United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste   Off Ice of Air     Off Ice of Research   EPA/530-SW-87-021h
and Emergency Response  and Radiation    and Development   June 1987
Washington, DC 20460   Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC 20460
&EPA
Municipal Waste
Combustion Study
              Characterization of the
              Municipal Waste Combustion
              Industry

-------
                                                    June 1987
       MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION STUDY:

       CHARACTERIZATION OF THE MUNICIPAL
           WASTE COMBUSTION INDUSTRY
                 Prepared by:

              Radian Corporation
                P. 0. Box 13000
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27709
            For Information Contact
                 Ray Morrison
          Pollutant Assessment Branch
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4330, Work Assignment 11
         Radian Project No. 239-001-11

-------
                      DISCLAIMER

     This document has been  reviewed  and  approved for
publication by  the  Office  of Air  and  Radiation,  U.S.
Environmental   Protection  Agency.   Approval  does  not
signify  that   the  contents  necessarily  reflect  the
views  and  policies  of the  Environmental  Protection
Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or commer-
cial products  constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section                                                               Page
LIST OF TABLES  	   iv
LIST OF FIGURES  	    v
1.   Introduction and Summary 	  1-1
2.   Municipal Waste Quantities, Composition, and Disposal
     Methods  	  2-1
     2.1  References 	  2-6
3.   Existing Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities 	  3-1
     3.1  References 	  3-9
4.   Planned MSW Combustion Facilities 	  4-1
     4.1  References 	  4-8
5.   Projected Growth of Municipal Waste Combustion Through 2000	  5-1
     5.1  References 	  5-5
6.   Retirements of Existing Facilities  	  6-1
     6.1  References 	  6-3
7.   Emission Trends 	  7-1
     7.1  References 	  7-2
8.   Issues Affecting Growth 	  8-1
     8.1  Air Emission Regulations and Control Strategies  	  8-1
          8.1.1  Federal Regulations and Programs  	  8-2
          8.1.2  State Regulations and Programs  	  8-7
          8.1.3  Foreign Regulations 	  8-11

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                  (Continued)
Section                                                               Page
     8.2  Land Disposal Regulations and Programs  	  8-17
          8.2.1  Land Disposal of MSW  	  8-17
          8.2.2  Land Disposal of Incinerator Ash  	  8-17
     8.3  Materials Separation and Recycling  	  8-18
     8.4  Other Issues  	  8-19
     8.5  References 	  8-20

                                 APPENDICES
A  Existing MWC Facilities  	    A-l
B  Plannec MWC Facilities  	    B-l

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                                 Page
2-1  Quantities of Municipal  Waste Generated
       (10 Tons/Year) 	  2-2
2-2  Current and Forecast Composition of Disposed Residential
       and Commercial  Municipal Waste (Weight  Percent)  	  2-3
2-3  Disposition of Municipal Wa -- in 1984 	  2-5
3-1  Summary of Existing MWC Facilities 	  3-2
3-2  Existing MWC Facilities by Design Type	  3-4
4-1  Summary of Planned Facilities 	  4-2
4-2  Summary of Planned MWC Facilities by Design Type	  4-3
4-3  States with Planned Growth in MWC Capacity Exceeding 5000 TPD...  4-7
5-1  Estimated Installed Capacity of Municipal Waste Combustion
     Facil ities 	  5-2
5-2  Percentage by Region of the Forecast Waste to Energy
       Throughput 1985 to 2000 	  5-3
6-1  Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities Currently Shut Down 	  6-2
8-1  Mean Bact Emission Rates for Combustors Burning Solid
       Waste which is at Least 50 Percent Municipal  	  8-5
8-2  Guideline Emission Limits for Resource Recovery Facilities  	 8-9
8-3  Acceptable Ambient Concentrations Reported to NATICH by
       State and Local Agencies for Selected  Pollutants  	 8-12
8-4  Foreign Regulations for Municipal Waste  Combustion  	 8-13
A-l  Existing Facilities Ordered by Design  Type  and  Size  	   A-2
A-2  Existing Facilities Ordered by State  and  Design Type  	   A-5
A-3  Human Exposure Model  Inputs for  MWC  Facilities  	   A-8
B-l  Planned Facilities Ordered by Design  Type and  Size  	   B-2
B-2  Planned Facilities Ordered by State  and  Design  Type 	   B-7
                                  1V

-------
                               LIST OF FIGURES
Figure                                                                Page
3-1  Distribution of existing installed Municipal Waste Combustion
       capacity by design type 	 3-5
3-2  Distribution of existing MWC facilities by region 	 3-7
3-3  Regional distribution of existing Municipal Waste Combustion
       facilities	 3-8
4-1  Distribution of planned Municipal Waste Combustion capacity
       by design type 	 4-4
4-2  Regional distribution of planned MWC facilities 	 4-6

-------
                        1.  INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
     This report presents the results of a recent  study to  describe  the
municipal waste combustion (MWC)  industry and to characterize  trends and
growth in the industry.  The information presented in  this  report  was
developed during a comprehensive,  integrated study of  municipal  waste
combustion.  An overview of the findings of this study may  be  found  in  the
Report to Congress on Municipal Waste Combustion (EPA/530-SW-87-021a).
Other technical volumes issued as  part of the Municipal Waste  Combustion
Study include:

     o    Emission Data Base for Municipal Waste Combustors
          (EPA/530-SW-87-021b)
     o    Combustion Control of Organic Emissions  (EPA/530-SW-87-021c)
     o    Flue Gas Cleaning Technology (EPA/530-SW-87-021d)
     o    Cost of Flue Gas Cleaning Devices (EPA/530-SW-87-021e)
     o    Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Waste Combustors
          (EPA/530-SW-87-021f)
     o    Assessment of Health Risks Associated with Exposure to Municipal
          Waste Combustion Emissions (EPA/530-SW-87-021g)
     o    Recycling of Solid Waste (EPA/530-SW-87-021i)

     In general, future trends in MWC use were assessed by investigating
current and projected levels of municipal waste generation and the  potential
need for additional (beyond current level) MWC capacity and factors
influencing a potential shift towards increased MWC use (e.g., declines in
landfill  sites and limitations in landfill use).  In projecting the  need for
new MWC facilities, attempts were made to define  the probable configurations
(including emission controls) and locations of future  sources.  Future
trends in air emissions from MWC facilities were  qualitatively characterized
according to the predicted trends in waste generation  levels  and  new MWC
facility number, types, sizes, and controls.  The time  frame  for  the
                                     1-1

-------
characterization of trends in the MWC industry  is  generally  the  present
through 1995, with limited data being available for  the  period to  2000.
     Included in the analysis of potential  MWC  growth  are:

     o    an assessment of the existing and predicted  quantities of
          municipal waste generated nationally  (Section  2);
     o    an assessment of the impact of land disposal  programs  on MWC
          demand (Sections 2 and 8);
     o    an assessment of factors such as  pending air emission  or solid
          waste regulations affecting resource  recovery  of municipal  wastes
          (Section 8);
     o    a description of the existing MWC industry and its effect  on
          future growth (Section 3);
     o    an assessment of the number, design (including emission  controls),
          and location of planned (Section  4) and projected (Section 5)  MWC
          facil Hies;
     o    an assessment of increased capacity needs  due  to retirement of
          existing MWC facilities (Section  6);
     o    a characterization of emission trends considering
          planned/projected MWC growth (Section 7);  and
     o    an examination of other factors such  as tax incentives that may
          effect a shift towards or away from MWC as a disposal  technique
          (Section 8).
     Municipal  waste is material discarded from residential, commercial, and
some industrial  establishments.  The amount of waste generated  in the
year 2000 is expected to be in the range of 159 to 287 million  tons per
year, compared to estimates of current generation rates of  134  to
180 million tons.  The most common method currently used to dispose of
municipal  waste is direct landfill.  However, existing landfill capacity is
being exhausted in many areas of the country and  new landfills  are becoming
increasingly difficult to site.  Because of these problems  with direct
landfill,  increased emphasis will be made on reducing waste volume through
combustion.
                                      1-2

-------
     There  are three basic types of facilities used to combust municipal
waste.  Combustion equipment is described in detail in the volume titled
"Municipal  Waste Combustion Study: Combustion Control of Organic Emissions;"
EPA/530-SW-87-021c.  The predominant type is called "mass burn" because the
municipal waste is combusted without any preprocessing other than removal  of
items too large to go through the feed system.  The combustors at mass burn
facilities  usually have overfeed stoker type grates.  These combustors are
field erected and individual combustors can range in size from 50 to
i"000 tons per day of municipal waste input.  A second type of facility is
the modular combustor.  Modular combustors are typically shop-fabricated and
range in size from 5 to 100 tons per day.  A third method for combusting
municipal waste is processing it to produce refuse derived fuel (RDF), then
combusting the RDF in a waterwall boiler.  RDF offers the advantage of
producing a more homogeneous fuel and increasing the percentage of municipal
waste which is recycled.
     Currently existing MWC facilities have a combined design capacity of
48,971 tons per day of municipal waste.  Mass burn/overfeed stokers make up
68 percent of the existing capacity.  The majority of existing facilities
with mass burn/overfeed stoker combustors have a site capacity greater than
1000 tons per day and have 2 or more combustors.  RDF facilities comprise
23 percent of the existing capacity.  Modular combustors make up the
remaining 9 percent of the existing capacity.  The majority of the existing
facilities are located in the New England and Mid-Atlantic States due  to the
dense populations and shortage of suitable landfill  sites.
     Facilities in the planning/construction stage represent  a total
capacity of 193,371 tons per day.  As is the case with existing capacity,
the majority of the planned facilities are mass burn with  site capacities  of
over 1000 tons per day.  Most of the planned facilities will  also be  located
in the New England and Mid-Atlantic States.  However, a considerable  number
will be located in California.  Estimates of projected growth  through  the
year 2000 indicate that the total capacity of MWC  facilities  will range  from
113,000 to 255,000 tons per day of installed capacity.
     Almost all  existing facilities have some type of particulate matter
emission controls.   Many existing modular combustors attempt  to control
                                     1-3

-------
particulate matter using a two-stage combustion process, though some of
these facilities also have add-on controls.  Other facilities use add-on
controls, such as ESPs, dry scrubbers, wet scrubbers, and baghouses.  Almost
all new facilities will have add-on particulate controls such as ESPs and
baghouses.  In addition, a significant number may include acid gas controls.
However, total emissions from MWC are still expected to increase due to the
large increase in the total capacity of the population.
     Though growth of MWC is expected to continue, there are several issue?
which may affect the growth rate   These issues include changes in tax laws,
regulations regarding ash disposal, energy prices, air emission regulations,
and public perception of risk due to MWC.
                                     1-4

-------
                       2.  MUNICIPAL WASTE QUANTITIES,
                        COMPOSITION, AND DISPOSAL METHODS

     Municipal waste is material discarded from residential,  commercial,  and
some industrial establishments.  Included are such sources as private homes,
apartment complexes, office buildings, retail stores, and industrial  plants.
This material  is collected by either municipally-owned trucks or private
haulers and transferred to a central point for disposal.  Table 2-1 presents
estimates of annual municipal waste generation for the years 1980 through
2000.
     Based on  these estimates, the amount of municipal waste potentially
generated by the year 2000 will be in the range of 159 to 287 million tons
per year.  The values would represent increases beyond current levels of 25
to 73 million  tons per year of total municipal waste generation.
     Of the total amount of waste generated, approximately 75 to 90 percent
is estimated to be actually collected and disposed of in a controlled way.
There are several reasons for waste collections being less than the total
amount of waste generated.  Waste is self-disposed in most rural areas and
in many small  towns.  Some waste is littered.  In some areas, due to climate
or local practice, yard waste is not removed for disposal.  Also, where food
waste is disposed of by kitchen garbage disposal units,  it ends up in the
sewer rather than in municipal waste collection trucks.  In addition, some
bulky items in the waste, such as appliances and furniture, brush, street
sweepings, and tires are delivered separately to landfills.  Therefore,
these wastes do not show up as waste collected in compactor trucks from
homes or businesses.
     Table 2-2 presents the weight percent composition of municipal waste
disposed in 1980 and projected compositions for 1990 and 2000.  No large
percentage changes in waste composition are forecast.  The heat content of
municipal  waste is projected to increase by approximately 2 percent.  This
is due to the slight increase in the percentage of paper and plastics, which
provide the majority of the heat content of municipal waste.6
                                     2-1

-------
                TABLE 2-1.   QUANTITIES OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE3'5
                            GENERATED (106 TONS/YEAR)

Source
Midwest Research Institute0
Frost and Sullivan0
Franklin Associates Ltd.6

1980 1985
159 180d
214
126 134d
Year
1990
201
238d
141

1995 2000
 
263d 287
150 159
References 1 through 3.
 Dashes indicate data not-available.
This source did not specify if materials recovered for recycling were
 included in the estimates shown.
 Linearly interpolated values.
eDoes not include materials recovered for recycling.
                                     2-2

-------
    TABLE 2-2.   CURRENT AND FORECAST COMPOSITION  OF  DISPOSED  RESIDENTIAL
                AND COMMERCIAL WASTE (WEIGHT  PERCENT)5

Component
Paper and Paperboard
Yard Wastes
Food Wastes
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Wood
Textiles
Rubber and Leather
Miscellaneous

1980
33.6
18.2
9.2
11.3
10.3
6.0
3.9
2.3
3.3
1.9
Year
1990
38.3
17.0
7.7
8.8
9.4
8.3
3.7
2.2
2.5
2.1

2000
41.0
15.3
6.8
7.6
9.0
9.8
3.8 -
2.2
2.4
2.1
TOTAL                            100.0             100.0                100.0
                                     2-3

-------
     There are three alternatives for the disposal  of collected municipal
waste.  These are direct landfill, combustion,  and  separation and recycle.
Table 2-3 presents the relative amounts of solid waste disposed of by each
method in 1984.  Based on these estimates, 85 percent of the municipal  waste
collected is disposed of by direct landfill.
     Though direct landfill is the most common  method of municipal waste
disposal, it is becoming less and less practical.  For example, New Jersey
closed over 58 percent of its operating landfills since 1977 as a result of
                                                                         8
reaching approved design capacity or because of State enforcement actions.
Only one new landfill has opened.  New York City has closed 14 of its
                                           g
17 refuse landfills over the past 20 years.   California, New Jersey, and
Florida have all  initiated programs to minimize the landfill ing of
waste.  '    In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
has made landfills more costly in some areas due to requirements for liners,
leachate containment, monitoring, etc.
     Due to the lack of suitable new landfill sites, increased landfill
operating costs,  ana closing of existing sites, municipalities are seeking
methods to reduce waste volume and extend landfill  life.  Combustion of
municipal waste,  which reduces the volume of material requiring landfill by
70 to 90 percent, is the waste disposal method currently receiving the most
emphasis, and is expected to grow at a faster rate than municipal waste
           12
generation.    Prior to the 1970s, municipal waste combustion  usually was
practiced only to reduce waste volume, and no energy was recovered.  The
number of sites receiving energy from combustors was minimal.  However,
since 1970, most new MWC facilities have been designed to recover the energy
content of the waste by producing steam and electricity.  Almost  all MWC
facilities to be constructed in the future are expected  to  have energy
         13 14
recovery.  '
                                     2-4

-------
             TABLE 2-3.  DISPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL  WASTE IN 1984
                                                               a

MSW in 105 TPY
Total Generated
Uncollectedb
Recovered and Recycled
Disposed of by Municipalities
Combustion0
Direct Landfilld
197.3
49.3
15.0

6.5
126.5
aBased on data presented in Reference 7.

 Assumed to be 25 percent of total generation.
clncludes combustion with and without heat recovery.
 Calculated as the difference between total i
 either uncollected, recycled, or combusted.
Calculated as the difference between total municipal waste generated, and amounts
                                     2-5

-------
2.1  REFERENCES


 1.  Midwest Research Institute.  As cited in Wilson, E. M.,  et al.   (The
     Ralph M. Parson Company.)  Engineering and Economic Analysis of Waste
     to Energy Systems.  (Prepared for U. S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency.)  Cincinnati, Ohio.  Publication No. EPA-600/7-78-086.   May
     1978.  p. A-2.

 2.  Frost and Sullivan.  As cited in Waste - Energy Boom Seen Through
     Century.  Coal and Synfuels Technology.   March 17, 1986.  p. 6.

 3.  Franklin, M. A., M. S. Artz, and R. G. Hunt.  (Franklin Associates,
     Ltd.)  Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,
     1960 to 2000 (Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
     Washington, D.C.  July 11, 1986.  p. 1-6.

 4.  Telecon.  Franklin, M., Franklin Associates, Ltd., with Barnett, K.,
     Radian Corporation.  April 30, 1986.  Conversation about generation of
     municipal solid waste.

 5.  Reference 3, p. 1-8.

 6.  Franklin, W. E., M. A. Franklin, and R.  G. Hunt.   (Franklin Associates,
     Ltd.)  Waste Paper - The Future of a Resource, 1980-2000.   (Prepared
     for the Solid Waste Council of the Paper Industry.)  Prairie Village,
     Kansas.   December 1982.  pp. 8-9.

 7.  Reference 3, p. S-4.

 8.  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection  - Division of Waste
     Management.  Progress in Waste Management - A Solution to New Jersey's
     Garbage Dilemma.  March 1986.  pp. 1-2.

 9.  Garbage:  A 413,000 Ton-A-Day Dilemma.  Inform Reports.  5(3):l-4.
     May-June 1985.

10.  Telecon.  Dorian, G., EPA:OSW, with Barnett, K., Radian Corporation.
     April 25, 1986.  Conversation about state landfill regulations.

11.  Franklin, W. E., M. A. Franklin, and R.  G. Hunt.   (Franklin Associates,
     Ltd.)  Waste Paper - The Future of a Resource,  1980-2000.   (Prepared
     for the Solid Waste Council of the Paper Industry.)  Prairie Village,
     Kansas.   December 1982.  p. 6.

12.  Waste -  Energy Boom Seen Through Century.  Coal and Synfuels
     Technology.  March 17, 1986.  p. 6.
                                     2-6

-------
13.   Telecon.   Meyers,  R.,  EPA:ISB,  with Barnett,  K.,  Radian Corporation.
     April  2,  1986.   Conversation about projected  growth of municipal  waste
     combustion.

14.   Telecon.   Joyner,  J.,  Consumat  Systems,  Inc., with Barnett,  K., Radian
     Corporation.   April  17, 1986.   Conversation about growth
     characteristics of municipal waste combustion industry.
                                     2-7

-------
             3.  EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES

     Table 3-1 presents a summary of existing municipal  waste  combustion
(MWC) facilities.  The facilities are grouped by three design  types:   mass
burn facilities, modular facilities, and facilities that produce  and  combust
RDF.  These design types are described in detail in the volume titled
"Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Combustion Control  of Organic  Emissions;"
EPA/530-SW-87-021C.  A complete list of the facilities employing  these
designs is provided in Appendix A.  Also shown in Appendix A are  emission
parameters for existing facilities used as inputs for the Human Exposure
Model (HEM).
     The population of municipal waste combustors in the United States (both
existing and projected) is described in terms of 1.) throughput or -ipacity,
2.) number of facilities or sites, 3.) type of combustor, and 4.) location
of facilities.  Throughput or capacity may be aggregated in several ways:
by type of combustor,  by number of facilities in a state or region of the
United States, or by facility or unit.  A facility may consist of one or
more combustors.  Capacity refers to the amount of municipal waste a
facility,  unit, or group of facilities is design to combust.
     Table 3-1 presents a summary of the existing MWC facility population.
The total  design capacity for the 111 existing MWC facilities is  48,971 tons
per day of municipal waste input.  Based on a capacity utilization of
80 percent, the actual municipal waste throughput is estimated to be
39,177 tons per day.  Table 3-2 and Figure 3-1 show the distribution of
design capacity among the three design types.  The mass burn facilities have
the largest share of the installed capacity, 68 percent of the total.  The
RDF facilities represent 23 percent of the total capacity and modular
facilities represent 9 percent.  Though they represent a small amount of the
installed capacity, the number of modular facilities  is greater  than the
number of mass burn facilities.  There are only 10 RDF facilities.
     Table 3-1 also groups the MWC facilities by design capacity.  The
majority of the facilities with modular combustors have design capacities of
less than 250 tons per day.  The majority of the capacity of mass  burn
                                     3-1

-------
TABl F 3-1.  SUMMARY  Of  FXISTING MWC FACILITIES4
FACILITILS KITH HtAl RtCOVERY
Design Type
Mass Burn
Modular
Cumbustor
RDF
Mass Burn
Modular
Cumbustor
RDF
Mass Burn
Modular
Combustor
MIX
i
r\J Md-,s Burn
Modular
Conibustor
Kill
IUIAL
Dosl gn
Capacity Number of
Range Instal led
(TPO) Facilities
<2BO 8
37

1
250 to 1000 8
0

5
73
Total
Instal led
Cd??pD}y
1.291
3,292

200
1.820
570

1,100
2,740
0

600
14.250
0

9.500
3S.363

ESP
7
7

1
4
2

2
3
0

1
8
0

5
40
Lmlsilon Ct
Baghouse S
1
3

0
0
0

0
l"
0

0
0
0

0
5
introl Devlc.
.crubber C
0
4

0
0
0

i
0
0

0
0
0

0
5
fib,c
yclone
0
2

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
2
New
r.it M
0
}

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
1


England and North
Id-Atlantic Centra
1
9

0
2
0

0
1
0

1
4
0

2
20
1
5

1
0
0

2
0
0

0
1
0

2
12
-"*&$-
1 Atlantic
5
4

0
1
1

1
0
0

0
3
0

1
16
' ~56uT:
Centr
1
14

0
0
1

0
2
0

0
0
0

0
18

h Mountain and
al Pacific
0
S

0
1
0

0
1
0

0
0
0

0
7

-------
                                                       1ABLE 3-1.   SUMMARY OF  FXISTING MXC  FACILITIES4  (Continued)
CO
FACILITIES W11HOUT HEAT

Design Type
Mass Burn
Modular
Combustor
KM
Mass Burn
Modular
Combustor
ROf
Mass Burn
Modular
Combustor
RDF
Mass Burn
Modular
ComLustor
KDF
IUIAI
Design
Capacity Number of
Range Installed
(1PD) Facilities
<2SO 4
17

0
2SO to <500 2
0

0
SOO to <1000 11
0

0
>1000 4
0

0
38
Total
Instal led
UPO)
748
610

0
900
0

0
7.150
0

0
4.200
0

0
13.608


ESP
1
1

0
0
0

0
7
0

0
3
0

0
12
. Emlsiien Cantrei Day.
Baghouse
0
0

0
0
0

0
ld
0

0
0
0

0
1
Scrubber
3
0

0
2
0

0
3
0

0
1
0

0
9
RECOVERY
fceb>c

Cyclone
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0



EGB
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0


New England and
Mid-Atlantic
1
11

0
1
0

0
s
0

0
1
0

0
19
	
FJoTftH
Central
2
1

0
1
0

0
5
0

0
0
0

0
9
	
ocatl
South
Atlantic
0
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
2
0

0
3


Sbulh Mountain and
Central
1
4

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
1
0

0
6
Pacific
0
0

0
0
0

0
1
0

0
0
0

0
1
      Based on data  from  a  telephone survey  of  MVC facilities and data In References 1 through 19.   Includes facilities expected to be  operational  as of  the end
       ot  19B6.
      bThlity-slx  facilities *!th modular combustors reported no add-on coni   .s.   therefore, the total number of control  devices shown  Is less  than the  total
       number  of  Installed facilities.
      CIG - [ lectrostatlc Gravel Bed filter.   The wet scrubbers shon are Installed for participate control.  The majority of these scrubbers are
       believed to be the  venturl type.   The effectiveness of wet scrubbers on acid gas emissions was not reported.
      dlhis facility  also  has a dry scrubber  for acid gas control upstream of the baghouse.

