Acute Bronch. Person 0.100 0.195 0.283 1 Chronic Bronchitis Person 0.143 0.281 0.408 0 Corn Crop (Ozone) Bushels 0.378 0.837 1.296 2 Emergency Rm Visit Visit 0.082 0.161 0.233 1 Hay-Alfalfa (Ozone) Tons 0.241 0.535 0.828 1 Hay-Other (Ozone) Tons 0.358 0.792 1.226 1 Materials Soiling PM10 ug/m3*hholds. 1.638 2.731 3.824 3 Min Rstr Day(Ozone) Occurrence-Day 0.256 0.651 1.021 3 Mort Over 65(Part.) Death 0.312 0.611 0.887 -1 Mort Undr 65(Part.) Death 0.280 0.545 0.789 -2 Mortality (Ozone) Death 0.062 0.598 1.077 -1 Resp. Symptom Day Occurrence-Day 1.461 2.490 3.451 3 Respiratry Hosp Adm Admission 1.862 3.349 4.739 -1 Restricted Activity Occurrence-Day 0.162 0.328 0.481 3 Soybean Crop(Ozone) Bushels 1.065 2.357 3.649 0 Visibility Loss Dollars 0.227 0.377 0.520 5 Wheat Crop (Ozone) Bushels 1.035 2.292 3.548 1 Particulates (PM10) (similar to Nitrogen Oxides above) Radioactivity Radiation Exposure Person-Rem 1.042 1.642 2.242 -2 Sulfur Oxides (similar categories to Nitrogen Oxides above, plus) Adirondacks Fishing kg/ha Sulfur 1.021 2.259 3.498 -2 Materials Damage SO2 ug/m3*hholds 2.133 2.980 3.827 4 Materials Soiling PM10 ug/m3*hholds. 0.164 1.270 2.375 3 Toxics Mortality, All Ages Death 0.294 0.382 0.465 -3 Survivable Cancer Incidence 0.306 0.398 0.484 -3 WATER EXTERNALITY GROUP Chemicals Mortality, All Ages Death 3.915 3.916 3.917 -3 Survivable Cancer Incidence 4.075 4.076 4.077 -3 Consumption Water Consumption Gallons 3.187 3.188 3.189 8 Toxics in Ash Ground Water Dollars 0.130 0.413 0.626 4 Land Use / Noise / Terrestrial Aesthetics Dollars 0.671 1.147 1.593 4 Property Value Dollars 0.409 0.811 1.204 4 Property Value Dollars 0.362 0.907 1.407 4 Source: EXMOD v1.0a Sponsored by ESEERCO "The New York State Environmental Externalities Cost Study" Contacts:
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corp., 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, USA 10036 (212) 302-1212
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Two Rockefeller Plaza, Albany, NY, USA 12223 (518) 465-6251 x 271 (Marsha Walton)
William H. Desvouges, F. Reed Johnson, and H. Spencer Banzhaf (DJ&B) of Triangle Economic Research used the "damage cost approach" to estimate a broad range of external costs for electricity generation in a project commission by the Northern States Power Company. The cornerstone of the approach, presented in a seven volume report, is the determination of what people would be willing to pay to avoid external effects. After selecting their assessment methodology the authors chose relevant resource planning options or scenarios. The scenarios specify where plants may be located, the types of plants that are planned and the operating conditions. Coal plants and gas fired turbines are the primary technologies evaluated. The authors examine four scenarios, the Baseline or Comparison Scenario, the Rural Scenario, which involves the addition of a 400 MW plant in rural Minnesota, the Metropolitan Fringe Scenario, which involves the location of the same plant just west of Minneapolis, and the Urban Scenario which involves an increase in the emissions of two coal plants in the Twin Cities. The model is similar to EXMOD (described above) in many respects.
The study area included parts of Minnesota, western Wisconsin and southeastern South Dakota. Potential damages were estimated at the zip code level. The authors examined six types of pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, lead and ozone. Carbon dioxide and mercury were seriously considered but rejected due to lack of data. Effects considered include human health impacts (morbidity and mortality), agricultural consequences (reduced crop yields), and materials damaged (stone and metal corrosion and surface soiling). The authors reviewed over 400 individual health studies as well as EPA criteria documents and agricultural
To obtain externality costs for each scenario the model 1) assessed ambient air quality, 2) predicted emission quantities and compositions for specific generation scenarios, 3) modeled the transport and dispersion of these emissions, 4) calculated the exposures to people, crops and materials, 5) assessed potential injuries resulting from these exposures and 6) estimated the willingness to pay to avoid these injuries.
