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 MV»C 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 sho«n 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
1800°F ± 200°F and 1500°F 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
800°C (1472°F)
for 0.3 seconds
10X
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
750°C (1382°F) for
at least 2 seconds
C02 at new facilities
1.5
3.8
—
0.1
0.03 at 10X C02 — 0.1
800°C
U472°F)
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 S»i 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-O«OS O* O> Os Os O'OsOsO-O'CT. ff. o»
vl«Vlv»9(&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= '-'— C«O 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
AM»S
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 Hl«l 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> llytht»illl, 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 M»ri, 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< »n»ll 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
•ui»rn
Pitttlitld
Coll»t,fvi)li
Pur hit
ttt Kl«|
Sl«l|t
P«c 190*1 ll
Ft. Ltonird
Mood
Imtfiton
turnii
Sf cotton
PofttMulh
Cu4i
Ontli-i Co.
Dt«t|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.
TM»I
Chi Clio M
Illtiooro
KStO
Nwtk Mow
Siui.i MSCO
Ptfkikill
N» Hoo.tr Co.
MM
Hjrion Co
Htrrniurg
Cillltin
Ntth.illt
L»qlt( Fuld
Norfolk «<«ll
Stitio*
Norfolk m.ll
Sr,ip,«rd
CITy.STITE
Cltirxtir, FL
liifi, Fl
Chin to, II
liltlHKi, m
North IMovtr,
S, I'lo-wt urukbtr
Mo-ESP, ID'hi-ESF, \\-ii, urutbrr
-------
TABLE A-3. HUMAN EXPOSURE MODEL INPUTS FOR MWC FACILITIES (Continued)
FILE: m»IClPH. 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
I«SE. ISSUKD
CONTROL HI.
Ill
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
MSE CO*' TO
f«l. 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
An»onu«>
H>. Cunn
llthi n|ton
Honolulu
Ellt Cnici|0
iMIltllll
5kri»tlixt
liltioort
Puliski
F«ll 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 SI«r DIM. VEIOC. /STOCK MS IE1P. 2IEICCSS III RECOVER IKCIH CtPKIIV CtPMIIT TINE CWTIOlSi STACKS P*ll. EH. MIE COHIHOt EFF. PMT [II M1E
CIT»,ST«TE lotltril lofttril loittrt/i«l 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
E»cll4, 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
------- |