-------
             TABLE 3-2.   EXISTING MWC FACILITIES BY DESIGN TYPE
                               Installed                  Number
   Design Type           Design Capacity, TPD        of  Facilities
MASS BURN
With Heat Recovery
Without Heat Recovery
Total
MODULAR COMBUSTOR
With Heat Recovery
Without Heat Recovery
Total
RDF
With Heat Recovery
Without Heat Recovery
Total

20,101
12,998
33,099

3,862
610
4,472

11,400
0
11,400

24
21
45

39
17
56

10
0
10
GRAND TOTAL                   48,971                       111
                                     3-4

-------
                                  Modular (9%)
Mass Burn (68%)
                                                     RDF (23%)
              Total Design Capacity = 49,000 tons per day
                                                               s
   Figure 3-1.  Distribution of Existing Installed Municipal Waste
              Combustion Capacity by Design Type

                              3-5

-------
facilities is in the greater than 1000 tons per day size range.   However,
there is significant capacity within the 250 to 1000 tons per day range.
Each MWC facility typically has two or more combustors.  The data indicate
that mass burn combustors are designed to meet a variety of capacity
requirements, unlike the modular combustors which are specifically designed
for a smaller combustion demand.  Five of the 10 RDF facilities  are designed
to process more than 1000 tons per day of municipal waste.
     Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show the distribution of MWC facilities by regions
in the United States.  A significant number, 39 of the 111 existing
facilities, are located in the New England and Mid-Atlantic States.  This is
due to the dense population and relatively small land areas of these States
which results in greater municipal waste generation and a shortage of
suitable landfill sites.  The Mountain and Pacific States have the least
number of facilities of any region with a total of 8 existing facilities.
     Table 3-1 shows that 73 of the 111 facilities, approximately
two-thirds, have heat recovery in the form of steam generation.   The steam
produced by these facilities is either used to produce electricity, sold  to
an industrial or municipal user, or both.
     The predominant form of emissions control at MWC  facilities is an ESP.
Fifty-two facilities have ESPs installed to control particulate matter
emissions.  Two facilities have dry scrubbers to control  acid gas, followed
by a baghouse to control particulates.  Four facilities use baghouses alone.
Fourteen facilities have wet scrubber systems to control  particulates.
Thirty-six facilities with modular combustors did not  report any form of
add-on emission controls.
                                     3-6

-------
CO
CD
o
CO
U.

"o
k.
CD

1
45


40'


35


30.


25-


20-


15-


10-


 5-
                               Total Number of Facilities = 111
       New England       South
      and Mid-Atlantic    Central
                                South
                               Atlantic

                               Region
 North
Central
Mountain and
   Pacific
Figure 3 - 2.  Distribution of Existing MWC Facilities by Region
                                  3-7

-------
CD
                  Figure 3-3. Regional Distribution of Existing Municipal Waste Combustion
                                                 Facilities

-------
3.1  REFERENCES


  1.  Update:  Resource Recovery Activities Report.  Waste Age.
     16(11):99-138.  November 1985; and The Waste Age Refuse-to-Energy
     Guide.  Waste Age. 17(11): 197-210.  November 1986.

  2.  Report on Semiannual Survey:  Resource Recovery Activities.   City
     Currents.  October 1985,  pp. 1-18; and October 1986, pp.  1-19.

  3.  Franklin, W. E., M. A. Franklin, and R. G. Hunt.  (Franklin  Associates,
     Ltd.)  Waste Paper - The Future of a Resource, 1980-2000.   (Prepared
     for the Solid Waste Council of the Paper Industry.)  Prairie Village,
     Kansas.  December 1982.  pp. 167-187.

  4.  Resource Recovery Activities.  Waste to Energy Report.  August 27,
     1986.

  5.  Letter and attachments from Seidman, N.L., Northeast States  for
     Coordinated Air Use and Management, to Schliesser, S., Midwest
     Research Institute.  January 23, 1986.  9 pp.  Material on NESCAUM's
     Maintenance Project Program Options and STAR Projects.

  6.  Letter and attachments from Smith, W.A., Air, Pesticides and Toxics
     Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Region IV, to
     Morrison, R. Strategies and Air Standards Division.  June 30, 1986.
     3 pp.  Comments on Lists of Existing and Planned Municipal Waste
     Combustion Facilities.

  7.  Letter and attachments from Bradley, M., Northeast States for
     Coordinated Air Use Management, to Cleverly, D.  11  pp.  Summary  of
     Resource Recovery Projects in New York State.

 8.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region  IX, New  Source Section.
     February 3, 1986.  4 pp.  Resource Recovery  Projects:  A Comparative
     Section.

 9.  Letter and attachments from Kircher, D.S., Air Programs Development
     Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, to
     Morrison, R., Strategies and Air Standards Division, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  June 27, 1986.  3 pp.  Review of Lists of Municipal
     Incinerators.

10.  Letter and attachments from Mageer, K.A., Environmental Engineer,
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region  III, to  Morrison, R.,
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  May 15, 1986.   16 pp.
     Inventories of Proposed and/or Operating Refuse-to-Energy Facilities
     from Region III.

11.  Letter from Hepola, J.R., Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency Region VI, to Morrison, R., U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  June 27, 1986.  1 p. Review of Lists of  Existing
     and  Planned Municipal  Waste Combustion Facilities.

                                     3-9

-------
12.  Letter and attachments from Willenburg, J.,  State of Washington
     Department of Ecology, to Morrison, R., U.S. Environmental  Protection
     Agency.  June 23, 1986.  3 pp.  Operating Municipal  Incinerators in
     Washington State.

13.  Letter and attachments from Eng, K., Air and Environmental  Applications
     Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II, to Blackard,
     W.A., New Source Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
     IX.  3 pp.  Resource Recovery Projects:  A Comparative Study.

14.  Letter from Turlinski, B.E., Enforcement Case Activities Section,
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, to Blackard, W.A.,
     New Source Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX.
     June 20, 1986.  1 p.  Resource Recovery Projects.

15.  Letter from Randolph, K.A., Environmental Control Division, Government
     of the District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory
     Affairs, to Mageer, K.A., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
     III.  May 1, 1986.  2 pp.  Operating and/or Proposed Refuse-to-Energy
     Facilities in the District of Columbia.

16.  Letter from Taggart, R.J., Environmental Engineer, Division of Air and
     Waste Management, Dover, DE, to Mageer, K.A., Environmental Engineer,
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III.  May 6, 1986.  1 p.
     Refuse-to-Energy Facility in Deleware.

17.  Letter from Daniel, J.M., Acting Executive Director, Commonwealth of
     Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board, to Mageer, K.A.,
     Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
     III, April 29, 1986.  2 pp.  Proposed Refuse-to-Energy Facilities  in
     Virginia.

18.  Letter from Jorquera, M.E., P.E., Head, Permit Evaluation Seciton,
     State of Maryland, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, to
     Mageer, K.A., Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency Region III, May 12, 1986.  3 PP.  Resource Recovery Survey.

19.  Letter and attachments from Hooper, M., Chemical Engineer, Air
     Operations Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, to
     Baker,  R., Engineer, New Source Section, Air Management Division,
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, June 10, 1986.   10 pp.
     Resource Recovery Projects in Region X.
                                     3-10

-------
              4.  PLANNED MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES

     This section contains a description of planned MWC facilities.  Some of
these facilities have only been proposed, while others are in the advanced
planning/construction phase.  A complete list of these individual facilities
is contained  in Appendix B.
     Planned  facilities are facilities which are not yet operating, but are
either actually under construction, have contracts for their construction
under negotiation or signed, or have been formally proposed.  The national
growth projections, which are presented  in Section 5, differ from the
projections shown here in that some of the growth estimates presented  in
Section 5 are based on estimates of municipal waste growth or market
surveys, and  are not based on actual facilities known to be planned.
     Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present a  summary of planned facilities.  They are
grouped by the same design types that were used to group the existing
facilities discussed in the previous section.  There are 210 facilities
shown in the  planning/construction stage.  One hundred and eighteen are mass
burn facilities, 24 are facilities with  modular combustors, and  31 are RDF
facilities.   For 37 facilities, data on  the design type was either
unavailable,  or a design type had  not been decided on.  The total  design
capacity for  these facilities is projected to be 193,371 tons per  day, or
approximately four times the total design capacity of the existing MWC
facilities.  The projected startup dates for the 127 facilities  for which
data are available range from 1986 to 1993.
     Figure 4-1 shows, for planned facilities, the distribution  of design
capacity among the three primary design  types.  The mass burn facilities
account for 59 percent of the total design capacity.  The RDF facilities
account for 20 percent, and the facilities with modular combustors account
for only 3 percent.  The remaining 18 percent is represented by  facilities
where, the design technology is either undecided or not available.  All of
the planned facilities are expected to have energy recovery.
                                     4-1

-------
                                     TABLE  4-1.   SUMMARY  OF  PLANNED MWC FACILITIES*
Design Type
Mass Burnb
Modular Combustorc
RDF
UDld
Mass Burn
Modular Combustor
RDF
DDT
Mass Uurn
Modular Combustor
HDF
UDI
Mass Uurn
Modular Combustor
Kill
UOT
TOTAL
Design Capacity Total Design
Range (TPD) Capacity (TPD)
<2SO 3,055
1.377
450
1.225
250 to <500 6,155
3,730
730
3.220
500 to <1000 21.653
0
8.544
3,700
>1000 82,532
0
29,150
27,850
193,371
Planned
Facll Itles
IB
14
3
7
17
10
2
9
33
0
11
6
50
0
Ib
15
210
Number of
New England and
Mid-Atlantic
9
7
1
3
7
6
2
3
17
0
3
3
25
0
2
8
96
Location
North
Central
2
3
1
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
20

South South Mountain and
Atlantic Central Pacific
2
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
4
0
2
1
6
u
3
3
27
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
11
4
2
1
1
5
3
0
2
7
0
4
0
16
0
8
3
56
dBased on data In References 1 through 43.
blncludes both overfeed stoker and rotary combustor designs.
"-Includes both starved air and excess air designs.
dDesign type has either not been specified or data on design type *as  not  provided  In  the  references.

-------
        TABLE 4-2.  SUMMARY OF PLANNED MWC FACILITIES  BY  DESIGN  TYPE
     Design Type                     TPD               Number  of  Facilities
Mass Burna
Modular Combustor
RDF
UDTC
TOTAL
113,395
5,107
38,874
35,995
193,371
118
24
31
37
210
alncludes both overfeed stoker and rotary combustor designs.
 Includes both starved air and excess air designs.
cDesign type has either not been specified or data on design type was not
 provided in the references.
                                     4-3

-------
                                  Modular (3%)
Mass Burn (59%)
                                                   RDF (20%)
                                                 Undecided/Not Available (18%)
               Total Design Capacity = 190,000 tons per day
                                                                 s
                                                                 3
Figure 4-1.  Distribution of Planned Municipal Waste Combustion
            Capacity by Design Type
                                4-4

-------
     Figure 4-2 shows the regional  distribution  of  planned  MWCs.   The
majority of facilities are planned  for the  Northeastern  States  and
California.  Table 4-3 presents the projected  capacity growth  for  the  nine
States whose planned growth exceeds 5000 TPD.  The  reason  that  these States
have significant growth is because  these are the areas where direct  landfill
is most expensive, and/or the State and local  governments  are  undertaking
ambitious programs to minimize landfill ing.  California  is  projected to have
the greatest growth in new MWC facilities.   This State has  a dense
population in the coastal areas, is actively working to  minimize
landfill ing, and also has very little combustion capacity  presently
installed.
     Information on the type(s) of emission control devices to be used in
planned facilities was available for some of the facilities shown in
Table 4-1.  Based on this data and  discussions with combustor/boiler
manufacturers, all new municipal waste combustion facilities can be          ^
predicted to have either ESPs or baghouses  for particulate matter
control.       In addition, many of these planned facilities will  include
dry scrubbers for acid gas control  in response to State and local
environmental regulations.  The decision on whether or not to require  acid
gas control is made on a case-by-case basis.  States which are reportedly
requiring acid gas controls as a general rule include California, Michigan,
                                                                      44-48
New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon,  Washington, and Maine.
                                                  45
Florida is considering requiring acid gas control.     Each of these States
are ones where significant new MWC capacity is planned.  Therefore,  a
significant portion of new MWC facilities will likely have acid gas controls
installed.  In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District  in
California reportedly plans to require thermal de-NOv on new MWC
                                   47
facilities in the South Coast area.
                                      4-5

-------
1
1
1
v 1
\ <  .
V J
f
1 ._---
1 
1 '
1 '
	 J 	 J
1 
1 I 1
1 1 I
1 ' u->_
                                                                     PR
Figure 4 - 2.  Regional Distribution of Planned MWC Facilities

-------
               TABLE 4-3.  STATES WITH PLANNED GROWTH IN MWC
                           CAPACITY EXCEEDING 5000 TPD

State
Cal ifornia
Nsw Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Florida
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Virginia
Washington
Subtotal
Remaining States
Total
Number of
Facilities
36
6
23
26
13
11
11
4
5
149
61
210
Planned
Capacity (TPD)a
42,522
23,955
22,853
18,472
14,420
10,060
8,520
8,375
5,150
154,327
39,044
193,371
Ranked in descending order by capacity.
                                    4-7

-------
4.1  REFERENCES


 1.  Update:  Resource Recovery Activities Report.   Waste Age.
     16(11):99-138.  November 1985; and The Waste Age Refuse-to-Energy
     Guide.  Waste Age. 17(11): 197-210.   November 1986.

 2.  Report on Semiannual Survey:   Resource Recovery Activities.   City
     Currents.  October 1985, pp.  1-18; and October 1986, pp.  1-19.

 3.  Franklin, W. E., M. A. Franklin,  and R. G.  Hunt.  (Franklin  Associates,
     Ltd.)  Waste Paper - The F- ---re of a Resource, 1980-2000.   (Prepared
     for the Solid Waste Council  of the Paper Industry.)   Prairie Village,
     Kansas.  December 1982.  pp.  167-187.

 4.  State of California, Air Resources Board, Stationary Source  Division.
     Air Pollution Control at Resource Recovery Facilities.  Sacramento,
     California.  May 24, 1984.  pp. 20-22.

 5.  Spokane County, Washington May Accelerate Waste - Energy Plant
     Schedule.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  August 14, 1985.  p.  4,

 6.  Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania Nears Groundbreaking for 50 T/D
     Plant.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  September 11, 1985.  p.  4.

 7.  Stratford, Connecticut, Planning Its Own Plant After Rejecting
     Bridgeport.  Waste-To-Energy Report.   September 11, 1985.  p. 4.

 8.  American Ref-Fuel Expecting Key Permits for Houston Plant Next Week.
     Waste-To-Energy Report.  October 9,  1985.  p. 6.

 9.  Westinghouse Awaiting Court Decision to Start Building Indiana Project.
     Waste-To-Energy Report.  August 28,  1985.  p. 5.

10.  Katy-Seghers to Decide Soon on General Contractor for Middleton,
     Connecticut.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  October 9, 1985.  p.   7.

11.  Ogden Negotiating with Kiewit for General Contractor  at Babylon,
     New York.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  August 28,  1985.  p. 3.

12.  Hennepin County, Minnesota, Picks Blount for  $70 Million Facility.
     Waste-To-Energy.  August 28,  1985.   p. 3.

13.  Ogden Martin Picks J. A. Jones as General Contractor  for Bristol,
     Connecticut.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  August 28, 1985.  pp. 1-2.

14.  Stanislaus/Modesto, California Likely  to Approve Ogden/Oxford.
     Waste-To-Energy Report.  December 4,  1985.  p. 4.

15.  Connecticut Drops Katy-Seghers, Picks  American Ref-Fuel for  Mid-State
     Project.   Waste-To-Energy Report.  December 4,  1985.  p. 2.
                                     4-8

-------
16.  Schnitzer Steel  Proposes 1,200 T/D Plant  to  Use  Portland, Oregon Waste.
     Waste-To-Energy  Report.   December 4,  1985.   p. 3.

17.  Huntsville,  Alabama Nears Decision on Contract for  690  T/D  Plant.
     Waste-To-Energy  Report.   December 4,  1985.   p. 3.

18.  Delaware County,  Pennsylvania Set to  Issue RFP for  Large Waste  - Energy
     Plant.   Waste-To-Energy  Report.   December 4,  1985.   p.  1.

19.  Pennsylvania Governor Wants Half of State's  Garbage Burned  in  Energy
     Plants.   Waste-To-Energy Report.   November 6,  1985.  p.  1.

20.  Indianapolis Expresses Surprise Over Ogden's Law Bid.   Waste-To-Energy
     Report.   November 6, 1985.  p. 3.

21.  Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Awards $120  Million Contract to Dravo.
     Waste-To-Energy  Report.   November 6,  1985.   p.  2.

22.  Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania Considering Three Firms to  Build 750 T/D
     Project.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  October  23,  1985.  p.  7.

23.  Puerto Rico Expects 30 Firms to Respond to  Waste Management RFQ/RFP.
     Waste-To-Energy  Report.   October 23,  1985.   p.  3.

24.  New Jersey's Cape May and Cumberland Counties May Build 750 T/D
     Project.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  October  23,  1985. ' p. 2.

25.  Passaic County,  New Jersey Issues New RFQ to Ease Certification
     Requirements.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  October 23, 1985.   p. 1.

26.  Camden County, New Jersey Issues Final RFPs to FW, Ogden and Signal.
     Waste-To-Energy Report.   September 25, 1985.  pp.  1, 5-6.

27.  Snohomish County, Washington  Project Being Slowed  by Doubts on
     Economics.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  September 25,  1985.   p. 7.

28.  Foster Wheeler Selected to Build Hudson  Falls, New  York Project.
     Waste-To-Energy Report.   September 25, 1985.  pp.  3-4.

29.  Letter and attachments from Seidman, N.  L., Northeast  States  for
     Coordinated Air Use and Management,  to Schliesser,  S., Midwest  Research
     Institute.  January 23,  1986.  9 pp.  Material on  NESCAUM's Maintenance
     Project Program Options and STAR Projects.

30.  Letter and Attachments from Smith, W. A., Air, Pesticides  and Toxics
     Management Division, U.  S. Environmental Protection Region IV,  to
     Morrison, R.  Strategies and  Air Standards Division.   June 30,  1986.
     3 pp.  Comments  on Lists of Existing and Planned Municipal  Waste
     Combustion Facilities.
                                     4-9

-------
31.  Letter and Attachments from Bradley, M., Northeast States for
     Coordinated Air Use Management, to Cleverly, D.  11 pp.  Summary of
     Resource Recovery Projects in New York State.

32.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, New Source Section.
     February 3, 1986.  4 pp.  Resource Recovery Projects:  A Comparative
     Section.

33.  Letter and Attachments from Kircher, D. S., Air Programs Development
     Section, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, to
     Morrison, R., Strategies and Air Standards Division,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  June 27, 1986.  3 pp.  Review
     of Lists of Municipal Incinerators.

34.  Letter and Attachments from Mageer, K. A., Environmental Engineer,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, to Morrison, R.,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  May 15, 1986.  16 pp.
     Inventories of Proposed and/or Operating Refuse-to-Energy Facilities
     from Region III.