It used the EPA recommended ISCST2 air dispersion model, which combines meteorological and production data to simulate how air emissions would disperse throughout the Northern States Power study area on an hourly basis at each of 618 zip codes. With 618 zip codes, 6 pollutants, and 8,760 hours in a year, a total of 32.5 million concentrations were estimated for each scenario.
The authors also used meta analysis techniques to synthesize information. Meta analysis uses the results of other studies as the data for statistical analysis to distill systematic conclusions regarding relationships between variables. The meta analyses also provides a means to estimate a range of valuations so that uncertainty can be quantified. EXMOD, described above, utilized expert researcher judgments to derive coefficients, a less systematic approach which is more difficult to update as new information is received.
DJ&B also utilize "health state indexes" to derive value estimates for the full range of health effects. These indexes-- developed by health scientists to prioritize treatment of physical conditions--combine many attributes of health (such as comfort and mobility) into a single scale. They explore the relationship between health state and willingness to pay for health effects when willingness to pay estimates are available. For those effects that have not been valued they project a value based on the index score associated with the effect.
The study also uses a comprehensive database and modeling system for agricultural policy analysis developed by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) The model utilizes county level information to predict yield trends, acreage planted, acreage harvested, state price linkages, value of production and deficiency payments. The often significant effects of deficiency payments, the 1985 Farm Bills O-92 voluntary acreage reduction program, and the conservation reserve program are incorporated. The model provides production values and deficiency payment estimates for given ambient air pollution levels.
Finally the study uses a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate uncertainty. A Monte Carlo simulation takes estimated ranges for all parameters, randomly selects a value from each of these ranges, and then combines the estimates. The result produces one possible damage estimate. This sequence is repeated 400 times. The resulting distribution of outcomes yields an expected value, and an estimate of the 90 percent confidence interval around the most likely value. A total of 18 million calculations are made for each scenario.
Damages are a function of quantities generated and the toxicity of pollutants. Particulate matter has the largest potential per- ton damages. It produces more severe health effects including mortality and emphysema. Lead has the second highest potential per ton damages, but the scenarios examined involve only very small changes in lead emissions. Thus potential lead damages are small on an absolute scale. Most of the agricultural damages are attributed to ozone, but overall agricultural damages were found to be relatively small. The Urban Scenario produces the highest damages because more people are near the emissions.
The table below summarizes the results of the study
DAMAGES PER TON OF POLLUTANT (1993$)
Rural Metro Fringe Urban Particulate Matter 633 2,155 4,798 (510-756) (1,793-2,517) (4,020-5,576) Nitrogen Oxides 15 54 13 (7-24) (32-76) (83-177) NOs with Ozone 29 84 404 (-6-56) (53-118) (127-518) Sulfur Dioxide 21 54 126 (9-24) (43-104) (106-178) Carbon Monoxide 0.29 0.99 1.57 (0.20-0.39) (0.72-1.26) (1.00-2.14) Lead 401 1,719 3,302 (379-422) (1,557-1,881) (2,951-3,653) 90% confidence intervals in parentheses Desvouges, William H. F. Reed Johnson, and H. Spencer Banzhaf "Assessing Environmental Externality Costs for Electricity Generation", Triangle Economic Research, 1000 Park Forty Plaza, Suite 200, Durham N.C. 27713, December, 1994 (919) 544-2244, E- Mail email@example.com
3. THE ACB SOCIAL COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS SYSTEM
In the Spring 1995 issue of The Engineering Economist Kenneth Acks argues for the need to utilize cost benefit software in policy analysis, and illustrates the benefits by examining the ACB Computerized Social Cost Benefit Analysis System.
Claiming that most policy debates are fought largely with volleys of ideological slogans rather than evaluations of the costs and benefits arising from alternative proposals, Mr. Acks notes that the failure to measure costs and benefits creates a vacuum, rendering the political process more susceptible to manipulation by special interests. A lack of information regarding costs and benefits can also inhibit negotiations for mutually beneficial compromises. The failure to employ cost benefit analysis arises partly from the expense and time involved in measuring complicated phenomena. In addition, when decision makers do employ cost benefit analysis, they often omit significant gains and losses due to difficulties encountered in collecting information. In order to remedy these difficulties the author claims that policy makers should utilize computer software.
