Environmental Damage Valuation & Cost Benefit News--Winter,1995

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 ESEERCO                     

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



                         TABLE 1-I

            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 info@ter.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:



                         TABLE 3-I

           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  *

     ******************************



          GARBAGE



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 Benanti


We 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 NEWS


Non-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 INFORMATION


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.

          (516) 897-9728

          kenacks@delphi.com



Name______________________________________________________
Organization______________________________________________
Street Address____________________________________________
City, State, Country, Zip_________________________________
E-mail address____________________________________________
Binary_____   Ascii _______  Snail Mail  ___________
Mastercard/Visa_____NOT YET AVAILABLE____Expiration Date___/9xx


The 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.





BACK TO


CES Departmental Library
Envis Homepage
CES Homepage


*********************************************************************