35.  Letter from Hepola, J. R., Air Enforcement Branch, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency Region VI, to Morrison, R., U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  June 27, 1986.  1 p.  Review of Lists of Existing
     and Planned Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities.

36.  Letter and Attachments from Willenburg, J., State of Washington
     Department of Ecology, to Morrison, R., US. Environmental Protection
     Agency.  June 23, 1986.  3 pp.  Operating Municipal  Incinerators  in
     Washington State.

37.  Letter and Attachments from Eng, K., Air and Environmental Applications
     Section, U S. Environmental Protection Agency Region  II, to
     Blackard, W. A., New Source Section, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency Region IX.  3 pp.  Resource Recovery Projects:  A Comparative
     Study.

38.  Letter from Tuvlinskl, B. E., Enforcement Case Activities Section,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, to  Blackard, W.  A.,
     New Source Section, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region  IX.
     June 20, 1986.  1 p.  Resource Recovery Projects.

39.  Letter from Randolph, K. A., Environmental Control Division,  Government
     of the District of Columbia, Department of Consumer  and  Regulatory
     Affairs, to Mageer, K. A., U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency
     Region III.  May 1, 1986.  2 pp.  Operating and/or Proposed
     Refuse-to-Energy Facilities in the District of  Columbia.

40.  Letter from Taggart, R. J., Environmental Engineer,  Division  of Air and
     Waste Management, Dover, DE, to Mageer, K. A.,  Environmental  Engineer,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III.  May  6,  .986.   1 p.
     Refuse-to-Energy Facility in Delaware.
                                     4-10

-------
41.  Letter from Daniel, 0. M.,  Acting Executive  Director,  Commonwealth  of
     Virginia State Air Pollution Control  Board,  to Mageer,  K.  A.,
     Environmental Engineer, U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency
     Region III, April 29, 1986.  2 pp.  Proposed Refuse-to-Energy
     Facilities in Virginia.

42.  Letter from Jorquera, M. E., P.E., Head,  Permit Evaluation Section,
     State of Maryland, Department of Health and  Mental  Hygiene, to
     Mageer, K. A., Environmental Engineer,  U.  S. Environmental Protection
     Agency Region III, May 12,  1986.  3 pp.  Resource Recovery Survey.

43.  Letter and Attachments from Hooper, M., ,nemical Engineer, Air
     Operations Section, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, to
     Baker, R., Engineer, New Source Section,  Air Management Division,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, June 10, 1986.  10 pp.
     Resource Recovery Projects in Region X.

44.  Telecon.  Joyner, J., Consumat Systems, Inc., with Barnett, K., Radian
     Corporation.  April 17, 1986.  Conversation about growth
     characteristics of the municipal waste combustion industry.

45.  Telecon.  Speck, S., Ogden-Martin, with Barnett, K., Radian
     Corporation.  April 22, 1986.  Conversation about growth
     characteristics of the municipal waste combustion industry.

46.  Telecon.  Stickney, K., Signal Environmental Company, with Barnett, K.
     Radian Corporation.  April  22, 1986.  Conversation about  growth of
     municipal waste combustion.

47.  Telecon.  Honsaker, W., O'Connor Combustor  Company, with  Barnett,  K.,
     Radian Corporation.  April 22, 1986.  Conversation about  growth  of
     municipal waste combustion.


48.  Telecon, Schindler, P., U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  with
     Barnett, K., Radian Corporation.   October 29,  1986.   Conversation
     concerning state regulations  for  new MWC facilities.
                                      4-11

-------
       5.  PROJECTED GROWTH OF MUNICIPAL WASTE  COMBUSTION  THROUGH  2000

     This section presents the projected growth of the MWC industry  through
the year 2000.  The projections shown are based on market  surveys,
projections in the growth of municipal waste generation,  and the data on
planned facilities shown in Section 4.
     Total projected growth of MWC through the  year 2000 is shown in
Table 5-1.  The values shown represent the total populations of MWC
facilities, including existing facilities (discussed in Section 3) and
planned facilities (Section 4) expected to begin operation in 1986 through
2000.
     As the table shows, there is considerable  variability among the growth
estimates generated by various sources.  However, all the estimates  indicate
a significant growth of municipal waste combustion through the year 2000.
Based on the list of facilities currently shown in Appendices A and B, the
capacity of municipal waste combustion facilities will reach 242,342 tons
per day of installed capacity by the time all the facilities currently in
the planning stage with startup dates prior to 1991 are on-line.  The
projected startup dates for the facilities in Appendix B range from 1986
through 1993 and actual startup dates are not available for some facilities.
In addition, there is considerable uncertainity in the available startup
dates, and past experience has shown that startup delays of up to several
years are common.  Based on this, the population estimate of 242,342 tons
per day would most likely occur sometime in the 1990s.
     Table 5-2 presents projections  for the percentage by region of  the
total throughput for MWC facilities  based on projections  by Franklin
Associates.  This forecast does not  include existing  facilities which
combust municipal waste without energy recovery.  However,  including  these
facilities would not significantly affect the  results.  As  shown  in
Table 5-2, the regions with the largest  amount  of MWC  are currently  the
New England and Mid-Atlantic States.  These regions  are expected  to  continue
to account for 45 percent of national municipal waste  combustion  through the
                                      5-1

-------
                                 TABLE 5-1.   ESTIMATED INSTALLED CAPACITY Of  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  COMBUSTION FACILITIES
Source
Franklin Associates6'0



Frost and Sullivan6



Appendices A and Bd'*




* MB = mass burn
MI  modular combustor
RDF * refuse derived fuel
DOT  either technology Is
Facilities'
MB
MI
RDF
TOTAL
MB
MI
RDF
TOTAL
MB
MI
RDF
UOT
TOTAL
undetermined at

Number
	
	
	
---
40
47
18
105
39
46
9
0
94
this time
TOWC 	
Capacity
.__
	
	
	
27.566
3.697
17.830
49.093
29.399
3.521
10.660
0
43,580
	 1990 	 IflAT 	 TOO';

Number Capacity Number Capacity

	
	
	


___
	
163
80
41
37
321
51.205
2.653
12,736
66,594
70.781
8.681
38.330
117,792
146,494  ,
9.579
50,274
35.995
242,342
67,855
18.286
3,578
89,719
113,999
13.664
58.830
186,493
	
	
	
	



Rumber Capacity
	



105
167
43
315
	
	
	
	

84,505
4.503
23.836
112.844
157,216
18.647
79.330
255,193
	
	
	
	

or data not available
The data from these sources (References 1 and 2) Includes only facilities with energy recovery. The values for Installed capacity of MWC facilities
without energy recovery shown In Table 3-2 Mere added to the values for facilities Mith energy recovery In this source to determine the total
MWC facility population.
cData from this source are In terms of municipal waste throughput for all types of facilities. An 80 percent capacity factor was assumed to calculat
facility capacities.
dThe 1985 capacity estimates and number of facilities does not exactly match the totals for existing facilities listed In Section 3.0 because
several facilities began operating In 1986.
The actual startup  dates Mere  not  available  for almost  half of  u.u  facilities  In Appendix B.   It was  assumed that all plants without startup
 dates Mill be  In operation by  1990.   It  Is possible  that some of  these  plants may not start up until  after 1990 or may be scrapped.  Therefore,
 the 1990 population estimate may be  somewhat overstated.  Facilities with established startup  dates beyond 1990 are not Included In the totals
 shown here.

-------
TABLE 5-2.  PERCENTAGE BY REGION OF THE FORECAST WASTE
                TO ENERGY THROUGHPUT 1985 TO 20001

Region
New England and
Mid-Atlantic
North Central
South Atlantic
South Central
Mountain and Pacific

1985
45
19
28
7
1
Throuahput. Percent of Total
1990
45
13
21
6
15

2000
45
13
20
7
14
                          5-3

-------
year 2000.  The regions experiencing the greatest growth are the Mountain
and Pacific regions.  Most of the growth will  be in California.
     Based on the data on estimated capacities in Appendix B and Frost and
Sullivan projections, mass burn facilities are expected to account for
between 60 and 70 percent of the total projected capacity by the year 2000.
Facilities that combust RDF will constitute between 20 and 30 percent, and
facilities with modular combustors will account for approximately 10 percent
of the total projected capacity by the year 2000.  Though modular systems
wjll make up the smallest segment of the installed capacity, they will make
up the majority of the number of plants due to their small size.
     No detailed data are available on the size distribution of plants
projected through the year 2000.  ^ata on plants in the planning and
construction stage shown in Section 4  indicate that plants over 1000  tons
per day in size will make almost half  of the new capacity added through
1993.  However, facility manufacturers indicated that more plants will begin.
                                              3 4
to be built in the 500-1000 tons per day size. '   This is because the
number of cities which generate enough waste to require over 1000 tons per
day plants is limited.
     There are also no detailed data on the types  of emission controls these
new facilities will have.  Most manufacturers contacted stated  that  new
facilities will have ESPs for particulate control  unless  local  regulations
require baghouses. "   As previously mentioned, States are also requiring
acid gas controls on a case-by-case basis.  As a general  rule California,
New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, Michigan, Washington, Oregon  and Maine
either have or will likely require acid gas controls for  future facilities.
Since these States are also areas where large portions of the new facilities
are projected to be built, a significant portion of the new  facilities built
may have acid gas controls in addition to highly efficient particulate
matter controls such as ESPs and baghouses.
                                     5-4

-------
5.1  REFERENCES

1.   Franklin, W.  E.,  M. A.  Franklin,  and R.  G.  Hunt.   (Franklin Associates,
     Ltd.)  Waste  Paper - The Future of a Resource,  1980-2000.   (Prepared
     for the Solid Waste Council  of the Paper Industry.)   Prairie Village,
     Kansas.  December 1982.   p.  200.

2.   Frost and Sullivan.  As  cited in Waste - Energy Boom Seen  Through
     Century.   Coal and Synfuels  Technology.   March  17,  1986,  p.6.

3.   Telecon.   Stickney, K.,  Signal Environmental  Company, with Barnett,  K,,
     Radian Corporation.  April   -   1986.  Conversation  about growth of
     municipal waste combustion.

4.   Telecon.   Honsaker, W.,  O'Connor Combustor Company,  with Barnett, K.,
     Radian Corporation.  April  22, 1986.  Conversation  about growth of
     municipal waste combustion.

5.   Telecon.   Joyner, J., Consumat Systems,  Inc., with  Barnett, K.,
     Radian Corporation.  April  17, 1986.  Conversation  about growth
     characteristics of the municipal waste combustion industry.

6.   Telecon,   Speck,  S., Ogden-Martin, with Barnett, K., Radian
     Corporation.   April 22,  1986.  Conversation about growth
     characteristics of the municipal waste combustion industry.
                                      5-5

-------
                    6.   RETIREMENT OF EXISTING  FACILITIES

     The net growth of the municipal  waste combustion industry  will  be  the
difference between the growth in capacity due to construction of new
facilities, and retirement of existing facilities.   This section discusses
projected facility retirement.
     Table 6-1 presents a list of existing facilities that are  currently
believed to be shut down.  All these facilities are believed to have been
operational at some time in the 1980s.  Two of the facilities  shown are
under design review and may potentially reopen.  Not shown in  Table 6-1 are
RDF processing facilities which were producing fuel for use by  utilities off
site.  There were approximately eight facilities of this type  which were
operating in the early 1980s but are now shut down.
     The number of facilities retired in the next 15 years is  expected to be
small.  The majority of the existing facilities shown in Appendix A were
built since 1970, and will only be 30 years old in the year 2000.   In
addition, it appears that where possible, existing facilities will be
rebuilt rather than permanently retired.  For example, the Oceanside,
New York plant was originally commissioned in 1965 but extensively  rebuilt
in 1974-1977.   The facility  is closed now, but is under consideration  for
another possible renovation.   Some of the older facilities were  shut  down
in the 1970s due to the Clean Air Act.  The Clean Air Act  required  that  many
existing facilities add emission controls.  This resulted  in the  shut  down
               o
of some plants.   All the existing mass burn/overfeed stoker type plants
(which represent most of the  existing capacity) now  have  reasonably
efficient emission controls  installed.
                                      6-1

-------
   TABLE 6-1.   MUNICIPAL WASTE  COMBUSTION  FACILITIES CURRENTLY SHUT DOWN*
Location
Sullivan Springs, AR
Huntsville, AL
Crossville, TN
Genessee Township, MN
Ansonia, CT
Braintree, MA
Oyster Bay, NY
Oceanside, NY
Merrick, NY
Monroe County, NY
Hempstead, NY
Type
MI
MI
MI
MI
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
RDF/D
RDF/D
Design
Capacity,
TPD
16
50
60
100
150
384
500
750
NA
2000
2000
Shut Down
Date
NA
1985
NA
NA
1984
1983
NA
NA
NA
1984
1981
Future Status
Unknown
Shut down due to
conveyer problems
Unknown
Unknown
Municipal Waste is
sent to Windham, CT
Permanently shutdown
Unknown
New incinerators
ordered, negotiating
redevelopment of
project
Unknown
Currently preparing
RFP for alternative
use.
Unknown
aBased on data from References 1-5 and the list of currently operating
 facilities presented In Appendix A.
 RDF/D - refuse derived fuel fired in a dedicated boiler on-site.
 MI   -  modular combustor.
 MB/OF - mass burn facility with overfeed stoker  ncinerator/boiler.
                                     6-2

-------
6.1  REFERENCES


 1.  Resource Recovery Activities.   NCRR Bulletin  -  The Journal  of  Resource
     Recovery.  lQ(l):17-23.   March 1980.

 2.  Resource Recovery Activities.   NCRR Bulletin  -  The Journal  of  Resource
     Recovery.  H(l):15-24.   March 1981.

 3.  Resource Recovery Activities.   NCRR Bulletin  -  The Journal  of  Resource
     Recovery.  12(3):64-76.   September 1981.

 4.  Franklin, W. E., M. A. Franklin,  and R.  G.  Hunt.   (Franklin Associates,
     Ltd.)  Waste Paper - The Future of a Resource,  1980-2000.  (Prepared
     for the Solid Waste Council of the Paper Industry.)  Prairie Village,
     Kansas.  December 1982.   pp. 167-187.

 5.  Update:  Resource Recovery Activities Report.  Waste Age.
     16(11):99-138.  November 1985; and The Waste Age Refuse-to-Energy
     Guide.  Waste Age. 17(11): 197-210.  November 1986.

 6.  Hecklinger, R. S., C. 0. Velzy, and W. B. Trautwein (Charles R. Velzy
     Associates, Inc.)  Oceanside Disposal Plant Improvement Program -
     Design, Construction and Operating Experience.   Reprinted from:
     Proceedings of the 1978 National  Waste Processing Conference - Energy
     Conservation through Utilization.  (Sponsored by:  ASME Solid Waste
     Processing Division.)  pp. 523-530.

 7.  Report on Semiannual Survey:  Resource Recovery Activities.  City
     Currents.  October 1985.  p. 11.

 8.  Garbage:  A 413,000 Ton-A-Day Dilemma.  Inform Reports.  5(3):l-4.
     May-June 1985.

 9.  Update:  Resource Recovery Activities Report.  Waste Age.  i(ll):124.
     November 1985.
                                     6-3

-------
                             7.  EMISSION TRENDS

     Based on the data presented in Sections  3 through  6,  it  appears  that
emissions from municipal waste combustion will steadily increase  between
1985 and 2000.  This incre.    will  be due to  the  significant  new  capacity
expected, and lack of retirements of existing facilities.   Insufficient data
'are available to exactly quantify the amount  of the increase.  However, some
trends can be estimated.
     Particulate emissions will likely increase the least (as a percentage
of existing emissions).  This  is because all  new mass burn and RDF
facilities, and most of the new modular facilities, will be equipped with
highly efficient particulate control devices   such as ESPs and baghouses.
Most existing mass burn and RDF facilities have also installed these types-
of controls.  Since emission levels of some metals tend to parallel total
particulate, the emissions of  metals will tend to follow the trend of total
particulate.
     Acid gas emissions (HC1,  HF, H-SO.) will also increase.  Many new
facilities, especially those in States with the highest growth rates, will
have acid gas controls.  However, the use of  acid gas  controls will  be less
common nationwide than the use of particulate controls.  Only two  existing
facilities currently have acid gas controls.  Therefore, considerable
potential for acid gas emission reductions exists  for  facilities  currently
operating.  No States are currently  known to  be considering  requiring
retrofit of add gas controls.
     Emissions of organic compounds  would be  expected  to  increase in the
absence of regulation.  None of the  planned or existing facilities have
controls specifically for organic emissions.  However,  emission  tests  at
facilities in Canada and West  Germany  indicate that  the dry  scrubber/
baghouse system being required in many areas  for  acid  gas  control  is also
                                         1 2
effective in reducing organic  emissions.  '    Also,  new combustors are
expected to achieve more efficient combustion, so that organic  emissions
would be expected to be lower  than organic emissions from existing
facilities.
                                      7-1

-------
7.1  REFERENCES

1.    D.  Hay,  Finkelstein,  A.,  and R.  Klicius.   The National  Incinerator
     Testing  And Evaluation Program:   An assessment of two-stage
     incineration and a pilot  scale emission of control  system.   From
     "Proceedings of the 79th  APCA Annual  Meeting".  June 22-27, 1986.
     Minneapolis, Minnesota.

2.    Ogden Says Bavarian Plant is one of World's Best in Controlling Dioxin
     Waste-To-Energy Report.   June 18, 1986.  pp.  5-6.
                                      7-2

-------
                         8.   ISSUES  AFFECTING  GROWTH
     There are many issues which could  potentially  affect  the growth of MWC.
These issues have been divided into four general  categories  for discussion
in this section.  These categories are:   air emission  regulations,  land
disposal regulations and programs, materials separation  and  recycling, and
other issues such as tax law changes,  energy prices,  and public  resistance
to the location of resource recovery facilities near  residential  areas.

8.1  AIR EMISSION REGULATIONS AND CONTROL STRATEGIES*

     The air emission regulations for MWC may affect  the growth  of the
industry because as emission regulations become more  stringent  the cost  of
controlling the emissions increases.  Depending on the level of increased
control costs, the competitive balance of MWC versus  direct landfill  or
materials recycle could be affected.
     Regulatory strategies established in the U.S. to control  emissions  to
air from MWC facilities exist at both the Federal and State level.  Prior to
promulgation of the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for incinerators
(40 CFR Part 60 Subpart E) in 1971, uncontrolled particulate emissions from
combustion of refuse were on the order of 1.0 grains/dscf at 12 percent
CO-.   However, Federal and local regulations now require control devices
with increased collection efficiencies compared to the mechanical settling
chambers used to control emissions from combustors prior to NSPS.
     Today, all States require the control of particulate emissions
and opacity in their State implementation plan (SIP)  requirements for
municipal  waste combustors.  In addition, the States with the highest growth
rates of combustion facilities tend to also require control of a variety of
 This information was originally collected in mid-1986.  Some of this
 information may be out of date due to recent changes  in regulations.
                                     8-1

-------
other pollutants through the use of add-on controls and,  in some cases,
furnace operating requirements.  Foreign countries such as West Germany  and
Japan have also set emission limits for a variety of other criteria and
noncriteria pollutants.  Limits have been established for pollutant
emissions from municipal waste combustors in both the U.S. and abroad for
following:  particulate matter; acid gases such as sulfuric, HC1, and HF;
nitrogen oxides; carbon monoxide; total hydrocarbons; and various other
pollutants, such as CDD/CDF and metals.  The discussion of regulations in
this section will focus on these pollutant categories.
     Both State and Federal regulations affecting operation of municipal
waste combustors are presented in this section.  Included in this section is
comparison of the NSPS and best available control technology/lowest
achievable emission rate (BACT/LAER) determinations for facilities that have
been permitted in the last few years.  The regulatory strategies listed  in
the SIPs will al~-; be discussed and compared to the Federal NSPS regulation -
     The control of noncriteria air pollutants has become a major concern  in
the U.S. in the past few years.  At the Federal level, national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) have  been established for
seven pollutants including beryllium emissions from  incineration of wastes
containing beryllium.  The role of NESHAPs  in  reducing emissions from
municipal waste combustors will be described.  The role of  State programs
for control of noncriteria pollutants  and their possible  future  importance
to regulations will also be discussed.  Finally, the  current  regulatory
status of municipal waste combustion in a few  foreign countries  will  be
reviewed.

8.1.1  Federal Regulations and Programs

New Source Performance Standards
     The NSPS for municipal waste combustors regulates combustors  burning  at
least :0 percent municipal waste and having a  design  capacity of 50  tons/day
or greater.  The standard, as promulgated under  Subpart  E of  40 CFR  60,  set
the limit c* particulate matter that can be discharged to the atmosphere at
                                     8-2

-------
0.08 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent  COg.   (This  is  about equivalent to
0.18 lb/106 Btu.)*  This standard applies  to  those facilities that were
under construction or in the process  of modification as  of August  17,  1971.
Existing facilities that undergo modification and increase the  amount  of
particulate matter emitted are also subject to this  NSPS.  Tests  at two
domestic and two European combustors  equipped with  ESPs  to control
particulate matter were performed to  establish the  value of  the NSPS.  The
particulate emissions from these tests ranged from  0.07  to 0.09 gr/dscf
corrected to 12 percent CCL at the U.S. municipal waste  facilities and 0.05
to 0.07 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent C02 at the  European  facilities.
     In addition, the NSPS for industrial, institutional,  and commercial
steam generating units (40 CFR 60, Subpart Db) would apply to municipal
waste combustors that produce steam and that have a heat input  capacity  of
more than 100 million Btu/hour.  The  particulate emission limit for those
combustors is 0.1 lb/106 Btu(0.046 gr/dscf corrected to  12  percent CO,).
                      c                                              e-
The level of 0.1 lb/10  Btu was based on tests at four steam generating
units ranging in heat input capacity  from 47 to 290 million  Btu/hour which
fire municipal  waste.  All units were controlled by ESPs.  The emission
levels measured at these facilities ranged from 0.2 to 0.05  lb/10  Btu and
indicated that properly designed ESPs can reduce particulate emissions from
these units to levels below 0.10 lb/10  Btu.