The ACB system is a modular menu driven computer program that produces several tallies of costs and benefits arising from government policies. Tallies are based upon data from previously published studies. A decision maker can change assumptions, and add costs or benefits through a simple spreadsheet format. The system can also serve a bibliographic function--rapidly leading analysts to sources of information.
The system is far less detailed than the Triangle Economic Research and EXMOD Systems described above. It is a relatively crude prototype with more questionable techniques and assumptions, whereas EXMOD can be effectively utilized by policy makers--at least in New York--today. The resources devoted to the other models were far greater. However, the ACB model is designed to analyze a far wider range of policies, and permits users to update study coefficients with new information more readily than EXMOD. Its spreadsheet format may also be easier to revise than the other models. Potentially, it can be used to compare the costs and benefits of different types of expenditures. Applications to crime and environmental policy have been created.
The system asks the user to select:
1) A Policy Area (such as CRIME, ENVIRONMENT, or HOUSING),
2) A Function To Be Performed (e.g. VIEW/ALTER COST BENEFIT TALLIES, or ENTER DATA),
3) The Amount Of The Proposed Expenditure,
4) The Geographic Region Under Analysis,
5) A Specific Policy (such as HIRING POLICE or INCREASING THE SEVERITY OF SENTENCES).
If VIEW/ALTER COST/BENEFIT SUMMARIES is chosen, the system presents the policy maker with several possible scenarios. The scenarios provide different means to estimate costs and benefits.
For crime the rows of cells within the scenarios:
1) present statistical data (coefficients) from studies showing the extent to which a policy such as hiring police tends to produce an effect, say increased arrests or convictions.
2) presents coefficients found in studies measuring the extent to which the change in the effect (increases in arrests or convictions) changes the level of a disamenity (e.g. crime), and
3) multiplies (1) and (2) resulting in the extent to which a policy cuts the disamenity
4) multiplies the results in (3) by estimates of the costs imposed on society by the disamenity (crime), which comprise the benefits of a policy.
5) adds in the effects of government spending multipliers
6) compares the benefits estimated above to costs
The system 1) contains a database filled with coefficients and other information derived from previous studies; 2) converts the units of each study into a common base; 3) places the data from studies that investigate the same phenomena together by attaching a variable name to each result in the database; 4) derives a single representative (weighted average) number for each variable by weighting the elements of the studies; 5) produces a series of potential cost benefit scenarios looking at causes and effects, as well as costs and benefits, in different ways based on the weighted variables. The system provides many potential weighting schemes, and allows the user to modify the weights. One scheme attaches greater significance to studies conducted in more recent years. Other weights are based on the apparent quality of the study, and the plausibility of results.
Two scenarios are presented below:
POLICY--CHANGE IN EXPENDITURES ON POLICE
--------------------------------------------------- | USER ENTRIES | | Planned Spending $3,300,000,000 | | Total Initial Spending $33,000,000,000 | | Region US | | Current Crime Rate/1000 11.50 | | Sources Treated 10,000 | --------------------------------------------------- SCENARIO I _________________________________________________________________ BENEFITS OF POLICIES/COSTS OF DISAMENITIES _________________________________________________________________ A =3D ALL CRIMES % Change in Imprisonment per 1% Change in Policy Variable Name % Change in Crime per 1% Change in Imprisonment Variable Name % Change in Crime per 1% Change in Policy -0.10636 Variable Name A:C.P-OX.P Direct Crime Costs Direct Costs Per Crime $1,025.44 Antitheft Device Cost Per Crime $1,836.63 Incarceration Cost Per Crime $26.20 Judicial Costs Per Crime $660.16 Total Costs $3,548.44 Change In Direct Costs/Victim Per 1% Change in Policy ($3.77) Victimization Rate 29.070% Change In Direct Costs/Household Per 1% Change in Policy ($1.10) _________________________________________________________________ BENEFITS=3DTOT.CHANGE IN DIRECT COSTS/HSEHLD PER 1% CHANGE IN POLICY $1.10 Other Measures of Impacts --------------------------------------------------------------- Property Values % Change in Property Value Per 1% Change in Crime % Change in Property Value Per 1% Change in Policy Tot. Change in Property Value/1% Change in Policy/Household Tot. Change in Property Value/1% Change in Policy/Household/Yr --------------------------------------------------------------- Wages % Change in Wages Per 1% Change in Crime % Change in Wages Per 1% Change in Policy Total Change in Wages Per 1% Change in Policy/Household --------------------------------------------------------------- Willingness to Pay (WTP) From Surveys % Change in Willingness to Pay for 1% Change in Crime % Change in Willingness to Pay Per 1% Change in Policy Total Change in WTP Per 1% Change in Policy/Household --------------------------------------------------------------- BENEFITS/HOUSEHOLD PER 1% CHANGE IN POLICY $1.10 BENEFITS PER HOUSEHOLD OF PLANNED EXPENDITURE $10.97 --------------------------------------------------- Government Expenditure Multiplier 1.343 Benefits from Multiplier ($ Millions) 4,432 Gov Ex Multiplier Benefits Per Household $48.68 --------------------------------------------------- TOTAL BENEFITS PER HOUSEHOLD OF PLANNED EXPENDITURE $59.65 TOTAL BENEFITS FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS ($ Millions) 5,431 _________________________________________________________________ COSTS DIRECT COSTS Direct Tax Costs ($ Millions) $3,300 Capital Costs ($ Millions) Administrative Costs ($ Millions) ... DIRECT COSTS ($ Millions) $3,300 Total Direct Costs/Household $36.24 OTHER COSTS Foregone Earnings Participation Costs Costs to Recipients Total Other Costs $0.00 Total Other Costs Per Household $0.00 MARGINAL WELFARE COSTS OF TAXATION Labor Supply Change 0.214 Total Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation 0.214 Total Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation ($ Millions) $707 Total Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation/Household $7.76 TAX MULTIPLIER Tax Multiplier 0.875 Costs from Tax Multiplier ($ Millions) $2,887 Costs from Tax Multiplier Per Household $31.71 TOTAL COSTS ($ Millions) $6,894 TOTAL COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD $75.71 _________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY BENEFITS - COSTS ($ Millions) ($1,462) BENEFITS/COSTS 0.79 _________________________________________________________________ SCENARIO II _________________________________________________________________ BENEFITS OF POLICIES/COSTS OF DISAMENITIES _________________________________________________________________ A =3D ALL CRIMES % Change in Imprisonment per 1% Change in Policy 0.30500 Variable Name A:J.C-OX.P % Change in Crime per 1% Change in Imprisonment -0.72878 Variable Name A:C.P-J.C % Change in Crime per 1% Change in Policy -0.22228 Direct Crime Costs Direct Costs Per Crime Antitheft Device Cost Per Crime Incarceration Cost Per Crime Judicial Costs Per Crime Total Costs Change In Direct Costs/Victim Per 1% Change in Policy Victimization Rate Change In Direct Costs/Household Per 1% Change in Policy _________________________________________________________________ BENEFITS=3DTOT.CHANGE IN DIRECT COSTS/HSEHLD PER 1% CHANGE IN POLICY Other Measures of Impacts --------------------------------------------------------------- Property Values % Change in Property Value Per 1% Change in Crime -0.30579 % Change in Property Value Per 1% Change in Policy 0.06797 Tot. Change in Prop Val/1% Change in Policy/Household $57.70 Tot. Change in Prop Val/1% Change in Policy/Household/Yr $5.20 --------------------------------------------------------------- Wages Same as Scenario I above --------------------------------------------------------------- Willingness to Pay (WTP) From Surveys Same as Scenario I above --------------------------------------------------------------- BENEFITS/HOUSEHOLD PER 1% CHANGE IN POLICY $5.20 BENEFITS PER HOUSEHOLD OF PLANNED EXPENDITURE $51.96 --------------------------------------------------- Government Expenditure Multiplier 1.343 Benefits from Multiplier ($ Millions) 4,432 Gov Ex Multiplier Benefits Per Household $48.68 --------------------------------------------------- TOTAL BENEFITS PER HOUSEHOLD OF PLANNED EXPENDITURE $100.64 TOTAL BENEFITS FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS ($ Millions) 9,164 _________________________________________________________________ COSTS Same as Scenario I above TOTAL COSTS ($ Millions) $6,894 TOTAL COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD $75.71 _________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY BENEFITS - COSTS ($ Millions) $2,270 BENEFITS/COSTS 1.33 _________________________________________________________________Acks, Kenneth "Shooting In The Dark: How Computer Software Can Improve the Quality of Public Policies" The Engineering Economist, Spring 1995
Copies of the paper and additional information regarding the model are available from Damage Valuation Associates, 22 East Olive Street, Long Beach, New York 11561 (516) 897-9728 fax: (516)897-9185 KENACKS@DELPHI.COM
MORE COMPUTER MODELS, including the REMI Model and IMPLAN which forecast Regional Economic Impacts but focus less upon externalities, will be discussed in future issues.