Prevention or Significant Deterioration Requirements
     In addition to NSPS, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
provisions were established in the Clean Air Act "or stationary sources of
air pollution to maintain clean air and yet  allow new industrial growth.
The PSD applies only to construction or modification of major  sources (as
defined in PSD regulations) in attainment or  unclassifiable  areas as  defined
under Section 107 of the Clean Air Act  for any criteria pollutant.  New
sources that locate  in areas designated nonattainment do not require  a
 Conversions from gr/dscf to lb/10  Btu assume a municipal waste  feed  higher
 heating value of 4500 Btu per pound, and an  F-factor  of
 10,003 dscf/million Btu.
                                     8-3

-------
permit but must be reviewed in accordance with nonattainment  provisions  in
SIP.  In some cases, a source may be located in an area designated  under the
Clean Air Act as nonattainment for one pollutant and attainment  for another.
Therefore, the source would be subject to PSD review for that one pollutant
and nonattainment provisions for the other pollutant.
     Municipal waste combustors capable of charging more than 250 tons per
day of refuse are one of 28 named PSD source categories.  Therefore,  any
municipal waste combustion facility meeting this criterion is a  major
source.  A municipal waste combustor can also be considered a major source
if it emits 100 tons per year or more of any pollutant regulated by the
Clean Air Act.
     The PSD regulations required that, for new major stationary sources,
best available control technology (BACT) will be required for each regulated
pollutant emitted in excess of minimum specified levels.  BACT is also
required for major modifications to existing stationary sources  for each
regulated pollutant emitted for which there is a significant net emission
increase.
     The BACT requirements are reviewed at the State level on a  case-by-case
basis for each source seeking a permit.  Table 8-1 summarizes BACT
requirements established by States in which new MWC facilities were
constructed between the years 1981 and mid-1984.  The data are presented by
EPA region, and a mean and standard deviation value are listed for each
pollutant for the total number of new MWC facilities permitted in a specific
region.  It is primarily PM emissions that have been subject to BACT  at
these facilities.  However, BACT emission rates have also been established
at numerous facilities for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide
and volatile organic compounds (VOC).  The mean BACT rates for PM  at  the
22 facilities listed in the table range from a  low of 0.015
to 0.043 gr/dscf, or approximately 20 to 50  percent  of  the current NSPS
emission limit (40 CFR 60, Subpart E).  States  in three of the five  EPA
regions listed in the table also regulate other pollutants.
                                     8-4

-------
Ul
      Reg1ona
Number
                                             TABLE  8-1.   MEAN  BACT  EMISSION  RATES  FOR  COMBUSTORS BURNING  SOLID
                                                         WASTE WHICH IS AT LEAST 50  PERCENT  MUNICIPAL2
Partlculate Matter

    Mean BACT
  Rate (gr/dscf)
Sulfur Dioxide

   Mean BACT  .
 Rate (Ib/Ton)"
Nitrogen Oxides

   Mean BACT  k
 Rate (lb/Ton)b
Carbon Monoxide

   Mean BACT  K
 Rate (lb/Ton)D
n I
n II
n III
n IV
n X
nwide
Number
9
3
3
4
3


.043 
.030 
.015 
.038 
.015 
.033 
22
.013
.000
.000
.014
.000
.015

2.63  1.14
c
c
c
c
2.63  1.14
9
3.28  1.73
3.00  0.00
c
c
c
3.21  1.48
12
18.5 
.620 
c
c
c
.4.0 +
12
14.2
.000



14.5

    dReg1ons emitted  did  not  Issue a PSD permit for  any  Incinerators between 1981  and mid-1984.

    bUnits are pounds of  pollutant emitted per ton of  municipal  waste burned.

    cNo specified BACT rates  for this pollutant.
     Volatile
Organic Compound

    Mean BACT   h
  Rate (lb/Ton)b
                                                                                                                                       .934 + .894
                                                                                                                                       .934  .894


                                                                                                                                            9

-------
SIP Requirements for Nonattainment Areas
     New sources may be subject to nonattainment  review for  certain
pollutants if they are seeking to locate in nonattainment  areas.
Nonattainment areas are areas that do not meet National  Ambient Air  Quality
Standards.  Of special relevance to municipal  waste combustors are those
areas designated nonattainment for particulate matter and  VOC.   In
nonattainment areas, LAER technology review is required.  The LAER
technology emission rate is defined as either  the most stringent  emission
limitation in SIPs for any class or category of sources or the most
stringent emission rate achieved in practice,  whichever is more  stringent.
     Data are available for one facility, located in EPA Region  I, which was
permitted in a nonattainment area during the period 1977 through  1981.  The
facility had a design capacity of 960 tons per day.  The LAER established
for this facility was 0.03 gr/dsf for particulate matter and 7.99 Ib/hr
(0.2 Ib/ton of waste) for VOC.  Comparing these limits with the  data in
Table 8-1 shows that they are toward the lower end of the  ranges  for both
particulate matter and VOC.  However, based on this one example  it does not
appear that LAER produces a distinguishable level of stringency  over BACT.

National Emission Standards for the Hazardous  Air Pollutants
     Of the 12 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) promulgated pursuant to Section 112  of the Clean Air Act and
addressing seven pollutants, only two pertain  to municipal waste combustors.
     The national emission standard for beryllium applies to combustors used
in the process of burning waste for the primary purpose of reducing the
volume of the waste by removing combustible matter.  The facility has to be
processing "beryllium-containing waste" as defined  in the regulation.  The
emissions of beryllium to the atmosphere as listed  in NESHAP Subpart C
cannot exceed 10 grams of beryllium per day.  As an alternative, an owner or
operator may demonstrate that ambient air concentrations  in the vicinity of
the combustor do not exceed 0.01 ug/m  beryllium averaged over a 30-day
period, for a three year ambient monitoring sampling period.  Unless this
ambient level was demonstrated prior to promulgations of  the standard, the
                                     8-6

-------
source would have to comply with the 10 grams  per  day  limit  while  collecting
ambient data to demonstrate compliance with the  alternative  ambient
standard.
     The mercury NESHAP covers only those municipal  waste  combustors  that
combust wastewater treatment plant sludge.   Emissions  from these  facilities
cannot exceed 3200 grams of mercury per day.   Work is  underway  on  assessing
the need for development of NESHAPs for sources  of cadmium and  chromium.

8.1.2  State Regulations and Programs

State Requirements Limiting PM Emissions
     Existing State regulations for municipal  waste facilities  were  reviewed
in the 1979 municipal waste combustor NSPS review.  Every  State was
identified as having an explicit standard for  particulate  emissions
resulting from combustion of municipal waste.    The State  survey identified
23 States that referenced Subpart E in their regulations or  had standards
identical to Subpart E.  Nine States had less  stringent standards and did
not reference Subpart E.  Massachusetts and Illinois (0.05 gr/dscf),  and
Maryland (0.03 gr/dscf) were identified as having more stringent standards
than the NSPS.
     The remaining 14 States listed the particulate matter emission rate as
a function of the waste being combusted, e.g., Ib allowable particulate
matter/lb waste burned.  Of these States, 11 had less stringent standards,
and Delaware, Nevada, and North Carolina had more stringent standards, if a
                                                                           4
300 ton/day combustor and 4,450 Btu/lb refuse higher heat value is assumed.
     The State regulations were again reviewed for this study  and
essentially the same results were obtained as in the previous  survey.
However, the States of Texas, New Mexico, and California did not  appear to
list a specific regulation concerning the combustion of municipal waste.
These States were contacted for clarification of their State regulations.
                                     8-7

-------
     New Mexico does not have a specific  requirement for municipal waste
combustion that limits particulate  matter emissions but does have an opacity
requirement of 20 percent.   Texas  also  has no  specific regulation listing a
quantitative limit for combustor emissions.   In  both of these States, new
sources are subject to review and  may have to  apply for PSD permits.
However, in both Texas and  New Mexico,  pollutant emissions from  each new
source are examined on a case-by-case basis and  if PSD  is  applicable, a BACT
determination establishes what quantitative emission limits will  be  applied
to new or modified facilities.
     In the State of California each local air quality  district  can
establish its own emission  limit requirements.  Guidelines on  emission
limits from municipal waste combustion facilities have  been  published  in  the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Pollution  Control  of Resource
Recovery Facilities.   A summary of the CARB guideline  emission  limits  is
presented in Table 8-2.  California is the only State  to  establish
guidelines that make a distinction in particulate size  of total  particulate
matter and particulate matter less than 2 microns in  size.  The  guideline
emission limit for total suspended PM of 0.01 gr/dscf  at  12  percent  C02  is
the most stringent emission limit  identified in this  review  of State
regulations.
     The State of New Jersey has also published air pollution  control
guidelines for resource recovery facilities and combustors.    A summary of
the guideline emission limits are also presented in Table 8-2.  The
New Jersey resource recovery and combustor guidelines  require stack testing
for total PCDD, total PCDF, formaldehyde, benzo(a)pryene, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and other organic substances regulated in N.J.A.C.  7:27-17
(Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic Substances).  Stack
emission rates must be estimated for lead, mercury, beryllium, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, and nickel.
     The State of New York has drafted operating  requirements for municipal
waste combustion.   A summary of these proposed guideline emission  limits  is
included in Table 8-2.  The  same type of  emission tests as required by the
State of New Jersey for criteria pollutants and trace contaminants  (both
heavy metals and specific organic compounds)  are  required by  the State of
New York.
                                     8-8

-------
                         TABLE 8-2.  GUIDELINE EMISSION LIMITS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION5'6'7
         Pollutant                     California3                     New Jersey                New York5 (Proposed)

    TSPb (Total)                  0.01 (gr/dscf at 12% C02)        0.02 (gr/dscf at 7% 02)      0.03 (gr/dscf at 12% C02)
     (less than 2 microns)       0.008 (gr/dscf at 12% C02)       	                          	
    S02                          30 ppm at 12% C02                100  (ppm at 1% 02)           c
    NOX (as N02)                  140 - 200 ppm at 12% C02         300  (ppm at 7% 02)
    CO                           400 ppm at 12% C02               400  (ppm at 7% 02)
    THC (as CR.)                  70 ppm at 12% CO?
oo
vij  HC1                           30 ppm at 12% C02                50 (ppm at 7% 02)            c
    Deslqn                       Combustion temperature of        	                          Combustion temperature of
                                 1800F  200F and                                            1500F based on a 15 mln.
                                 residence time of no less                                     average of readings
                                 than 1 second

    aThese limits are presented as guidelines because each facility has to be evaluated Individually In determining Its
     compliance with local air pollution control district regulations.
    bNassau,  Suffolk, Rockland, Westchester, and the City of New York 0.02 gr/dscf.
    GComb1ned S02 and HC1  acid gas limit ranging from 105 to 525 ppm.
    dlf  nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions are greater than 50 TPY, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate as required by
     N.J.A.C.  7:27-18 (Emission Offset Rule).
    THC = total hydrocarbons.

-------
     Pennsylvania has also recently established  best  available  technology
guidance for municipal  waste combustion.   The  guidance  document  specifies
emission limits similar to those shown for California in  Table  8-2  and
includes combustor operating requirements.  The  State of  Washington  is  also
developing a negotiated regulation for municipal  waste  combustion.

State Programs For Control Of No^Titeria Air  Pollutants
     Many States and localities use some  form  of ambient  guideline  or
standard for the control  of emissions of  non-criteria air pollutants from
MWC.  Many of these apply time and safety factors to  occupational  values as
a basis for developing  the ambient limit.  A factored occupational  value is
the use of a constant fractional value to apply  to all  of a specific set of
occupational limits to  convert from a workplace  guideline (based on exposure
to a particular contaminant over an 8-hour day,  5 days per week) to an
ambient guideline.  Some States and localities apply  different factors to
different categories of pollutants based  on toxicity  or carcinogenity.  The
occupational limits used most commonly for this  purpose are the Threshold
Limit Values-Time Weighted Averages (TLV-TWAs) for workplace exposures
established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial  Hygienists
(ACGIH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible
exposure levels for airborne substances  in the work place, and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended criteria for
occupational exposure in air.
     In addition to limiting emissions of noncriteria  pollutants based on
acceptable ambient limits, several States impose control requirements  based
on carcinogenic risk assessment.  Michigan, for example, requires that
sources of carcinogenic emissions apply  the best available control
technology and imposes a stack  limit  such that carcinogenic emissions  from
the source do not cause an estimated  lifetime cancer risk greater  than
1 in 1,000,000 to the most exposed individual.  According to  information
submitted by States to the National Air  Toxics  Information Clearinghouse,
24 States plan to use risk assessment on  a case-specific basis  for  sources
of carcinogens.
                                     8-10

-------
      Table 8-3 lists  acceptable  ambient concentrations or standards and
 averaging times established  by  several State and local agencies.  The values
 listed in the table were extracted  from data voluntarily submitted by State
 and local agencies to the National  Air Toxics  Information Clearinghouse.
 Acceptable ambient concentrations are listed for pollutants of  interest in
 the municipal  waste combustion  study for each  agency  that submitted
                                                       g
 acceptable ambient concentrations for these pollutants.   As the table
 illustrates,  there is a  wide variation among acceptable concentrations for
 various  states.
      Compliance with  the acceptable ambient concentrations listed in
 Table 8-3 typically must be  demonstrated by new sources.  Some  agencies also
 make these ambient concentrations applicable to existing sources through the
 requirement for renewal  of their operating permits.

 8.1.3  Foreign  Regulations

      This  section describes  regulatory approaches and lists emission limits
 used  in  several  different  foreign countries.   The MWC emission  limits
 established in  West Germany,  France, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, Norway,
 and  Switzerland  are presented in Table 8-4.  Occasionally sources of
 information differed  on  the  emission limit established for a specific
 pollutant.  In  these  cases,  the most recent source was used.
     By way of  comparison, the U.S. NSPS standard (40 CFR 60, Subpart E) for
 municipal waste  combustor  emissions of particulate matter is 180 mg/m3
 corrected  to 12  percent  COg  for facilities which do not recover energy.
 Direct comparison of  the particulate matter emission  limit is not possible
 between  the U.S. and  countries listed in Table 8-4, because the information
 sources do not  always  report  the percent C02 or 02 correction.
      In Canada,  air pollution regulations can  be established by each
 provincial government.   An official in the Ministry of the Environment  for
 the Provincial  Government  of  Ontario was contacted for clarification of the
 regulations as  they are  applied in  that Province.13   The overall regulatory
 authority  is provided  by the  Environmental Protection Act of 1971.  This Act
does not set specific  emission limits for pollutants  but details the
                                     8-11

-------
                                             TABLE 8-3.  ACCEPTABLE  AMBIENT  CONCENTRATIONS  REPORTED  TO NATICH BY
                                                        STATE  AND LOCAL  AGENCIES FOR SELECTED POLLUTANTS8








00
1
rvi
Agency
Connecticut
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Massachusetts
North Carol Ina
Nevada
Neii York
Pa-Philadelphia
Virginia
WA-Olympla
Averaging*
Time
8 hours
1 year
8 hours
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
8 hours
1 year
1 year
24 hours

Arsenic
(ug/m3)
0.05
0.0003
	
	
1.0
0.005
0.67
0.024
3.30
	
Cadmium
(ug/m3)
0.40
0.0004
	
0.005
0.25
0.001
2.0
0.12
o.e
	
Chromium
( ug/m3 )
2.5
1.66
	
0.34
0.25
0.012
0.167
0.12
0.5
 
Formal dehyde
(ug/m3)
12.0
0.015
18.0
---
0.2
300. Oc
0.071
2.0
7.2
12.0
0.05 ppm
Hydrogen
Chloride
( ug/m3 )


9.5

0.167
140.0

120.0
._.
Hydrogen
Fluoride Mercury
( ug/m3 ) ( ug/m3 )
50.0 0.2
0.1666
1.0
6.8
3.0d
0.06 0.002
0.167
0.24
20.0 0.8

Nickel
( ug/m3 )
5.0
0.0006
	
0.002
0.5
0.002
3.3
0.24
10.0

ICDf) Tetrahydrofun
(ug/m3) (ug/m3)
11,800.
450.0
	 	
l.lc 80.
73,500.
14.
11,800.
0.0001 	
3.0 9,800.

0

0
Oc
048
0

0

dAvera
-------
                                             TABIE  8-4.   FOREIGN  REGULATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL  WASTE  COMBUSTION
                                                                                                          .9-12
00
~ - - - -  ' 	  	 	

Pol lutant
Particulate Matter
Sulfur d1o>. Me
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen fluoride
Chlorine
Fluorine
Dloxin Compounds

West Germany
50
200
500
100
100
5
100
5
	
	 - - EmiisJojL Limits img/m3)
France Netherlands Japan3
150 - 1000 (at 7t C02) 100 + f. f - X C0? Continuous furnace
In combustion gas' 100 to 700 (at 12X 0,)
(at 1% C02) Other 700 or less''
z at I2X 02
600 c
300 250 ppmd at 12* 02
Less than 0.1X 	 	
1000 700 or lower0 at
12X 02
20
	 	 	
	 	 	
	 	 	

Sweden Norway Switzerland
20 at 10* C0? 100 50
as a monthly
average
	 	 	
	 	 	
100 	 100
100 at 10* C02 100 30
5
	 	 	
	 	 	
0.5-2.0 na/m3 at 	 	
10* CO, at'exlstlag
facilities; 0.1 nq/m3 at

NUke)
L'hrom lum
Lead
1 inc
Copper
Cadmium
Mercury
Design Combustion
Gas Temperature

1
1
5

5
0.2
0.2
800C (1472F)
for 0.3 seconds
10X
  






750C (1382F) for
at least 2 seconds
C02 at new facilities
	 	 	
	 	 	
1.5
3.8

0.1
0.03 at 10X C02  0.1
800C
U472F)
      Partlculdte matter standard level for a continuous furnace can be  satisfied  by  Installing  an  ESP.
     ^Typical  value.  Incomplete listing of pollutants regulated.  These  are  requirements  suggested  In  a  1986  restudy,  not  an  actual regulation.
      Re-collection of mercury batteries from urban refuse  Is recommended  to  reduce environmental hazard of mercury.
     GV
-------
 procedure to be followed for making dispersion calculations to estimate the
 maximum  impact of a pollutant wherever it may occur beyond the property line
 boundary of the source.  This maximum concentration, referred to as an
 impingement point concentration, can occur at ground-level or within the
 body of  the plume as in the case of plume impact on high-rise buildings.
 Impingement point concentration limits have been established for numerous
 pollutants including 100 ug/m  for PM, 800 ug/m  for SO,, 500 ug/m3 for NO ,
         3                       3                                         x
 100 ug/m  for HC1, and 0.03 ug/m  for beryllium.  The maximum predicted
 ambient  concentration of a pollutant from a source cannot exceed the
 impingement point concentration value.  No single set of  impingement point
 concentration limits applied specifically to municipal waste combustors.
     The Province of Ontario is also considering changes  to present
 provisional standard concentration limits for the total concentration of
 chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and chlorinated dibenzofurans  (CDF) of
 450 picograms/m  as a half-hour average and 30 picograms/Nm  as an annual
 average.  The values of the impingement point concentrations will probably
 not change, just the method of determining compliance.  The present method
 of compliance requires that the sum of the tetra- through octa-CDO
 concentrations and 1/50 of the tetra- through octa-CDF concentrations be
 compared to the half-hour and annual concentration standards.  The factor of
 1/50 is currently under review and will probably be changed
     Since 1974, when the regulations governing MWC in West Germany were
 established,  new combustion units in West Germany have been required to have
                                   14
 ESPs followed by partial scrubbing.    Emissions from municipal waste
 combustors, especially dust, trace metals, and acid gases, have for a long
 time been the subject of concern in West Germany.
     The 46 resource recovery plants in West Germany burn 9.9 million tons
 of trash each year, representing 34 percent of the municipal waste generated
 annually in West Germany.  MWC facilities in West Germany practice
 comprehensive continuous monitoring, monitoring not only  combustion factors
 such as CO, 02, and temperature, but also particulates,  HC1, HF,  S02,  and
NOX>  West German resource recovery plants can and  indeed have  been
temporarily shut down when monitoring  indicates that a facility  is  in
violation of emission limits for more  than one hour.   In  addition to
                                     8-14

-------
emission limitations,  all  workers at  the West  German  facilities  are  required
                           12
to attend training schools.
     Two countries in  particular, Sweden and Denmark,  have  responded to  a
recently acknowledged  potential  hazard from CDD/CDF emissions  to public
health, taking actions that  affect municipal waste combustors.   In early
1985, the Swedish Environmental  Protection Agency (SNV)  declared a one year
moratorium on the licensing  and  construction of new municipal  waste
combustors because high concentrations of CDD/CDF had been  found in, among
other things, fish and breast mi"   In June  1986, the SNV  recommended  that
the moratorium be lifted provided that requirements  for stack gas
purification are implemented.  Requirements which were recommended  in a
study conducted during the moratorium include:

          Hydrochloric acid  gas:  discharges  should  not exceed 100  mg/Nm ,
          dry gas, 10  percent CCL, counted as  a monthly average.

          Mercury:  discharges should not exceed 0.08 mg/Nm  dry gas,
          10 percent CO-,  when inspected.  As  product control  measures
          (e.g., removal of mercury batteries  from the waste)  are
          implemented, the value should be further lowered  towards
          0.03 mg/Nm3.

          Dust:  the discharges  should not exceed 20  mg/Nm  ,  dry gas,
          10 percent CO-,  counted as  a monthly average.

          CDD/CDF compounds:  the discharges  from existing  facilities
          should not exceed  a standard value  of 0.5  - 2.0 ng/Nm  , dry gas,
          10 percent CO-,  when inspected.  For future facilities the
                                                           3
          guideline should be a  standard value of 0.1 ng/Nm , dry gas,
          10 percent CO-.   The values refer to TCDD-equivalences calculated
          according to the Eadons model and measured  in accordance  with the
          Nordic Dioxine-group's recommendation at normal operations.   Given
          values should be used  as guidelines during  a test period.
          Definite guidelines should be established following the expiration
                                     8-15

-------
          of the test period in each case.   A  test  period  of  two years  for
          the evaluation of the experiences  of the  new  environmental
          protection technique is required.

     The study estimated that emissions of mercury, CDD/CDF  and hydrogen
chloride can be reduced by about 90 percent.  Of the 7  million metric  tons
(7.7 tons) of waste produced each year in Sweden,  almost 2.5  million metric
tons (2.75 tons) can be combusted.
     A quantification of the sources of CDD/CDF in  Sweden is  not  possible
with current knowledge.  However, waste combustion  is believed  to be  a
significant source.  Sources outside Sweden  may also be of significance.
The Swedish EPA does not want to eliminate waste combustion as  a  suitable
treatment method for waste and, in fact, feels that CDD/CDF emissions  can  be
controlled by the use of good combustion practices.    The following
techniques for control of various pollutants are currently under
investigation:  support fuel burning, good operating practices,  good
instrumentation for operating and emission monitoring,  and the use of highly
efficient stack gas scrubbing systems.
     As a result of the first phase of a study completed in December  of
1984, EPA in Denmark closed eight community waste combustors predicted to
emit unacceptable amounts of CDD/CDF.    As a result of these closures, it
is anticipated that Denmark will establish emission limits for CDD/CDF from
MWC facilities.  The Danish EPA has been developing guidelines limiting
emissions from MWC.  Scheduled for completion in 1986,  these guidelines
would become effective in May 1987.
     In Switzerland, 14 facilities burn about 75 percent of the municipal
waste generated annually.  Swiss regulation^ limit emissions of
particulates, HC1, HF, CO, and metals, but not NO  .  After the current
two-year grace period, plants out of compliance could be closed.   Higher
level workers in Swiss facilities are trained at West German schools while
other workers are trained on-site.  Facilities in  Switzerland pr- tice
                                                                      12
continuous monitoring of 0-, particulates, temperature, HC1, and SO-.
     Five resource recovery facilities in Norway burn approximately
five percent of the municipal waste generated there.  One additional
                                     8-16

-------
facility in Oslo burns 100 percent of the  municipal waste generated  in that
city.  Regulatory requirements limit  emissions  of  particulate matter and
HC1,  and a plant can be closed for emissions  violations  although  there is no
automatic closing requirement.  No facility has ever  been closed  for a
violation.  Regulations require continuous monitoring of 02, particulates,
and  temperature and continuous ambient air measurements  outside the  plant
for  HC1  and heavy metals.

8.2   LAND DISPOSAL REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS

     There are two areas of land disposal  programs and regulations which
could affect MWC.  The first is direct landfill of municipal waste.   The
second is disposal of the ash from MWC.

8.2.1  Land Disposal of Municipal Waste

     As previously discussed, direct landfill of municipal  waste has been
the most common method of disposal.  However, new landfills are having to
meet increasingly stringent regulations.  Non-hazardous waste disposal
management and techniques are governed by Section 4004 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.  This  section requires states to  implement
disposal programs that will protect the environment  (especially  groundwater)
from contamination.  The EPA  has  also  published guidelines for the  states
concerning what their disposal management programs should contain.
     The  impact of these new  regulations  is making landfills more difficult
to site, and more expensive to operate.   This  trend  will tend to encourage
methods of reducing waste volume,  such as combustion and/or recycling.

8.2.2  Land Disposal of Ash

     The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act applies to disposal  of the
bottom ash and collected fly  ash  from municipal waste combustion facilities.
These residues generally contain  metals such as lead and cadmium.   The
presence of large concentrations  of  such  metals could cause the  residues  to
                                     8-17

-------
be classified as a hazardous waste.   Owners  and  operators  of  municipal waste
combustion facilities are obligated  to determine if  their  ash residues are
hazardous wastes.  They may do so by testing it  for  EP  toxicity  (as
described in 40 CFR Section 261.24).  EPA has recently  proposed  replacing
the EP toxicity test with the Toxicity Characteristic  Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) (51 FR 21685, June 13, 1986).

     EPA has reviewed data from the  literature concerning  results  of EP
tests on ash.  The agency has no information to  indicate the  reliability  of
these data.   A majority of the fly ash tests reported  indicate levels of
lead or cadmium above regulatory thresholds.  Few tests of bottom ash or
combined fly and bottom ash indicate levels  of metals  above regulatory
thresholds.   EPA is in the process of obtaining  more reliable data on ash
characteristics and Teachability.

     If the ash generated by a municipal waste combustion facility must  be
managed as a hazardous waste, the cost of managing that ash can  be expected
to increase substantially.

8.3  MATERIALS SEPARATION AND RECYCLING

     As mentioned earlier in this report, one of the influences on the
increased interest in combustion 01   lunicipal waste is  increasingly  scarce
landfill space.  Another waste management technique for educing waste
volume receiving increased attention  is recycling materials  from municipal
waste, thereby avoiding discarding  them at  all.  Renewed  interest in
recycling is being seen across the  U.S. but  particularly  in  the Northeast
where landfill shortages are the most acute.
     In 1984 about 10 percent of material would  otherwise  end up  in  disposal
facilities was recovered from municipal waste and reused.  Most of  the
recovery in the U.S. was accomplished through source separation,  that is
manual separation by the generator,  rather  than  separation from mixed refuse
in centralized waste processing  facilities.  There  are  thousands  of source
separation programs in operation across the  U.S., including  400  to  500
                                     8-18

-------
curbside recycling programs.  Some programs  have  made  participation
mandatory.  In addition, some plants producing  refuse  derived  fuel  are
separating materials (mostly non-combustibles)  from mixed  refuse.
     Centralized processing methods are becoming  increasingly  sophisticated
and effective at separating waste materials.  A noteable state-of-the-art
system operating in Europe, the Sorain-Cecchini process, is  an integrated
recovery system that can produce paper pulp,  animal  feed,  compost,  aluminum
scrap, ferrous scrap, densified refuse derived  fuel, and peletized
polyethylene for production of sheet plastic used in garbage bags.
     Methods for separation and uses for recovered materials have been
established for paper,  glass, scrap ferrous  metals,  aluminum,  wood  waste,
yard waste, and rubber.  Also, separation methods and markets  for recovered
plastics are currently the subject of rapidly advancing research.  At the
present time, technical and economic factors combine to make paper  and
aluminum the most extensively recycled materials  from U.S. waste.
     In general, recycling of noncombustible materials would have a positive
effect on combustion operation in most localities, allowing for smaller
equipment, more reliable operation, and decreased ash handling requirements.
On the other hand, the effect of the removal of combustibles,  particularly
paper, on the feasibility of incineration should be considered in the
context of local refuse characteristics.  Since paper contains the largest
portion of the heating value in the waste, recycling goals for paper should
be considered as a part of an integrated waste management program which
includes consideration of both recycling and combustion.  See the Volume
titled "Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Recycling of  Solid Waste;"
EPA/530-SW-87-021i for more  information on the status of  recycling
activities.

8.4  OTHER ISSUES

     There are two changes  in the  tax  laws which  are  relevant to the
industry.  The first placed  limits on  the amount  of industrial development
bonds that States can  issue.  Also, a  proposed change would remove  the
Federal tax exemption  from all private purpose municipal  bond  issues.
Therefore, MWC facilities which are privately  owned and operated would no

                                     8-19

-------
longer be eligible for tax exempt financing.   Though Congress recently
enacted tax law changes, the practical effect of the changes has not yet
been determined.  Both of these factors could increase the cost of raising
capital for new facilities.  These tax considerations may also lead to
increased benefits for public ownership rather than private ownership.
     One significant revenue source for new facilities is energy sales,
either in the form of steam or electricity.  The economic value of the
energy sales is directly tied to twie cost of the fossil fuel which would  *
otherwise be burned.  Therefore, as energy prices decline, the values of the
steam and electricity sales also decline.  However, the recent drop in
energy prices does not appear to have had a significant impact on planned
facilities.
     Another issue is public resistance to having a municipal waste
combustor near residential neighborhoods.  For example, plans to construct
                                                                1 Q
one plant in New York encountered significant public opposition.    Concerns
often raised by the public include toxicity of potential emissions, safety,
noise,  odor, and traffic congestion.
                                     8-20

-------
8.5  REFERENCES

 1.  Helfand, R. M., MITRE Corporation.   A Review of Standards  of Performance
     for New Stationary Sources - Incincerators.   U. S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  N.C.  Publication
     No. EPA-450/3-79-009.

 2.  Hayes, L. C., M. A. Baviello, L. A. Bravo,  D. 0. Fulenwider, and
     G. C. Giguere, Radian Corporation.   Analysis of New Source Review
     Permitting Experience - Part 2.   U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency.
     EPA Contract Nos. 68-02-3515, 68-02-3889,  68-02-3816, 68-02-6558,
     September 1985.

 3.  (TRW, Inc.)  Analysis of New Source Review (NSR) Permitting Experience.
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-3515.
     1982.

 4.  Hopper, T.  Municipal Incinerator Enforcement Manual.  The Research
     Corporation of New England, Wethersfield,  CT.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Publication No. EPA-340/1-76-013.  1977.

 5.  California Air Resources Board.   Air Pollution Control at Resource
     Recovery Facilities.  May 24, 1984.  pp. 117,  119, 144, 147, 156, 175,
     188.

 6.  State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Conservation.  Air
     Pollution Control Guidelines for Resou --e Recovery Facilties.

 7.  New York State Department of Environmental  Conservation.  Municipal
     Refuse Combustion Draft Operating Requirements.  August 1985.

 8.  Radian Corporation.  NATICH Data Base Report on State and Local Agency
     Air Toxics Activities.  Vol.1 -  Final Report.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  N.C.  Publication
     No. EPA-450-5-86-011a.  July 1986.

 9.  Miyanohara, T., and S. Kitami.  Present Situation of HCL Gas Removal
     Technology in Municipal Refuse Incineration Plant in Japan.  In the
     proceedings of International Recycling Congress, Berlin, 1979.  Volume I.
     Thomer Kozmiensky (ed.)-  New York, Springer-Verlay.  1979.

10.  Lind, Carl-Erik.  Methods of Utilizing Energy  from Peat, Forest Waste and
     Urban Refuse.  Energy Exploration and Exploitation, Vol. 2, No. 4,  1984.

11.  Commission of European Communities.  The Treatment of Solid Municipal
     Waste.  Office of Official Publications for European Communities,
     Luxenbourg.  1982.

12.  Hershkowitz,  Allen.  Garbage Burning Lessons from Europe:   Consensus  and
     Controversy in Four European States.  Inform.   New York, NY.   1986.
                                      8-21

-------
13.   Telecom.   D.  Seiffert,  Radian  Corporation  with  Hanna  Corinthios,  Ministry
     of Environment,  Provincial  Government  of Ontario,  Canada.   September  14,
     1985.   Impingement point concentration limitations for  incinerators.

14.   (Resource Planning Associates.)   European  Waste to Energy  Systems,  An
     Overview.  Prepared for Energy Research and  Development Administration.
     Washington,  D.C.   Contract  No. EC-77-C-01-2103.  June 1977.

15.   Press  Release from Swedish  Environmental  Protection Agency.
     Environmental Requirements  for Refuse  Firing Become Tough  in Sweden.
     June 12,  1986.  Also Waste  from Energy Report,  Section  10.5, Swedish
     National  Environmental  Protection Board,  June 1986.

16.   Memo from Swedish Environmental  Protection Agency, Disposal and Recycling
     Unit.   February 11, 1985.  Dioxin and  Furan Emissions from Waste
     Combustion.

17.   National  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Environmental Report -
     Formation and Dispersion of Dioxins, Particularly  in Connection with
     Combustion of Refuse.  Denmark Environmental Protection Agency.
     December 1984.

18.   Memorandum.   Greene, S., Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, to G. Wilkins, Radian Corporation.  May  15, 1987.
     Disposal  of Ash from Municipal Waste Combustion.

19.   New York City of Estimate Approves Construction of Brooklyn Navy Yard
     Plant.  Waste-To-Energy Report.  August 28,  1985.  pp.  7-8.
                                       8-22

-------
                                 APPENDIX  A
EXISTING MWC FACILITIES

     This appendix contains a listing of all  MWC facilities  believed  to  be
in operation or expected to be operating as of the end of 1986.   The  data
were obtained from telephone surveys, EPA regional offices,  and  trade
journals.  Some of the data sources used are surveys done prior  to the
completion of this report.  Although efforts were made to update information
where possible, some of the facilities shown here may currently  be
temporarily or permanently shut down.
     The first table (Table A-l) lists existing facilities ordered by design^
type and size.  The second table (Table A-2) presents existing facilities
aggregated by state and design type.  The last table (Table A-3) presents
modeling input parameters used in the Human Exposure Model (HEM).
     Some minor differences may be noted between Table A-3 and Tables A-l
and A-2.  In order to make the results of the HEM available for  inclusion in
this integrated study, an earlier version of Tables A-l and A-2 were used to
develop the modeling input parameters shown in Table A-3.  However,  in order
to provide the best available data for industry investigation, Tables A-l
and A-2 were updated and the updated information has been included here.
                                     A-l

-------



UJ
'5

UJ
UJ ^
00
Q
Z


UJ
Q-
> a.
E s
z ? <
t^ > o
 *|
>-  t
CO |
Q
Q ? y  ! Q
UJ 5 1 Si 2:
a: " "  ~
1/1 ^
uj *5
~ 
t t ^
C- &
^ * UJ
U. 
S s"
H VI UJ
~ if
x 8
^ 
 l/l
 4
1
"*
UJ
a:
 I

8

^
O



fv
CO
m
V
_j
u.
O
h-
H-
^
8
^
O
UJ
CX
a

CN <  ~ - < 0
Oi Os O Os Os



ft  v? 9? v5 x 9i


o 5 o ui o o o
O O ^O " O O O





V) V) V> V) V
u* O uj uj uj O uj
>- Z V >- >- Z V

* 0 * 0 ** S
iiii$$$


^ O  B O - 








3 C J=  W
o c o  - a. c
^i * I vrt O 9 O
t-  u 3 3 w r
x z a.  ^ wi x
f^ f^ r*.
CO CO CO
m mm
 J _J -j
i * i i
| ? | 2 e
O UJ H- H- *
2 ^5^  ^ ^
O X VI Z UJ Z Z
u_ u. ^ O S O O
O I O H- h-
uj uj >- O O O
t h uJ >- UJ UJ
< < X Q f- CL fT
vi to Z Q O O O

<- trt vi
JUjgujujuJUJUJ^JJUJ


************
2JJJJUJJUJ







11
4 tA
*J C
V) 4
>> X >i
> uj O *J
~ *  0) C
 Z * C i 3
C  -*9 U O < O
O) O> O fc- Jt  019)
o e >%o o -  o c c c
U -A 'O I/I C - i- 0 t- t- >-0 00 0-0
H-> "^H- H" t *^  ^- ""* ^ 
CJQ vio o yvi tnvi locjwi
oOzz so O oac ax 0:00:
H-H-55 O>- ^ t-O OO O>-O
oo  ^ oo o o

KflCOO r-QC CC QC^^h- h- t-Ct^
aazz OQ o azu oo ooo

orM<om^^<-*(D
O-OS CT*O*OSO-OOS O* O> Os Os O'OsOsO-O'CT. ff. o



vlVlv9(&lvlS59^3s^Vl35v^fe^V^V^^^viviSSviV1V}1/)V>V1
v>-^z > >. ^^^^^^>.^^

**ft*SSfefe**o********o******^^5
2g|ggg22llgg22g2ggg22g222222_


^
C '
*J *- O
e c a
 _ ** -* a "c
*< i_.j*J w c
C *  4-t C J1 U1 O
O  * fsj >  fl  *-
a. o t- >.< a.-*  
O^t-'OXJl O *J
I/I "^^fc"'*x*j'o~"'3 *^ UJO *
O T3  j   * 5 ^ ' "  ' a ^
L.CJ-O !JIJZ *-j= '-' CO OZO O 

C^-^ujOO^ !/) O^ "SO */) 3C^~ 3 U1^ C1^ i/i^ ^
x--o<^z'vixza.)-Da.vi(-DZB-ja.fflw3oa.B*ooz
A-2

-------
 I
GO
TABLE A-l. EXISTin
I OCA II ON
CKY
Bel 1 Inyham
PUtbf leld
Auburn
Nottingham
Canterbury
Skaneateless
Harpsnell
CandU
Mol feboro
Gatesvllle
Lltchf leld
Groveton
Sltka
Palestine
Hilton
Meredith
Nenport News (Ft. Eustls)
Carthage City
Center
Hope
Plttsf leld
Waxahachle
Batesvllle
Cassia County
John son v 1 1 le
Collegevllle (St. Johns)
Oscool A
Hrlghtsvl) le
Savage
Lenlsburg
Stuttgart
Blythevllle
Red Nino
Fort Leonard Hood
L Ivtngston
Slnpson Co. (Franklin)
Puritan
Barren County
Oyersburg
Belllnghan
Sale*
North Little Rock
Hot Springs
Durham
Miami
Hlndham
Caltaraugus Co. (Cuba)
Cleburnu
S1A1E
HA
MA
NH
NH
NH
NY
ME
NH
NH
TX
NH
NH
AK
TX
NH
NH
VA
TX
TX
AR
NH
TX
AR
ID
SC
MN
AR
NC
HN
TN
AR
AR
MN
MO
MT
KY
MN
HI
TN
HA
VA
AR
AR
NH
OK
CT
NY
TX
j FACILITIES ORU.RED BY DESIGN TYPE AND
TOTAL
PLANT
COMHUSTOR HfAT 1 OF CAPACIIY TYPE OF STARTUP
TYPE RECOVERY COMBUSTORS (TPD) CONTROL(S) DATE
MI/EA
MI/EA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
Ml/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
I
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
4
4
8
3
3
3
3
3
100
240
5
8
10
13
14
15
16
20
22
24
25
28
30
31
35
36
36
38
48
50
SO
50
50
50
SO
50
60
60
60
70
72
75
75
77
60
80
100
100
100
100
100
108
108
108
112
115
NONE
EGB
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
ESP
HS
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
HS
NONE
NONE
NONE
HS
NONE
NONE
ESP
HS
NONE
NONE
ESP
NONE
NONE
NONE
ESP
ESP
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
C
NONE
BAG
NONE
ESP
1986
1981
NA
1972
NA
1975
NA
NA
1975
NA
NA
NA
1985
NA
NA
NA
1980
1985
1985
NA
NA
1982
1981
1982
NA
1981
1980
NA
NA
I960
NA
1983
1982
NA
1982
NA
1986
1986
1980
1986
1970
1977
NA
1980
1982
1981
1983
1986
SIZE (Continued)
REFERENCES


DIRECT CONTACT

DIRECT CONTACT


DIRECT CONTACT





TO FACILITY

TO FACILITY


TO FACILITY





3/87

3/87


3/87



CITY CURRENTS 10/86




S1AH ^ IEXAS
STATE OF TEXAS

CITY CURRENTS



CITY CURRENTS

TRIP REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF
CITY CURRENTS
MRI
DIRECT CONTACT







10/86



10/86

AIR QUALITY
10/86
TO FACILITY

STATE OF KENTUCKY
DEPARTMENT OF AIR QUALITY
STATE OF IT I SCONS IN
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
DIRECT CONTACT TO FACILITY
DIRECT CONTACT TO FACILITY












(MN)
2/87

(MN)
2/87
2/87
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
SIATt 01 IIXAS, CITY CURRENTS 10/81

-------
TABLE A-l.
LOCATION
CITY
Pascagoula
Osxego County (Volney)
One Ida Co. (Row)
Auburn
Portsmouth
Hampton
Tuscaloosa
Ouluth
Albany
Akron
Haverhl 1 1/Lavrence
Columbus
Ntagra Falls
Oada Co.
Ames
lakeland
Madison
EXISTING FACILITIES

STATE TYPE RECOVERY
MS
NY
NY
ME
NH
SC
AL
MN
NY
OH
MA
OH
NY
FL
IA
FL
HI
MI/SA
Ml/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF/C
RDF/C
RDF/C
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
ORDERED
BY DESIGN TYPE AND
TOTAL
PI ANT
t OF CAP AC I TY
COMBUSTORS UPD>
2
4
4
4
4
3
4
2
2
3
3
6
2
4
2
3
2
ISO
200
200
200
200
270
300
400
600
1000
1300
2000
2200
3000
200
300
400

TYPE OF
CONTROL (S)
ESP
ESP
NONE
BAG
BAG
ESP
ESP
VHS
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP/C

STARTUP
DATE
198S
196S
198S
1981
1982
198S
1984
NA
1981
1979
1984
1983
1981
1982
1975
1981
1979
SIZE (Continued)