* NON-ENVIRONMENTAL COST BENEFIT NEWS *
4. MEN ARE NOT COST EFFECTIVE
In Men are Not Cost-Effective: Male Crime in America, June Stephenson, a research psychologist from Napa, California notes that 94% of prisoners are male. There are approximately one million prisoners in the U.S., up from 200,000 in 1985.=20 Approximately 50,000 new prisoners are added to the total prison population each year.
One prison cell costs $100,000 without considering the interest to be paid on bonds raised for prison construction. Keeping a person in standard prisons for a year costs from $20,000 to $24,000, while maximum security prisons require expenditures generally ranging from $30,000 to $35,000. In California $1 million a day is spend on interest for prison bonds. Men's crimes cost upward of $61 billion each year in incarceration and judicial costs alone.
This figure does not include tax expenditures caused by the S&L scandal nor the costs of toxic waste cleanup. In addition millions of men do not support the children they have fathered, millions more beat their wives creating the need for battered women's shelters, and additional millions sexually abuse children. Drunk drivers and arsonists kill and maim. Hate crimes are encouraged by male organizations, such as the skinheads and the Klu Klux clan.
She proposes a $100 user fee added to men's IRS returns at the time of filing a return to promote tax equity since men use the criminal justice system almost exclusively. The money could be used to identify boys in elementary school who are not learning to read and who come from violent homes, and then to provide intensive tutoring and family counseling.
Stephenson, Jane "Men Are Not Cost Effective" Harper Perennial
We will not be able to provide this newsletter free of charge in the future. If you subscribe now, you will receive the April, May, and June issues free of charge, and your subscription year will begin in July. To subscribe please send a $39.95 check payable to Damage Valuation, 22 East Olive Street, Long Beach, New York USA 11561-3507 and use the form provided at the end of the newsletter.
* LAND/WASTE/GROUNDWATER *
5. WASTE TO ENERGY INCINERATORS OUT OF FAVOR
Incineration of waste has gone through cycles of popularity and disfavor. According to the EPA, as recently as 1960, 31 percent of the nation's garbage was burned in conventional incinerators.=20 Shortly thereafter most of these incinerators were closed largely because they produced heavy air pollution. In the 1970's the energy crisis led to steeply rising energy prices, and predictions of further increases. Technological advances improved the energy output and reduced pollution levels of incinerators. In addition, governments pursued replacement of leaky landfills. Since 1975 more than 100 cities and counties decided to build incinerators that burn trash to produce electricity. In the 1980's the EPA encouraged incineration, and new landfill regulations called for closing thousands of local dumps because of their potential threat to groundwater. Many feared that the nation would run out of dumping space.
Today, 17 percent of the nation's trash is burned, compared with 9percent in 1980. Waste-to-energy plants account for less than 2 percent of the total.
However, according to Governmental Advisory Associates of Westport Connecticut, since 1991, 77 communities have canceled plans to build new plants that would convert waste to energy. Only three new incinerators are under construction this year, and Windham, Connecticut, closed its plant. Many local governments are considering closing incinerators and returning to landfills.=20 A plant proposed for the Brooklyn Navy Yard has produced significant public opposition, and New York City has delayed a decision on whether to build it. The City, however, continues to seek a permit for the project.
The growth of incineration and recycling (which handles an estimated 19 percent of trash) has made dump space less scarce and less expensive. Technology has also made landfills safer.=20 In addition, the EPA has shifted waste disposal policy under the Clinton Administration. New regulations and judicial decisions have increased costs significantly. In September, 1994 the agency proposed new regulations to control dioxin and other air pollutants emitted by municipal incinerators, a decision that will further increase costs.
Two Supreme Court decisions in May, 1994 rendered incinerators less competitive by increasing costs. Prior to the decisions cities and counties attempted to insured that the plants would pay for themselves through contracts and regulations that allowed them to control the flow of garbage. Communities controlled prices for garbage disposal, and assured a steady source of fuel for their plants. However, the Supreme Court struck down the contracts that allowed cities to control the flow of garbage to their plants, leaving them more vulnerable to competition from cheaper landfills. That same month, in a different case, the High Court ruled that incinerators must treat the ash they generate as hazardous waste because of elevated levels of lead and cadmium. Hazardous waste requires expensive special landfills.
Columbus, Ohio is considering permanently closing a huge 11-year-old garbage incinerator which generates thousands of kilowatts of electricity, and dumping its garbage in a landfill. Pressure is building to close the incinerator due to regulatory rules, lower energy prices, health and safety concerns, judicial decisions, and lower landfill costs.
The incinerator has high concentrations of toxic pollutants, including dioxin and mercury. The EPA issued an emergency order in September 1994 ordering Columbus to install environmental equipment by 1996 at an estimated cost of $65 million -- or the plant would be closed. Columbus officials dispute the E.P.A.'s claim that the incinerator generates more dioxin than any other in the country, and question the EPA's estimate of the potential harm to residents.
Columbus might save a few million dollars every year by dumping its trash in a landfill and closing the incinerator, but it still must pay off the $265 million debt for the plant. Thus switching to landfills could increase the cost of trash disposal for the average family to $220 a year, up from $156 this year.
Tampa faces $25 million to $40 million in added costs to retrofit its $115 million incinerator with new equipment to control air pollution.
However, Congress may consider legislation which would allow states to bar shipments of garbage from other states. If approved, the proposal may prompt construction of incinerators in New York City, which has averted a trash crisis by shipping garbage to Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Schneider, Keith, "Burning Trash for Energy: Is It an Endanged Industry" The New York Times, Oct 11, 1994 page 18
6. GARBAGE GASSIFICATION MAY BE COST EFFECTIVE
New York City is examining a technology developed by Grillenzoni & Associates of Modena, Italy, to process garbage. The process involves shredding garbage, heating it, pressing the residue into ice-cube sized bricks, and then steaming the bricks until they emit a gas that can be burned to make electricity. Along with electricity, the process produces ash with 15 to 20 percent of the volume produced by the original garbage.
In the future, it may be easier to find a place to store 15 pounds of ash than 100 pounds of trash, and the exhaust from the Italian method may be cleaner than that from conventional incinerators. A gasifier in Vicenza, operated by Mannesmann Italiana S.p.A., reportedly produces air emissions well below the limits fixed by the European Community.
Prior to completion of natural gas pipelines circa 1950, utilities gasified coal to supply homes and street lamps with flammable gas. Today, some companies gasify heavy oil. In general, gasification is cleaner than burning, because sulfur, acids, and other pollutants can be cleaned out of the gas before it is ignited by "scrubbing" (exposing it to water and highly alkaline chemicals). In addition, gas can often be burned at higher efficiency than liquids or solids, because it can be burned in turbines. In a conventional incinerator the chlorine =66rom PVC plastics and other sources can form dioxin, but in the gasifier, the chlorine reacts with the hydrogen from the steam to form hydrochloric acid, which is eventually washed out of the gas.
Roberto Rovere a New York architect working for Grillenzoni said that due to lower capital costs a gasifier could operate profitably on a far smaller scale than an incinerator. His analysis of a gasifier that could handle 42,000 tons a year found that the machine would pay for itself in less than a year and a half. However, Rovere assumes an electricity price of 8 cents a kilowatt-hour, which is below retail rates in New York but well above the wholesale rate. Paul J. Bekowies, a research scientist at New York City's Department of Sanitation is studying the technology.