REFERENCES





CONSUNAT
CITY CURRENTS 10/86



CITY CURRENTS 10/86


Cm CURRENTS 10/86, MRI
DIRECT CALL TO FACILITY 3/87
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
                KEY

COMBUSTOR TYPES:
   Ml/SA * MODULAR COMBUSTOR MITH STARVED AIR
   MI/LA -- MODULAR COMBUSTOR MITH EXCESS AIR (VICON)
   RDF   - REFUSE DERIVED FUEL FIRED IN DEDICATED BOILER
   ROF/C = REFUSE DERIVED FUEL/COAL COFIRING
   MB/OF = MASS BURN KITH OVERFEED STOKER
   MB/RC '- MASS BlK'M IN ROTARY COMBUSTOR
TYPES OF CONTROLS:
     C   = CYCLONE
           ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
     ESP
     MS
     DS
     VHS
     BAG
     EGB
MET SCRUBBER
DRY SCRUBBER
VENTURI MET SCRUBBER
BAGHOUSE
ELECTROSTATIC GRAVEL BED
     NA  = DATA NOT AVAILABLE OR TECHNOLOGY UNDECIDED

-------
 TABLE A-2.   EXISTING FACILITIES ORDERED  BY STATE AND DESIGN TYPE
LOCATION
                                         TOTAi
                                         PI ANT
CITY
Sltka
Tuscaloosa
Hope
Batesvllle
Blythevllle
Osceola
North Little Rock
Stuttgart
Hot Springs
Netr Canaan
Stafford 1
Stanford II
Mtndhaa
Washington (Sol Id Maste Red. Cent. I)
Oade Co.
Ptnellas Co.
PtnellasCo. (Expansion)
Taapa
Mayport Naval Station
Lakeland
Mono lulu
AMS
Cassia County
Chicago (NH Maste to Energy Fac)
East Chicago
Louisville
Simpson Co. (Franklin)
Shreveport
Haverh 1 1 1 /Lawrence
Fall River
Fraalnghaai
North Andover
Saugus
Plttsf leld
Baltimore (Pulaskt)
Baltimore (RESCO)
Harpsnel 1
Auburn
Clinton (Grosse Polnte)
S.E. Oakland Co.
Ouluth
Savage
Pur ham
Red Nlng
Collegevllle (St. Johns)
St. Louis (1 and 2)
Fort Leonard Mood
Pascagoula

STATE
AK
AL
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
CT
CT
CT
CT
DC
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
HA
IA
ID
II
IN
KY
KY
LA
HA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MO
MO
ME
ME
MI
Ml
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MO
MO
MS

IAJWHJ5IUK Hll 1 Uf UWAL1IT 1 in. Ut SIAKTUP
TYPE RECOVERY COMBUSTORS (TPD) CONTROL(S) DATE
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
NI/SA
MB/OF
RDF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/EA
RDF/C
MB/OF
ROF/C
MI/SA
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/SA
MB/OF
RDF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/EA
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/SA
MI/SA
MB/OF
MB/OF
RDF
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MB/OF
MI/SA
MI/SA

YES 
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES

2
4
3
1
2
2
4
3
a
1
1
1
3
4
4
2
1
4
1
3
1
2
2
4
2
4
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
1
4
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
4
3
2

25
300
38
50
70
SO
100
60
100
108
200
360
108
1000
3000
2000
1150
1000
48
300
600
200
SO
1600
450
1000
77
200
1300
600
500
1500
1500
240
1200
2250
14
200
600
600
400
60
80
72
SO
800
75
150
l
ESP
ESP
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VMS
ESP
ESP
BAG
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
C
ESP
ESP
ESP
NONE
ESP
VMS
MS
NONE
VMS
ESP
MS
DS/BAG
ESP
ESP
EGB
ESP
ESP
NONE
BAG
ESP
MS
VMS
ESP
ESP
ESP
MS
MS
NONE
ESP

1985
1984
NA
1981
1983
1980
1977
NA
NA
NA
1974
1974
1981
1972
1982
1983
1986
1985
1978
1981
1970
1975
1982
1970
1971
NA
NA
NA
1984
1972
1970
1985
1985
1981
NA
1985
NA
1981
NA
NA
NA
NA
1986
1982
1981
NA
NA
1985

REFERENCES
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86


DIRECT CONTACT TO FACILITY 2/87

CITY CURRENTS 10/86
MRI


DIRECT CONTACT TO FACILITY 3/87
DIRECT CONTACT TO FACILITY 3/87

DIRECT CONTACT TO FACILITY 2/87
CITY CURRENTS 10/86, MRI
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86

CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
DIRECT CONTACT TO FACILITY 3/87
DIRECT CALL TO FACILITY 3/87


DIRECT CONTACT TO FACILITY 3/87
MRI
STATE OF KENTUCKY

TY CURRENTS 10/86
U1RECT CONTACT TO FACILITY 3/87
DIRECT CONTACT TO FACILITY 3/87
CITY CURRENTS 10/86






MICHIGAN APC
MICHIGAN APC

DEPARTMENT OF AIR QUALITY (MN)
DEPARTMENT OF AIR QUALITY (MN)
CITY CURRENTS 10/86




-------
                     TABLE A-2.   EXISTING FACILITIES ORDERED BY STATE AND DESIGN TYPE  (Continued)
CT>
LOCATION
CITY
1 Iv Ingston
HI Islington
Hrlghtsvll le
lltchf teld
Durham
Hilton
Auburn
Plttsf leld
Meredith
Groveton
Portsmouth
Nottingham
Candla
Hoi feboro
Canterbury
Albany
Nlagra Falls
Brooklyn (SM)
Glen Cove
Hestchester Co.
Brooklyn (N.Henry St. )
Huntlngton
Ne York (Betts Avenue)
Skaneateless
Onelda Co. (Rone)
Cattaraugus Co. (Cuba)
Osvego County (Volney)
AH ron
Col umbus
N.Dayton
S.Dayton
Euc lid
Tulsa
Ml ami
Marlon County
Philadelphia (Northwest Unit)
Philadelphia (E. Central Unit)
Harrlsburg
Johnsonvl 1 le
Hampton
Nashville
Nashville (Expansion)
Gal latin
Oyersburg
Lenlsbury
Cleburne
Carthage City
Gatesv II le

STATE
MT
NC
NC
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OR
PA
PA
PA
SC
SC
TN
TN
TN
TN
IN
TX
TX
TX
TOTAL
PLANT
COMBUSTOR HEAT 1 OF CAPACITY TYPE OF STARTUP
TYPE RECOVERY COMBUSTORS (TPD) CONTROL(S) DATE
MI/SA
MB/OF
Ml/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
RDF
RDF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/SA
MI/SA
Ml/SA
MI/SA
RDF
RDF
MB/OF
MB /OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/SA
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/SA
MI/SA
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/RC
Ml/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
Ml/SA
Hl/SA
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YLS
YES
2
2
2
1
3








2
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
4
1
4
3
4
3
6
2
2
NA
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
75
200
50
22
108
30
5
48
31
24
200
8
15
16
10
600
2200
750
250
2250
1000
450
1000
13
200
112
200
1000
2000
600
600
200
750
108
550
750
750
720
50
270
720
400
200
100
60
115
36
20
NONE
ESP
NONE
NONE
C
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
BAG
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
MS
ESP
NONE
NONE
NONE
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
NONE
OS/BAG
ESP
ESP
ESP
NONE
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
NONE
MS
ESP
NONE
NONE
1982
1984
NA
NA
1980
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1982
1972
NA
1975
NA
1981
1981
NA
1983
1984
NA
NA
NA
1975
1985
1983
1985
1979
1983
1970
1970
NA
1986
1982
1986
1957
1965
1973
NA
1985
1974
1986
1981
1980
1980
1986
198B
NA
REFERENCES


TRIP REPORT

DIRECT CONTACT






DIRECT CONTACT

DIRECT CONTACT



NEM YORK STATE


DIRECT CONTACT
CITY CURRENTS

STATE OF OHIO
DIRECT CONTACT
DIRECT CONTACT
DIRECT CONTACT
CONSUHAT
CITY CURRENTS
CITY CURRENTS
DIRECT CONTACT
CITY CURRENTS
CITY CURRENTS
STAU Of TEXAS
STAU Of UXAS




TO FACILITY






TO FACILITY

TO FACILITY






TO FACILITY
10/86


TO FACILITY




2/87






3/87

3/87






3/87



2/87
TO FACILITY 3/87
TO FACILITY 3/87
10/86
10/86
TO FAC1L1IY 2/87
10/86
10/86
.CITY CURRENTS 10/86

-------
TABLE A-2. EXISTING FACILITIES ORDERED BY STATE AND
TOTAL
LOCATION
CITY
Center
Palestine
Haxahacnfe
Ogden
Portsmouth
Norfolk (Navy Station)
Hampton
Harrlsonburg
Gal ax
Salem
Newport News (Ft. Eustls)
Belltngham
Bel 1 Ingham
Sheboygan
Haukesha
Barren County
Had 1 son
KEY
COMBUSTOH TYPES:

STATE TYPE RECOVERY
TX MI/SA
TX Ml/SA
TX MI/SA
UT MB/OF
VA MB/OF
VA KB/OF
VA MB/OF
VA MB/OF
VA MB/RC
VA MI/SA
VA MI/SA
HA MI/EA
HA MI/SA
Ml MB/OF
HI MB/OF
HI MI/SA
HI ROF/C


YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES


PLANT
/ OF CAPACITY
COMBUSTORS (TPD)
1
1
2
3
2
7
2
2
1
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2


36
28
50
450
160
360
200
100
56
100
35
100
100
240
175
60
400


Type nc
i I r t UT
CONTROL ( S )
NONE
HS
HS
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
BAG
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
HS
ESP
ESP
ESP/C


DESIGN TYPE (Continued)
STARTUP
DATE REFERENCES
1985 STATE OF TEXAS
NA
1982 CITY CURRENTS 10/86
NA
19/1
1967
J980
1982
NA CITY CURRENTS 10/86
1970
1980
1986
1986
NA STATE OF HISCONSIN
1971
1986 STATE OF HISCONSIN
1979 CITY CURRENTS 10/86


MI/SA = MODULAR COMBUSTOR KITH STARVED AIR
Mi/EA = MODULAR COMBUSTOR WITH EXCESS AIR (VICON)
RDF - REtUSE DERIVED
RDF/C = REFUSE DERIVED
MB/OF = MASS BURN HITW
FUEL FIRED IN DEDICATED
FUEL/COAl COFIRING
OVERFEED STOKER
BOILER














MB/RC = MASS BURN IN ROTARY COMBUSTOR
TYPES OF CONTROLS:
     C   = CYCLONE
     ESP = ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
     HS  = HET SCRUBBER
     DS  = DRY SCRUBBER
     VHS = VENTUR1 HET SCRUBBER
     BAG = BAGHOUSE
     EGB = ELECTROSTATIC GRAVEL BED
     NA
           DATA NOT AVAILABLE OR TECHNOLOGY UNDECIDED

-------
                                           TABLE  A-3.   HUMAN  EXPOSURE MODEL  INPUTS  FOR MWC  FACILITIES
           FILE:  lUKICIPM. MSTE CWWSTMS - MNHA1 DEC - MWLM
oo
IMCLIM IMEUM IMC. MS MSf. S!C IISIMVCI 0.11 KM Ho. OF IWIVIMML TOT* OKIMIM MKIIK M OF *5t IMMI USE MSI/WO IKE COUT 10
STUCK HtlWT STWI IIM. VCIOC./SIWK US ICDT. 2IEICCSS Ml CDVf.Y IKII. CM>KH CWKII* UK CWTRMSl SIMKS PM1 EH M!E COIKOl FF. PMT. EH "Alt
W* CITY.STMf (Nltffl iMttril (Mliri/Hcl Id 3IMF.SIUO !/) Itoit/diyl Itwt/diy) Ktyi/mkl lk|'yr) ill H|ill> llythtilll, M 14.1
Hdft KIWI, M 1' 
Hoi SfM(l Hoi Slrif|l, M 11.2
Stitt|irl Slult|irt, M 10.7
Hjr^iMll HirptMll, HE 4.1
Murn Mri, IM 13.2
Cwdu Cudit, W 7.4
Clntlrbury Cinttrbwy, m t.l
LilctfitU Lilchlllld, m 13.2
Utrtdllh Ntrrilth, W 24.4
Nollin|ku NotlKthM, H 7.4
Pillldlld Pitlllllld, M 7.4
KilliM Hilton, M 13.2 0
oil .two NoMttoro, M 11.3 0
Sttntililtii Skmtiltltit,  II. 0

7.11 120
7.14 420
1.31 420
2.N 120
2.3* 120
t. 4t 420
2.1 470
4.4* 420
II. 1 130
0.2 420
21.23 420
13.3* 420
14.31 420
l.tl 420
4.71 420




























33 70 4 0
12.3 17.3 1 3 0
12.3 100 40
12.3 37 4 <
14 14 3
3 3 !
13 13 1
10 10 2
21.1 22.1 0.3
13.4 31.2 7
1 12
41 40 1.1
30 30 2
1 14 2
12.3 12.3 4
13 30 7












13320 0 UJ2C
2*70 2470
32130 12010
1100 1100
3130 M30
120 120
120 120
ion o ion
*20 0 420
12123 0 12123
HO 0 NO
3410 0 341"
32M 0 3200
2000 0 2000
4100 0 4100
II4N 0 H4tO
Ituk Mich, K
           Contrail Ktyt  l-f, 2*ig>MM, 3-vMtnrl, 4>cyclM>, 3-wt tcriMir
                      4>>lKlriln< nll M, 7-lo-tHteMM, l-li-Ml KruMtr
                      f-lo-IV, IO
-------
                       TABLE A-3.   HUMAN  EXPOSURE MODEL  INPUTS  FOR  MWC  FACILITIES  (Continued)
FILE:  mMICIPtl MSK COmuSTOIS - HEM MCWEIIY - HOMUM
ME
Muntlvllll"
Timiltoti
Sitki
II littlo Hot I
Otitoll
lltttvillt
H, tjiu.
Ibvport Mjvil
lu'lrr
Sitoton Co
uirn
Pitttlitld
Collt,fvi)li
Pur hit
ttt Kl|
Sll|t
Pc 190*1 ll
Ft. Ltonird
Mood
Imtfiton
turnii
Sf cotton
PofttMulh
Cu4i

Ontli-i Co.
Dtt|o Co
Hun
Hiittoi
NflliM Indul.
l>trik*ft icrnHtf
           k'llttlrilit* |ra>il ori, 7'lo-oi(hontt, l-lo-Ml icrulbtr
           9-lo-EST, 10'hi ESf, !!>, itfuobtr

ficihty not mfrtntlr Oftritin).

-------
                                    TABLE A-3.   HUMAN  EXPOSURE  MODEL  INPUTS  FOR MWC  FACILITIES  (Continued)
          FILE: WNICIPM. MSTE COntUSlOIS - HEM ItCOVfl* - WSS IW MTCIMU
o
MMC
Pinillii Co.
TMI
Chi Clio M
Illtiooro
KStO
Nwtk Mow
Siui.i MSCO
Ptfkikill
N Hoo.tr Co.
MM
Hjrion Co
Htrrniurg
Cillltin
Ntth.illt
Lqlt( Fuld
Norfolk , I'lo-wt urukbtr
                    Mo-ESP, ID'hi-ESF, \\-ii, urutbrr

-------
                        TABLE  A-3.    HUMAN  EXPOSURE  MODEL  INPUTS  FOR MWC  FACILITIES (Continued)
FILE: mIClPH. MS It COMUSIOK  KIT MCOVCDV - MSSMW KFKTODV
ME
Sutw.lllell
Stulorl

Mil l>t
O^ln
ill 11
HirriMnkurf
*wkttll<
CITI.STITE
Suttlwlllt, Cl
StMT
CIPKITr TIK CWimS' STICKS PMT. EH DITE
(twi/di>> Kiyt'Mtk) l^/rrl
It 7 71 331330
200 1 101000
340 1 1140000
1000 3140000
430 1 I3M230
33
100 7 1 332130
173 2 1 174330
ISE. ISSUKD
CONTROL HI.
Ill
11
10
10
10
10

10
10
MSE CO*' TO
fl. En U
U,/,rl
=5 3
(0100
114000
314000
IU013
71000
33243
I743S
Control l Jty:
                     J-vnturi, 4>cyclwi, 3ilKtrilg-i|li|iiM, I'li-Mt urnkk

-------
 3

 C
 C

 O
00
cc.
o
o
o
CC

00
o
a.
x
CQ
       . S
        j i.


       ir
   fc5
   8 **~
       ii
       - 1
       i*
       ss
         =
       ill
       w.

       iii
        *
*

s


i


I
                      s es
                              
                            s  s
            |S|g  li|E|
            s: s s; 2 s  s  3 "-.
            ^- ^ r *--)   ^  ^
            f ". S "  '
                      f  s

                                 t
            11.
               .           -
            " ^ t   -:-ss.s
-------
                                    TABLE  A-3.    HUMAN  EXPOSURE MODEL  INPUTS  FOR  MWC  FACILITIES  (Continued)
             FILE: HUHICIPK. MSIE COIIIUSTOHS - MM**! KC
 I
--*
OJ
HMC
Anonu>
H>. Cunn
llthi n|ton
Honolulu
Ellt Cnici|0
iMIltllll
5kritlixt
liltioort
Puliski
Fll lli.tr

Fnoinflhio
Eroitt Point!
MSEUK MSEUHE MSE. MS MSI. STKK IISTMVED III ! M.OF IIIIVIDUM T01M. OKMTIM MSELIHE M OF MSE. UHCOHT. MSE I.SSIMI MSE. COHT. TO
SlnC HCIMT SIr DIM. VEIOC. /STOCK MS IE1P. 2IEICCSS III RECOVER IKCIH CtPKIIV CtPMIIT TINE CWTIOlSi STACKS P*ll. EH. MIE COHIHOt EFF. PMT [II M1E
CIT,STTE lotltril lofttril loittrt/il IK) 3IIEF.Stl)KE If/111 Itont/tiyl Itoni/tiyl lo'iyt/mkl H,/,rl 111 lkg/V'l
nionn, CT
KM Cinjin, CT
iinington, K
Hwol.U, M
E

NVCit
lit SI.
YC
N. Honry St.
me
St. Irootlyn
WC tultit
Oysttr liy
. liyt on
S. Dtyton
Cuclitf
MiiliOlihit
Cut Cwlr.l
Philiitlihn
NOftOMlt
St. LMII
Hwiti|l, 

Irooklyn, lit

Irooklyn, H<

hootlyn, 11*

Blin Co>f
Syoillt, NV
liyton, OH
Dayton, ON
Ecll4, ON
Plllllllinll, PI

illilo-Ml Knito
                        Mo-ISP, 10-tll-CV, ll-fry icruioir

             MFiclllty not currtntly ot*r
-------
                                 APPENDIX B
PLANNED MWC FACILITIES

     This appendix contains a listing of MWC facilities in the
construction/permitting/planning ' .ages.  The data are based on information
provided by EPA regional offices and trade journals.  Although every effort
was made to make this list as complete as possible, some facilties may not
included.
     Several facilities shown here have projected startup dates of 1986.
These facilities are not included in the existing facilities list because it
could not be confirmed that they had actually started operating.
     The population in this appendix is also shown aggregated by design type
and capacity (Table B-l) and aggregated by state and design type
(Table B-2).
                                     B-l

-------
                                      TABLE  B-l.    PLANNED  FACILITIES  ORDERED BY  DESIGN  TVPE  AND SIZE
                              LOCATION