Wald, Matthew L, "Business Technology; Gasifying Garbage to Produce Electricity", The New York Times, May 4, 1994 Section D=20 page 7
7. LANDFILL SUBTITLE D COSTS
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that Subtitle D compliance will cost $330 million a year. To ensure compliance one company plans to install a methane gas collection and migration monitoring system, a composite liner and leachate collection system, and groundwater monitoring wells.
Wright, David "Coping with the high costs of Subtitle D regs" World Wastes Volume 37 Issue 1 Jan 1994 pages 50-54
8. COMPOSTING IMPACTS
An analysis of compost and leachate found little negative impact =66rom a well-managed composting site. It was found that it is possible to compost yard trimmings in an unconfined facility without adversely affecting the quality of adjacent surface water. Composting techniques can result in well-aerated compost with few water-saturated or low-pH zones and very limited leachate or odor generation.
Cole, Michael A. "Assessing the impact of composting yard trimmings" BioCycle Volume 35 Issue 4 Apr 1994 pages 92-96
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE VALUATION AND COST BENEFIT NEWS EDV&CBN
(Copyright) 1995 Kenneth Acks, Damage Valuation Associates Publisher: Kenneth Acks Editor: Kenneth Acks Assistant Editor: Cindy Grant Associate Editor: Anthony BenantiWe welcome your comments, suggestions, and information about your cost benefit or environmental damage valuation issues.
We are also committed to improve referencing so that readers may obtain additional information quickly and efficiently. In addition EDV&CBN is in the process of expanding the geographic scope of coverage. Beginning with this issue we will classify articles according to the following system
GENERAL REGULATORY LEGISLATIVE JUDICIAL COMPUTERIZED COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS LAND/WASTE/GROUNDWATER GARBAGE HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUNDWATER WETLANDS OTHER WATER AIR ENERGY NON-ENVIRONMENTAL COST BENEFIT NEWSNon-environmental cost benefit news will be discussed because pollution generators often produce effects not normally considered environmental. In addition, policies regarding transportation, health, etc. often have environmental effects or influences.
DAMAGE VALUATION ASSOCIATES DDDDDD V V A D D V V A A D D V V A A D D V V AAAAAAA DDDDDD V A A 22 East Olive Street 250 West 57th Street Suite 1527=20 Long Beach, New York 11561 New York, New York 10107 phone: (516) 897-9728 (212) 969-0797 fax: (516) 897-9185 (212) 582-0593 KENACKS@DELPHI.COM SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATIONWe will not be able to provide this newsletter free of charge in the future. If you subscribe now, you will receive the April, May, and June issues free of charge, and your subscription year will begin in July. To subscribe please send a $39.95 check payable to
22 East Olive Street
Long Beach, New York USA 11561-3507.
Name______________________________________________________ Organization______________________________________________ Street Address____________________________________________ City, State, Country, Zip_________________________________ E-mail address____________________________________________ Binary_____ Ascii _______ Snail Mail ___________ Mastercard/Visa_____NOT YET AVAILABLE____Expiration Date___/9xxThe newsletter can help you to value environmental damages and to produce cost benefit analyses more effectively and efficiently by circulating critical information which is not easily obtained elsewhere. EDV&CBN will bring you the latest information on valuation of damages from the courts, from government agencies, =66rom the academic literature, and from unpublished studies. We will search daily newspapers, academic journals, legal publications, court decisions, professional newsletters, commissioned studies, and on-line services to provide you with the latest information in this rapidly changing field. We will expand coverage from all of these sources and geographically. We will cover valuation estimates from a wider range of journals than most busy professionals can track by themselves.
Recent court decisions, proposed legislation, and regulatory orders indicate that measures of costs, benefits, and risks will be required in the future to justify public and private actions.=20 ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE VALUATION AND COST BENEFIT NEWS is an indispensable source of information for estimating these parameters.
The damage measures covered can be used by governments and economists faced with the need to evaluate policies; by lawyers involved in litigation, by investors looking to buy distressed properties; by lenders fearful of potential liabilities; by stock analysts interested in determining the effects of environmental hazards upon balance sheets; by property owners looking to reduce unfair tax burdens on nonperforming real estate; by courts required to assess damages; and by mediators looking to settle neighborhood disputes through negotiation or compensation.
You need ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE VALUATION AND COST BENEFIT NEWS because regulations are being changed every day, courts continually set precedents, and new data or estimation techniques lead to a host of revisions in accepted wisdom.