                           CHY
                                                                 TOTAL
                                                                  'I ANT
                                   	COMBUSTOR    HEAT    CAPACITY  STARTUP   STATUS
                                    STATE    TYPE     RECOVERY   (I/'O)      DATE     CODE
CONTROL
 STATUS
                                                                                                                                     REFERENCES
CD
 I
ro
WILLISTON                            NO      MB/OF      YES
MIFFLIN COUNTY (LEWISTOWN)            PA      MB/OF      YES
LOWER LUZERNE COUNTY                  PA      MB/OF      YES
UKIAH                                CA      MB/OF      YES
FAYETTEVULE                         AR      MB/OF      YES
CENTRAl  BUCKS                        PA      MB/OF      YES
MONROE CO.(KEY WEST)                  FL      KB/OF      YES
CHARLOTTE                            NC      MB/OF      YES
LONG BEACH                           NY      MB/OF      YES
DOWNEY                               CA      MB/OF      YES
UPPER BUCKS                          PA      MB/OF      YES
SOUTHWEST BUCKS                      PA      MB/OF      YES
CLAREMONT                            NH      MB/OF      YES
JACKSON COUNTY                       MI      MB/OF      YES
HANOVER BOROUGH                      PA      MB/OF      YES
ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY                  NY      MB/OF      YES
MIDDLE TOWN                           CT      MB/OF      YES
MERCER COUNTY                        PA      MB/OF      YES
CITY OF COMMERCE (LOS ANGELES CO.)    CA      MB/OF      YES
CAPE MAY                             NJ      MB/OF      YES
LEW 1ST ON                             ME      MB/OF      YES
MONTGOMERY COUNTY                    OH      MB/OF      YES
VI SAL IA                              CA      MB/OF      YES
WATERBURY                            CT      MB/OF      YES
SOUTH GATE  (LOS ANGELES)             CA      MB/OF      YES
CONCORD                              NH      MB/OF      YES
ESCAMB1A                             FL      MB/OF      YES
SANTA CLARA                          CA      MB/OF      YES
HUDSON FALLS  (WASHINGTON COUNTY)     NY      MB/OF      YES
WARREN COUNTY                        NJ      MB/OF      YES
OKALOOSA                             FL      MB/OF      YES
SAVANNAH                             GA      MB/OF      YES
AUGUSTA (BATH/BRUNSWICK & AUGUSTA)    ME      MB/OF      YES
PENNSAUKEN                           NJ      MB/OF      YES
PORTLAND                             ME      MB/OF      YES
BROOM! COUNTY                        NY      MB/OF      YES
AUSTIN                               TX      MB/OF      YES
GLOUCESTER COUNTY                    NJ      MB/OF      YES
PRESTON                              CT      MB/OF      YES
CHARLESTON                           SC      MB/OF      YES
FRESNO COUNTY                        CA      MB/OF      YES
ONTARIO CO. (WESTERN FINGER LAKES)     NY      MB/OF      YES
BRISTOL                              CT      MB/OF      YES
HOLYOKE            _                  MA      MB/OF      YES
HUNTSVIILE                           AL      MB/OF      YES
OUONSET INDUSTRIAL  PK                Rl      MB/OF      YES
ATLANTIC CO.(LITTLE EGG HARBOR)       NJ      MB/OF      YES
LOWELL                               MA      MB/OF      YES
BABYLON                              NY      MB/OF      YES
100
100
100
100
ISO
ISO
150
200
200
?00
200
200
200
200
200
225
230
250
300
300
300
300
350
360
375
400
400
400
400
400
4SO
500
500
500
500
500
550
575
600
600
600
600
650
685
690
710
750
750
7SO
  HA
  NA
  NA
1987
  NA
  NA
1987
  NA
19B8
  NA
  NA
  NA
1987
1987
  NA
1989
1989
  NA
1987
1990
  NA
1987
1990
1989
1990
1987
  NA
  NA
1988
1988
  NA
1987
1989
1989
1988
1991
1989
1989
1990
1988
  NA
  NA
1988
1989
1989
1990
1990
  NA
1988
3
1
1
2
3
1
4
2
4
3
1
1
4
3
1
3
4
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
1
4
4
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
4
3
4
4
3
1
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP
NA
ESP
NA
NA
NA
NA
DS/BH
NA
NA
DS/BG
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DS/ESP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP/AG
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DS/BG
AG
NA
NA
NA
NA
DS/BH
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           Me H VANE 5/86
           EPA REGION  III SUBMITTAL
           cm CURRENTS 10/86
           Me 1L VANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           EPA REGION  III SUBMITTAL
           STATE OF FLORIDA
           STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
           STATE Of NEW YORK
           McILVANE 5/86
           EPA REGION  III SUBMITTAL
           WASTE TO ENERGY 12/85
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           EPA REGION  III SUBMITTAL
           Cm CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           WASTE TO ENERGY 10/23/85
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           SCAMO SUBMITTAL
           EPA REGION  VII SUBMITTAL
           McILVANE 5/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           STATE OF FLORIDA
           McILVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           STATE OF FLORIDA
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           McILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE 11/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           SCAMD SUBMITTAL
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           U.S. EPA
           STATE OF NEW YORK
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS, 10/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           U.S. EPA
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86

-------
                      TABLE B-l.   PLANNED FACILITIES ORDERED P,Y  DESIGN  TYPE AND SIZE (Continued)
                                                        IOTAL
CO



00
LOCATION
CITY
HUNTINGTON
NEW MHfORO
SOUTH BRONX
PORTSMOUTH
STANISLAUS COUNTY
WAYNE CO.IDEARBON HEIGHTS)
LONG BEACH. STAGE I
ALEXANDRIA/ARLINGTON
SPOKANE COUNTY
CAMDEN COUNTY
IDS ANGELES CO. (SPADRA)
NORTH HEMPSTEAD
LANCASTER COUNTY
YORK COUNTY
OCEAN CO.
HOWARD CO. (BALTiMORE)
LEHIGH VALLEY
PASCO CO.
GARDEN A
CHESTER
HENNEPIN COUNTY (MINNEAPOLIS)
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
PORTLAND
BERKS COUNTY
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
EPHRATA BOROUGH
LONG BEACH, STAGE II
ONOIOAGA COUNTY (SYRACUSE)
PASSAIC COUNTY
HOUSTON (PASADENA)
BRISBANE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
DEL AM ARE COUNTY (RESOURCE REC. 2)
MILLBURY
HUDSON COUNTY
DORCHESTER
IANCER (IDS ANGELES)
OYSTER BAY
SAN MARCOS (SAN DIEGO CO.)
MONTGOMERY CO.
LOS ANGELES CO. (PUENTE HILLS E)
PLAINVILLE
LOS ANGELES CO. (PUENTE HILLS W)
PHILADELPHIA (SOOTH)
BUCKS COUNTY (FALLS TOWNSHIP)
ESSEX COUNTY
HEMPSTEAD
SAN DIEGO (SANDER)
BRIDGEPORT

STATE
NY
CT
NY
NH
CA
MI
CA
VA
WA
NJ
CA
NY
PA
PA
NJ
MD
PA
FL
CA
PA
MN
FL
OR
PA
PA
PA
CA
NY
NJ
TX
CA
WA
PA
MA
NJ
MA
CA
NY
CA
MD
CA
MA
CA
PA
PA
NJ
NY
CA
CT
PfMHI 1 *iT ("ID
i^UT^jU a 1 UM
TYF'E
MB/OF
MB /OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB /OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
lie  -r
Hi A 1
RECOVERY
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
PLANT
CAP AC I TY
(TPD)
750
750
600
800
800
BOO
920
975
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000-1500
10SO
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1250
1350
1400
1400
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500-1800
1600
1650
1672
1800
2000
2000
2000
2200
2200
2250
2250
2250
7250

STARTUP
DATE
1990
NA
NA
NA
1989
NA
1988
1987
1990
1989
NA
1990
1990
1989
1992
NA
1989
NA
1991
1988
1989
1987
1990
1988
1989
1990
NA
NA
1989
1990
NA
1992
NA
1988
1989
NA
1989
1989
1989
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1989
1989
1989
1988

STATUS
CODE
2
1
3
3
4
1
4
4
2
3
1
2
1
1
0
3
3
1
3
3
4
4
1
1
4
1
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
4
3
1
3
4
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
2
2
4

CONTROL
STATUS
NA
NA
BH/S
BH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BH/AG
ESP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP/AG
NA
ESP/DS
NA
ESP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP/S
DS/ESP
NA
DS/BG

REFERENCE S
STATE OF NEW YORK
WASTE TO ENERGY
HcILVANE 5/S6
HcILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
McUVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE
WASTE AGE
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
Me 1L VANE 5/86
HcILVANE 5/86
CWMB
STATE OF NEW YORK
EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
EPA REGION 111 SUBMITTAL
HcILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE
HcILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE
EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
U.S. EPA
EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
ClfY CURRENTS 10/86
He 1L VANE 5/86
HcILVANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
SCAMO SUBMITTAL
HASTE AGE 11/86
HcILVANE 5/86
WASTE AGE

WASTE TO ENERGY 9/25/85
HcILVANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS, 10/86
HcILVANE 5/86
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
HcILVANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
HcILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE
WASTE AGE
U.S. EPA
CWMB
HcILVANE 5/86
McUVANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CHY CURRENTS 10/86





11/86

11/86








11/B6
11/86























11/86










-------
                                 TABLE  B-l.    PLANNED  FACILITIES  ORDERED  BY  DESIGN  TYPE  AND  SIZE  (Continued)
IOCM10N
cm
TOTAL
PI ANT
STAU TYPE RECOVERY (TI'D) DATE CODE STATUS

REfERfNCES
00
INDIANAPOUS
JACKSONVILLE (DUVAL COUNTY)
CARTERET
NEH YORK (BROOKLYN NAVY YARD)
BERGEN COUNTY
IRMINDAIE
SKAGET COUNTY
BLOOMINGTON
GREENSBORO
DUTCHESS COUNTY
SANGER
LUBBOCK
PANAMA CITY (BAY COUNTY)
1SL1P
ST. LOUIS
JOHNSTON
HOONSOCKE T
VENTURA COUNTY
SAN JUAN
WILMINGTON
RUTLAND
SPRINGFIELD  (AGAHAM)
WEBSTER
HALLINGFORO
MANCHESTER
FREMONT
POTTER COUNTY
FORT KNOX
WESTMORELAND COUNTY
JUNEAU
PERM AM
L1TCHF1ELD
NANTUCKET
FORT DIX
GENE SEE COUNTY
PLEASANTON
CAMPBELLSV1LLE
MUSK ICON
CLINTON COUNTY (LOCKHAVEN)
ERIE COUNTY
GREENE COUNTY
MONROE COUNTY (EAST STRAUSBURG)
EDGEWOOO  (HARFORD COUNTY)
NEW HAVEN
POPE  AND  DOUGLAS COUNTIES
CONWAY
 SANTA CRUZ
 IYNOONVUIE
 GAL VLSI ON
IN
FL
NJ
NY
NJ
CA
HA
IN
NC
NY
CA
TX
FL
NY
MO
RI
RI
CA
PR
CA
VT
MA
MA
CT
NH
CA
PA
KY
PA
AK
MN
MI
MA
NJ
NY
CA
KY
MI
PA
NY
NY
PA
MO
CT
MN
NH
CA
VT
TX
MB/OF
MB /OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MI/EA
MI/EA
MI/EA
MI/EA
MI/EA
MI/EA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
MI/SA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
2360
2700
3000
3000
3000
3000
150
3 JO
400
400
500
500
510
518
600
710
710
1000
1000
2000
240
360
360
420
450
480
25
40
50
70
72
75
75
80
100
100
100
150
200
250
300
300
360
450
100
ISO
175
200
700
1989
1990
NA
1989
1990
1989
1988
1988
NA
1987
1987
1987
1987
1988
1989
NA
NA
NA
NA
1988
1987
1988
1989
1988
1989
1989
NA
NA
1986
NA
1986
NA
1987
1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1987
1987
1989
NA
NA
NA
NA
1992
4
1
3
2
4
3
2
4
2
4
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
0
1
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
1
4
5
3
4
0
0
4
1
2








3
3
1
3
3
NA
NA
NA
OS/FJH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HH
NA
NA
ESP
ESP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP
DS/BH/AG
NA
DS/BG
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP
AG
NA
BH/S
NA
NA
NA
OS/BH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DS/BG
ESP
NA
NA
NA
NA
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
STATE OF  FLORIDA
MclLVANE  5/86, HASTE AGE 11/86
HASTE TO  ENERGY 10/23/85
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
MclLVANE  S/86
HASTE AGE
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
S1ATE OF  NORTH CAROLINA
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
MclLVANE  5/B6
MclLVANE  5/86
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
EPA REGION IV  SUBM1TTAL
CITY CURRENTS  10/86, CITY Of ST.  LOUIS
STATE OF  RHODE I SI AND
STATE OF  RHODE ISLAND
U.S. EPA
MclLVANE  5/86
MclLVANE  5/86
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
MclLVANE  5/86
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
MclLVANE  S/86
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
MclLVANE  S/86, HASTE AGE 11/86
MclLVANE  5/86, HASTE AGE 11/66
MICHIGAN  APC
MclLVANE  S/86, HASTE AGE 11/86
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
HASTE AGE 11/86
MclLVANE  S/86
CITY CURRENTS  10/86
MICHIGAN  APC
MclLVANE  5/86
EPA REGION IV  SUBMITTAL
EPA REGION IV  SUBMITTAl
EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
MclLVANE  5/86
MclLVANE  5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
McIlVANE  5/86, HASTE AGE 11/86
FRANKLIN
Me II VANE  5/86. HASTE AGE 11/86
McllVANI  5/86, WASU AGE 11/86

-------
                             TABLE  B-l.    PLANNED  FACILITIES  ORDERED  BY DESIGN  TYPE  MD  SIZE  (bi.ntinued)
                              LOCATION

                           CITY
                                                                 TOTAL
                                                                 PLANT
                                    	COMBUST OR    HEAT    CAPACITY  STARTUP  STATUS
                                     STATE    TYPE     RECOVERY   (TPD)     DATE     CODE
CONTROL
 STATUS
                                                                                                                                    REFERENCES
CD

01
OtMSTEAO CO.                         MN      NA         YES
NORTH PENN                           PA      NA         YES
LAKE COUNTY (PROJECT 2)              FL      NA         YES
LAKE COUNTY (PROJECT 1)              FL      NA         YES
JEFFERSON CO.(HT. VERNON)            IL      NA         YES
HUNTERDON CO.                         NJ      NA         YES
SARATOGA CO.                         NY      NA         YES
STRATFORD                            CT      NA         YES
SUSSEX CO.(LAFAYETTE)                NJ      NA         YES
DERRY                                MH      NA         YES
SANGAMON CO. (SPRINGFIELD)            IL      NA         YES
DANBURY                              CT      NA         YES
ANNE ARUNDEL CO.                     MO      NA         YES
CORPUS CHRIST I                       TX      NA         YES
SOMERSET CO. (BRIDGEWATER)            NJ      NA         YES
MORGANTOMN                           PA      NA         YES
GRAND PRAIRIE (IRVING)                TX      NA         YES
YORK                                 PA      NA         YES
QUEENS (MASPETH)                      NY      NA         YES
MANHATTAN (SHE RMAN CREEK)             NY      NA         YES
KNOX CO.(KNOXVILLE)                  TN      NA         YES
MERCER CO. (HAMILTON TOWNSHIP)        NJ      NA         YES
RIVERSIDE                             CA      NA         YES
UNION CO. IRAHWAY)                    NJ      NA         YES
ALAMEOA                              CA      NA         YES
BRONX (BARRETTO POINT)                NY      NA         YES
KING COUNTY                          MA      NA         YES
BROWARD COUNTY (NORTH)                FL      NA         YES
BROMARD COUNTY (SOUTH)                FL      NA         YES
STATEN ISLAND                         NY      NA         YES
FAIRFAX COUNTY                       VA      NA         YES
EDISON TOWNSHIP                      NJ      NA         YES
NORTHERN TIER  SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY   PA      RDF        YES
FRANKLIN                             OH      RDF        YES
LOS GATOS                            CA      RDF        YES
SOMERVILLE                           MA      RDF        YES
TACOMA                               WA      RDF        YES
WILMINGTON (DELAWARE SWA)            DE      RDF        YES
BIDDEFORD/SACO                       ME      RDF        YES
SACRAMENTO COUNTY                    CA      RDF        YES
BAHGOR/BREWE I'    HINGTON              ME      RDF        YES
ERIE                                 PA      RDF        YES
NAPLES (COLLIER COUNTY)              FL      RDF        YES
CONCORD                              CA      RDF        YES
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (RICHMOND)        CA      RDF        YES
MANKATO (112)                      MN      RDF        YES
RED WING (1 & 2)                     MN      RDF        YES
MORRIS COUNTY                        NJ      RDF        YES
NEWPORT                              MN      RDF        YES
200
200
250
250
300
300-500
360
360
400
400
450
450
500
550
600
600-750
700-800
1000
1200
1200
1200
1200
1500
1500
1600
2000
2000
2200
2250
3000
3000
3000
100
150
200
330
500
600
607
700
750
647
860
900
900
940
940
1000
1000
NA
NA
1988
1988
NA
NA
NA
1989
NA
1988
NA
1990
NA
NA
1988
NA
NA
1989
NA
NA
1991
NA
1990
1990
1989
NA
1993
1989
1989
NA
1990
1989
NA
1987
NA
NA
1988
1987
1987
NA
1988
1988
1988
1989
1989
1987
1987
NA
1987
4
1
2
2
3
0
2
4
1
3
3
0
3
1
0
0
1
3
2
2
1
0
1
0
2
2
1
4
4
2
2














3
3
1
4
ESP
NA
NA
ESP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP/S
ESP/S
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AG
NA
BH/AG
NA
BH
NA
NA
ESP
ESP
NA
BH/AG
                                                                                                                                               11/06
                                                                                                                                               11/86
                                                                                                                                               11/86

                                                                                                                                               11/86
                                                                                                                                     WASTE AGE  11/86
                                                                                                                                     WASTE AGE  11/86
           McKVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE !  !)6
           EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
           MeILVANE 5/86
           Hell VANE 5/86
           McILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE
           Me ILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE
           McILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           MeIIVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE
           McILVANE 5/B6.
           McUVANE 5/86.
           FRANKLIN
           Me II VANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE 11/86
           EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           STATE OF NEW YORK
           STATE OF NEW YORK
           McILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE 11/86
           McRVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           SCAMO SUBMITTAL
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           STATE OF NEW YORK
           EPA REGION X
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           STATE OF NEW YORK
           McILVANE 5/86
           McILVANE 5/S6. WASTE AGE 11/86
           CALIFORNIA WASTE  MANAGEMENT SURVEY
           U.S. EPA
           EPA REGION IV
           U.S. EPA
           FRANKLIN
           EPA REGION IV SUBMITTAL
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86

           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           EPA REGIONAL  SUBMITTAL
           SCAM) SUBMITTAL
           WASTE AGE
           McUVANE 5/86.  WASTE AGE  11/86
           McILVANE 5/86.  WASTE AGE  11/86
           WASTE TO ENERGY 9/25/85
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86

-------
                            TABLE  B-l.   PLANNED  FACILITIES  PEERED  BY  DESIGN  TYPE  AND  SIZE  (Continued)
CD
 I
CTl
IOCATION
CITY
RENO (PHASE 11)
MILLIKEN LANDFILL
SAN BERNARDINO
ROCHE STtR
HONOLULU
COMPTON
HARTfORD
WEST PALM BEACH COUNTY
A7USA
Pf TERSBURG
DETROIT
REDNOOD (SAN FRANCISCO)
PORTSMOUTH
WEYMDUTH

SlATt
NV
CA
CA
MA
HA
CA
CT
FL
CA
VA
MI
CA
VA
MA
pryjnj i c T no
UUWOUD 1 UK
TYPE
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF/C
RDF/FB
WC AT
nt n I
RECOVERY
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
TOTAL
PI ANT
P APAP 1 TV
CAr AL, 1 1 T
(TPO)
1000
1600
1600
1800
1800
1600
2000
2000
2000
2400
3300
3850
2000
400

STARTUP
DATE
NA
NA
1989
1989
1989
NA
1988
1989
1989
1986
1988
NA
1987
NA

STATUS
CODE
4
2
3
4
4
2
4
4
1
4
2
3
4
1

CONTROL
STATUS
NA
NA
NA
ESP/AG
NA
NA
DS/BG
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

REFERS NCrS
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CWMB
McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
WASTE AGE
WASTE TO ENERGY
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
McILVANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CWMB
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
WASTE V , RGY 8/28/85
                                      KEY
                  COMBUSTOR TYPES:
                    Ml/SA = MODULAR COMBUSTOR WITH STARVED AIR
                    Ml/EA = MODULAR COMBUSTOR WITH EXCESS AIR (VICON)
                    ROF   = REFUSE DERIVED FUEL FIRED IN DEDICATED BOILER
                    RDF/C = REFUSE DERIVED FUEL/COAL COFIRlNG
                    MB/OF = MASS BURN WITH OVERFEED STOKER
                    MB/RC  MASS BURN IN ROTARY COMBUSTOR
                    NA    = DATA NOT AVAILABLE OR TECHNOLOGY UNDECIDED

                  STATUS CODE:
                    0 = STATUS UNKNOWN
                    1 = EARLY PLANNING STAGES
                    2 = PERMITTING STAGES
                    3 = CONTRACT AWARDED
                    4 = CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY OR EXPECTED SOON
                    5 = TESTING STAGES

                  CONTROL STATUS:
                    BH  - BAGHOUSE
                    S   = WATF.R SCRUBBER
                    ESP = ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
                    AG  = AC 10 GAS CONROL
                    DS  = DRY SCRUBBER

-------
                         TABLE  B-2.   PLANNED FACILITIES ORDERED BY STATE AND DESIGN TYPE
DO
I
                                                       TOTAL
LOCATION
CITY
JUNEAU
HUNTSVILLE
FAYET1EVHLE
SAN DIEGO (SANDER)
DOWNEY
IOS ANGELES CO. (PUENTE HIILS E)
LOS ANGELES CO. (PUENTE HILLS W)
SAN MARCOS (SAN DIEGO CO.)
LOS ANGELES CO. (SPADRA)
CITY OF COMMERCE (LOS ANGELES CO.)
UKIAH
1RW1NDALE
VI SAL I A
BRISBANE
SOUTH GATE (LOS ANGELES)
FRESNO COUNTY
SANTA CLARA
STANISLAUS COUNTY
GARDEN A
LONG BEACH. STAGE I
LONG BEACH. STAGE II
LANCER (LOS ANGELES)
WILMINGTON
VENTURA COUNTY
SANGER
FREMONT
PLEASANT ON
SANTA CRUZ
ALAMEDA
RIVERSIDE
LOS GATOS
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
CONCORD
REDWOOD (SAN FRANCISCO)
SAN BERNARDINO
MILLIKEN LANDFILL
AZUSA
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (RICHMOND)
COMPTON
NEW MllFORD
MIDOLETOHN
BRIDGEPORT
WATER8URY
BRISTOL
PRESTON
MALLINGFORD
NEW HAVEN
DANBURY
STRATFORD

STATE
AK
AL
AR
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
COMBUST OR
Tin
MI/SA
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
Ml/EA
MI/SA
NA
NA
NA
RDF
RDF
RDF
ROF
RDF
RDF
RDF
ROF
RDF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/EA
MI/SA
NA
NA
Hf AT
fit fl 1
RECOVERY
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YE!,
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YfS
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
PLANT
TAP AT 1 TV
\jArrt-i I 1 I
. UPD)
70
690
150
2250
200
2000
2000
1672
1000
300
100
3000
350
1500
375
600
400
BOO
1200
920
1350
1600
2000
1000
500
480
100
175
1600
1500
200
700
900
3850
1600
1600
2000
900
1800
750
230
2250
360
650
600
420
4SO
450
360
CT JkpTI |p
,> 1 nn t Ur
DATE
NA
1989
NA
1969
NA
NA
NA
1989
NA
198/
1987
1989
1990
NA
1990
NA
NA
1989
1991
1988
NA
1989
1988
NA
1987
1989
NA
NA
1989
1990
NA
NA
1989
NA
1989
NA
1989
1989
NA
NA
1989
1988
1989
1988
1990
1988
1989
1990
1989
CT T| 1C
o 1 nl Uj
CODE
3
4
3
2
3
2
2
4
I
4
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
0
2
4
2
1
2
1
5
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
2
1
4
4
1
4
3
4
4
0
4
pnuTDru
LUn 1 nUl
STATUS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DS/BG
DS/BG
NA
DS/BG
NA
DS/BG
DS/BG
NA
NA

REFERENCES
McILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE 11/86
CITY CURRENTS, 10/86
McILVANC 5/86. WASTE AGE 11/86
CI1Y CURRENTS 10/86
McILVANE 5/86
WASTE AGE
CWM9
CITY CURRFNTS 10/86
CWHB
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
Me 11 VANE 5/86
SCAMD SUBMITTAL

McILVANE 5/86
U.S. EPA
McILVANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
U.S. EPA
HASTE AGE
SCAMD SUBMIT TAL
U.S. EPA
McILVANE 5/86
U.S. EPA
McILVANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
McILVANE 5/86
FRANKLIN
McILVANE 5/86
SCAMD SUBMITTAL
EPA REGION IV

SCAMD SUBMITTAL
CWMB
McILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE 11/86
CWMB
McILVANE 5/86
WASTE AGE
WASTE AGE
WASTE TO ENERGY
McILVANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
EPA REGION VII SUBMITTAL
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
SCAMD SUBMITTAL
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
McILVANE 5/86
FRANK! IN
CITY CURRENTS 10/86

-------
                     TABLE B-2.  PLANNED FACILITIES ORDERFn RY STATE  AND  DESIGN  TYPE  (Continued)
CD
I
oo
LOCATION
CITY
HARTFORD
WILMINGTON (DELAWARE SWA)
OKALOOSA
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
JACKSONVILLE (OUVAL COUNTY)
PASCO CO.
MONROE CO. (KEY WEST)
ESCAMBIA
PANAMA CITY (BAY COUNTY)
BROWARO COUNTY (SOUTH)
BROMARD COUNTY (NORTH)
LAKE COUNTY (PROJECT 1)
LAKE COUNTY (PROJECT 2)
WEST PALM BEACH COUNTY
NAPLES (COLLIER COUNTY)
SAVANNAH
HONOLULU
SANGAMON CO. (SPRINGFIELD)
JEFFERSON CO. (MT. VERNON)
INDIANAPOLIS
BLOOMINGTON
FORT KNOX
CAMPBELLSVILLE
HOLYOKE
MILL BURY
LOWELL
DORCHESTER
PLA1NVILLE
WEBSTER
SPRINGFIELD (AGAWAM)
NANTUCKET
SOMERVILLE
ROCHESTER
WEYMOUTH
MONTGOMERY CO.
HOWARD CO. (BALTIMORE)
EDGEWOOO (HARFORD COUNTY)
ANNE ARUNOEL CO.
AUGUSTA (BATH/BRUNSWICK & AUGUSTA)
PORTLAND
LEWISTON
BANGOR/BREWER/ORRI NGTON
BIDDEFORD/SACO
JACKSON COUNTY
WAYNE CO.(DEARBON HEIGHTS)
LITCHF1ELD
MUSKIGON
DETROIT
HENNEPIN COUNTY (MINNEAPOLIS)

STATE
CT
DE
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
HA
IL
a
IN
IN
KY
KY
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MN

COMBUST OR
TYPE
RDF
RDF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/RC
NA
NA
NA
NA
RDF
RDF
MB/OF
RDF
NA
NA
MB/OF
MB/RC
MI/SA
MI/SA
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/EA
MI/EA
MI/SA
RDF
RDF
RDF/FB
MB/OF
MB /OF
MI/SA
NA
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/OF
RDF
RDF
MB/OF
MB/OF
MI/SA
MI/SA
RDF
MB/OF

  AT
RECOVERY
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
TOTAL
PLANT
CAPACITY
(TPO)
2000
600
450
1200
2700
1200
ISO
400
510
22SO
2200
250
250
2000
860
500
1800
450
300
2360
370
40
100
685
1500
750
1500-1800
2000
360
360
75
330
1800
400
1800
1000-1500
360
500
500
500
300
750
607
200
800
75
150
3300
1200

STARTUP
DATE
1988
1987
NA
1987
1990
NA
1987
NA
1987
1989
1989
1988
1988
1989
1988
1987
1989
NA
NA
1989
1988
NA
NA
1989
1988
NA
NA
NA
1989
1988
1987
NA
1989
NA
NA
NA
1987
NA
1989
1988
NA
1988
1987
1987
NA
NA
NA
1988
1989

STATUS
cooe
4
4
1
4
1
1
4
3
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
1
3
4
1
1
1
.4
3
0
1
4
1
1
3
4
3
4
4
1
4
4
3
1
0
4
2
4

CONTROL
STATUS
DS/BG
NA
NA
ESP
NA
NA
ESP
NA
ESP
ESP/S
ESP/S
ESP
NA
NA
BH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AG
ESP/AG
NA
ESP/OS
NA
NA
DS/BH/AG
NA
NA
ESP/AG
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP/AG
NA
BH/AG
AG
DS/BH
NA
AG
DS/BH
NA
BH/AG

REFFRFNC.fS
WASTE TO ENERGY
EPA REGION IV SUBMITTAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
STATE OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA
STATE Of FIORIDA
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
Me I L VANE 5/86
Me I L VANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
EPA REGIONAL SUBMITTAL
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
Me I L VANE 5/86, WASTE AGE
MclLVANf 5/86, WASTE AGE
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
Me I L VANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
Me II VANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS, 10/86
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
Me I L VANE 5/86
Me I L VANE 5/86, WASTE AGE
U.S. EPA
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
WASTE TO ENERGY 8/28/85
Me I L VANE 5/86, WASTE AGE
Me IL VANE 5/86, WASTE AGE
EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
Me I L VANE 5/86, WASTE AGE
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
Me I L VANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
McILVANE 5/86
McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE
MICHIGAN APC
MICHIGAN APC
CITY CURRENTS 10/86
CITY CURRENTS 10/86



















11 '86
11/86











11/86



11/86
11/86

11/86






11/86





-------
                                  TABLE  B-2.    PLANNED FACILITIES  ORDERFH  RY  ST/>TF  AND  DESIGN  TYPE   (Continued)
                               LOCATION

                            CITY
                                                                 TOTAL
                                                                 PLANT
                                    	 COMBUSTOR    HEAT    CAPACITY  STARTUP  STATUS
                                     STATE    TYPE     RECOVERY   (TPO)     DATE      CODE
CONTROL
 STATUS
                                                                                                                                      REFERENCES
CO
 I
PERHAM                               MN      MI/SA      YES           72     1986
OLMSTEAD CO.                         MN      NA         YES          200       NA
POPE AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES            MN      NA         YES          100       NA
MANKATO (1 & 2)                      MN      RDF        YES          940     1987
NEWPORT                              MN      RDF        YES         1000     1987
RED MING (1*2)                     MN      RDF        YES          940     1967
ST. LOUIS                            MO      MB/RC      YES          600     1969
CHARLOTTE                            NC      MB/Of      YES          200       NA
GREENSBORO                           NC      MB/RC      YES          400       NA
XII1151 ON                            NO      MB/OF      YES          100       NA
PORTSMOUTH                           NH      MB/Of      YES          800       NA
CLAREMONT                            NH      MB/OF      YES          200     1987
CONCORD                              NH      MB/OF      YES          400     1987
MANCHESTER                           NH      Ml/EA      YES          450     1989
DERRY                                NH      NA         YES          400     1988
CONHAY                               NH      NA         YES          ISO       NA
WARREN COUNTY                        NJ      MB/OF      YES          400     1988
PENNSAUKEN                           NJ      MB/OF      YES          500     1989
ATLANTIC CO. (LITTLE  EGG HARBOR)       NJ      MB/OF      YES          750     1990
HUDSON COUNTY                        NJ      MB/OF      YES         1500     1989
GLOUCESTER COUNTY                    NJ      MB/OF      YES          575     1989
CARTERET                             NJ      MB/Of      YES         3000       NA
CAMDIN COUNTY                        NJ      MB/OF      YES         1000     1989
ESSEX COUNTY                         NJ      MB/OF      YES         2250     1989
PASSAIC COUNTY                       NJ      MB/Of      YES         1400     1989
DIRGEN COUNTY                        NJ      MB/OF      YES         3000     1990
OCEAN CO.                            NJ      MB/Of      YES         1000     1992
CAPE MAY                             NJ      MB/OF      YES          300     1990
FORT DIX                             NJ      MI/SA      YES           80     1988
UNION CO.(RAHWAY)                    NJ      NA         YES         1500     1990
HUNTERDON CO.                        NJ      NA         YES      300-500       NA
EDISON TOWNSHIP                     NJ      NA         YES         3000     1989
SUSSEX CO. (LAFAYETTE)                NJ      NA         YES          400       NA
SOMERSET CO. (BR1DGEWATER)            NJ      NA         YES          600     1988
MERCER CO. (HAMILTON TOWNSHIP)        NJ      NA         YES         1200       NA
MORRIS COUNTY                        NJ      RDF        YES         1000       NA
RENO (PHASE II)                      NV      RDF        YES         1000       NA
HUDSON FALLS (WASHINGTON COUNTY)     NY      MB/Of      YES          400     1988
ONTARIO CO.  (WESTERN FINGER LAKES)    NY      MB/Of      YES          600       NA
HUNTINGTON                           NY      MB/Of      YES          750     1990
BABYLON                              NY      MB/OF      YES          750     1988
OYSTER BAY                           NY      MB/OF      YES         1650     1989
ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY                  NY      MB/Of      YES          225     1989
NEW YORK (BROOKLYN NAVY YARD)        NY      MB/Of      YES         3000     1989
LONG BEACH                           NY      MB/OF      YES          200     1988
NORTH HEMPSTEAD                      NY      MB/Of      YES         1000     1990
SOUTH BRONX                           NY      MB/Of      YES          800       NA
ONONDAGA COUNTY (SYRACUSE)            NY      MB/OF      YES         1400       NA
HEMPSTEAD                            NY      MB/Of      YES         2250     1989
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
4
0
1
4
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
4
3
1
2
4
4
3
2
4
2
3
2
2
ESP
ESP
fSP
ESP
BH/AG
ESP
NA
NA
NA
NA
BH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP/S
NA
NA
NA
NA
BH/S
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
OS/ESP
NA
NA
DS/BH
ESP
NA
DS/BH
ESP
NA
BH/S
NA
OS/I SP
           McllVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McILVANE 5/86. WASTE AGE 11/86
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McllVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McllVANE 5/66, WASTE AGE 11/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86, CITY OF  ST.  LOUIS
           STAIE Of NORTH CAROLINA
           STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McllVANE 5/86
           McllVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McllVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McllVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McllVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McllVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           McllVANE 5/86, WASTE AGf 11/86
           McILVANE 5/66, WASTE AGE 11/66
           McILVANE 5/86, WASTE AGE 11/86
           WASTE TO ENERGY 9/25/85
           CITY CURRENTS 10/66
           CITY CURRENTS 10/66
           STATE OF NEW YORK
           STATE OF NEW YORK
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           McILVANE 5/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86
           WASTE TO ENERGY 10/23/85
           STATE OF NEW YORK
           STATE OF NEW YORK
           McllVANE 5/86
           WASTE AGE 11/86
           CITY CURRENTS 10/86

-------
                                  TABLE  B-2.   PLANNED FACILITIES  ORDERED BY  STATF  AND  DFSIGN  TYPL  (Continued)
                               10CM10N

                            CITY
                                                                 TOTAL
                                                                 PLANT
                                    	COMBUSIOR    HEAT    CAPACITY  STARTUP  STATUS
                                     S1AIE     TYPE     RECOVERY   (TPO)     DATE     CODE
    CONTROL
      STATUS
                                                                                                                                     REFERtNCtS
DO
 I
 BROOME COUNTY                         NY      MB/OF      YES
 DUTCHESS COUNTY                       NY      MB/RC      YES
 I SUP                                 NY      MB/RC      YES
 GREENE COUNTY                         NY      Nl/SA      YES
 ERIE COUNTY                           NY      MI/SA      YES
 GENESEE COUNTY                        NY      MI/SA      YES
 BRONX  (BARRETTO POINT)                MY      MA        YES
 MANHATTAN I SHERMAN CREEK)              NY      MA        YES
 STATEN ISLAND                         NY      MA        YES
 OUEENS(MASPETH)                       NY      MA        YES
 SARATOGA CO.                          NY      NA        YES
 MONTGOMERY COUNTY                     OH      MB/OF      YES
 FRANKLIN                              OH      RDF        YES
 PORTLAND                              OR      MB/OF      YES
 YORK COUNTY                           PA      MB/OF      YES
 HANOVER BOROUGH                       PA      MB/OF      YES
 CHESTER                               PA      MB/OF      YES
 BERKS COUNTY                          PA      MB/OF      YES
 MONTGOMERY COUNTY                     PA      MB/OF      YES
 SOUTH* ST BUCKS                       PA      MB/OF      YES
 CENTRAL BUCKS                         PA      MB/OF      YES
 OE1AMARE COUNTY  (RESOURCE REC. 2)     PA      MB/OF      YES
 MIFFLIN COUNTY  (LEWISTOWN)            PA      MB/OF      YES
 BUCKS COUNTY (FALLS TOMNSHIP)         PA      MB/OF      YES
MERCER COUNTY                         PA      MB/OF      YES
UPPER BUCKS                           PA      MB/OF      YES
If HIGH VALLEY                         PA      MB/OF      YES
EPHRATA BOROUGH                       PA      MB/OF      YES
LONER LUZERNE COUNTY                  PA      MB/OF      YES
PHILADELPHIA (SOUTH)                  PA      MB/OF      YES
LANCASTER COUNTY                      PA      MB/OF      YES
MONROE COUNTY (EAST STRAUSBURG)       PA      MI/SA      YES
CLINTON COUNTY (LOCKHAVEN)            PA      MI/SA      YES
POTTER COUNTY                         PA      MI/SA      YES
WESTMORELAND COUNTY                   PA      MI/SA      YES
MORGANTOHN                            PA      NA        YES
NORTH PENN                            PA      NA        YES
YORK                                  PA      NA        YES
ERIE                                  PA      RDF        YES
NORTHERN TIER SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY    PA      RDF        YES
 SAN JUAN                              PR      MB/RC      YES
 OUONSET INDUSTRIAL PK                 RI       MB/OF      YES
 JOHNSTON                              RI       MB/RC      YES
 WOONSOCKET                            RI       MB/RC      YES
 CHARLESTON                            SC      MB/OF      YES
 KNOX CO.(KNOXVIUE)                   TN      NA        YES
 HOUSTON (PASADENA)                    TX       MB/OF      YES
 AUSTIN                                TX       MB/OF      YES
 LUBBOCK                               TX       MB/RC      YES
500
400
518
300
2SO
100
7000
1200
3000
1200
360
300
ISO
1200
1000
200
1200
1200
1200
200
ISO
1500
100
2200
2SO
200
10SO
1250
100
2200
1000
300
200
25
50
600-750
200
1000
847
100
1000
710
710
710
600
1200
1SOO
550
500
1991
1987
1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1987
1987
1990
1989
NA
1988
1988
1989
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1989
1990
NA
NA
1990
1987
NA
NA
1986
NA
NA
1989
1988
NA
NA
1990
NA
NA
1988
1991
1990
1969
1987
 3   NA         MeH VANE  5/86
 4   BH         CITY CURRENTS  10/86
 4   ESP        EPA REGION IV  SUBMITTAL
 1   NA         EPA REGION IV  SUBMITTAL
 1   NA         EPA REGION IV  ^WMITTAL
 1   NA         HASTE AGE  11/86
 2   NA         STATE OF  NEW YORK
 2   NA         STATE Of  N(H YORK
 2   NA         STATE OF  NEW YORK
 2   NA         STATE OF  NEW YORK
 2   NA         McILVANE  5/86. WASTE AGE 11/86
 4   NA         CITY CURRENTS  10/86
 3   NA         U.S. EPA
    NA         McILVANE  5/86
    NA         EPA REGION III SUBMIT!AL
    NA         EPA REGION III SUBM1TTAL
    NA         EPA REGION HI SUBMITTAL
    NA         McILVANE  5/86
    NA         CITY CURRENTS  10/86
    NA         WASTE TO ENERGY 12/85
    NA         EPA REGION HI SUBMITTAL
    NA         McILVANE 5/86
    NA         McILVANE 5/86
    NA         McILVANE 5/86
    NA         WASTE TO ENERGY 10/23/85
    NA         EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
    NA         EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
    NA         EPA REGION HI SUBM1TTAL
    NA         EPA REGION III SUBMITTAL
    NA         McILVANE 5/86
    NA         EPA REGION III SUBMIT!AL
    NA         EPA REGION III SUBM1TTAL
    NA         McILVANE 5/B6
    NA         EPA REGION  HI SUBMITTAL
    NA         CITY CURRENTS 10/86
    NA         EPA REGION  HI SUBMIT!AL
    NA         EPA REGION  III SUBMITTAL
    NA         McILVANE 5/86
    NA         CITY CURRENTS 10/86
    NA         CALIFORNIA HASTE MANAGEMENT SURVEY
    NA         McILVANE 5/86
    NA         CITY CURRENTS 10/86
    NA         STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
3   NA         STATE OF RHODE  ISLAND
3   NA         McILVANE 5/86,  WASTE  AGE 11/86
1   NA         McILVANE 5/86.  HASTE  AGE 11/86
3   NA         WASTE AGE
3   NA         McllVANE 5/86,  HASTE  AGE 11/86
3   NA         McILVANE 5/86

-------
                                  TABtE  B-2.    PLANNED  FACILITIES ORDERED  BY  STATE  AND .'JlSIGN  TYPF.  (lont inucd;
CO
LOCATION
CITY
LORPUS CHRIST I
GAL VEST ON
GRAND PRAIRIE (IRVING)
ALEXANDRIA/ ARLINGTON
FAIRFAX COUNTY
PETERSBURG
PORTSMOUTH
RUTLAND
LYNOONVILLE
SPOKANE COUNTY
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
SKAGET COUNTY
KING COUNTY
TACOMA

STATE
TX
TX
TX
VA
VA
VA
VA
VT
VT
WA
HA
WA
MA
MA
COMBUST OR
TYPE
NA
NA
NA
MB/OF
NA
RDF
RDF/C
MI/EA
NA
MB/OF
MB/OF
MB/RC
NA
RDF
HEAT
RECOVERY
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
TOTAL
PLANT
CAPACITY STARTUP STATUS
(TPD) DATE CODE
550
200
700-800
975
3000
2400
2000
240
200
1000
1500
150
2000
500
NA
1992
NA
1987
1990
1986
1987
1987
NA
1990
1992
1988
1993
1988
1
3
1
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
CONTROL
STATUS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ESP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

McILVANE 5/86.
Me II VANE 5/86.
McILVANE 5/86,
CITY CURRENTS
McllVANE 5/86
CITY CURRENTS
CITY CURRENTS
CITY CURRENTS
McILVANE S/66,
McILVANE 5/86
REFERENCES
MASTE AGE 11/86
MASTE AGE 11/86
MASTE AGE 11/86
10/86

10/86
10/86
10/86
MASTE AGE 11/86

MASTE TO ENERGY 9/25/85
MASTE AGE
REGION X
.1 M IN



                    KEY

COMBUSTOR TYPES:
  MI/SA -- MODULAR COMBUSTOR MITH STARVED AIR
  MI/EA = MODULAR COMBUSTOR MITH EXCESS AIR (VICON)
  RDF   = REFUSE  DERIVED FUEL FIRED IN DEDICATED BOILER
  RDF/C = REFUSE  DERIVED FUEL/COAL COFIRING
  MB/OF - MASS BURN MITH OVERFEED STOKER
  MB/RC - MASS BURN IN ROTARY COMBUSTOR
  NA   = DATA NOT AVAILABLE OR TECHNOLOGY UNDECIDED
                     STATUS CODE:
                       0 = STATUS UNKNOMN
                       1 = EARLY PLANNING STAGES
                       2 = PERMITTING  STAGES
                       3 = CONTRACT  AMARDED
                       4 = CONSTRUCTION UNDERMAY OR EXPECTED SOON
                       5 = TESTING STAGES

                     CONTROL  STATUS:
                       BH  =  BAGHOUSE
                       S   =  MATER SCRUBBER
                       ESP =  EIECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
                       A(,  =  AC 10 GAS  CONROL
                       US  =  DRY SCHUHW H

-------