U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
PB-255 695
Study of the Feasibility of
Federal Procurement of Fuels
Produced from Solid Wastes
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Prepared For
Environmental Protection Agency
July 1975
-------
KEEP UP TO DATE
Between the time you ordered this report—
which is only one of the hundreds of thou-
sands in the NTIS information collection avail-
able to you—and the time you are reading
this message, several new reports relevant to
your interests probably have entered the col-
lection.
Subscribe to the Weekly Government
Abstracts series that will bring you sum-
maries of new reports as soon as they are
received by NTIS from the originators of the
research. The WGA's are an NTIS weekly
newsletter service covering the most recent
research findings in 25 areas of industrial,
technological, and sociological interest—
invaluable information for executives and
professionals who must keep up to date.
The executive and professional informa-
tion service provided by NTIS in the Weekly
Government Abstracts newsletters will give
you thorough and comprehensive coverage
of government-conducted or sponsored re-
search activities. And you'll get this impor-
tant information within two weeks of the time
it's released by originating agencies.
WGA newsletters are computer produced
and electronically photocomposed to slash
the time gap between the release of a report
and its availability. You can learn about
technical innovations immediately—and use
them in the most meaningful and productive
ways possible for your organization. Please
request NTIS-PR-205/PCW for more infor-
mation.
The weekly newsletter series will keep you
current. But learn what you have missed in
the past by ordering a computer NTISearch
of all the research reports In your area of
Interest, dating as far back as 1964, if you
wish. Please request NTIS-PR-186/PCN for
more information.
WRITE: Managing Editor
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Keep Up To Date With SRIM
SRIM (Selected Research in Microfiche)
provides you with regular, automatic distri-
bution of the complete texts of NTIS research
reports only in the subject areas you select.
SRIM covers almost all Government re-
search reports by subject area and/or the
originating Federal or local government
agency. You may subscribe by any category
or subcategory of our WGA (Weekly Govern-
ment Abstracts) or Government Reports
Announcements and Index categories, or to
the reports issued by a particular agency
such as the Department of Defense, Federal
Energy Administration, or Environmental
Protection Agency. Other options that will
give you greater selectivity are available on
request.
The cost of SRIM service is only 45?
domestic (600 foreign) for each complete
microfiched report. Your SRIM service begins
as soon as your order is received and proc-
essed and you will receive biweekly ship-
ments thereafter. If you wish, your service
will be backdated to furnish you microfiche
of reports issued earlier.
Because of contractual arrangements with
several Special Technology Groups, not all
NTIS reports are distributed in the SRIM
program. You will receive a notice in your
microfiche shipments identifying the excep-
tionally priced reports not available through
SRIM.
A deposit account with NTIS is required
before this service can be initiated. If you
have specific questions concerning this serv-
ice, please call (703) 451-1558, or write NTIS,
attention SRIM Product Manager.
This information product distributed by
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
OF FUELS PRODUCED FROM SOLID WASTES
This final report (SW-123c) describes work performed
for the Federal solid waste management programs under Contract
No. 68-01-2951 and is reproduced as received from the contractor
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1976
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE
BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING
AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CER-
TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE-
LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
4. Tide and Subtitle
Study of the Feasibility of Federal Procurement of Fuels
Produced from Solid Waste
5. Report Date
July 1975
6.
7. Author(s)
Arthur D. Little. Inc.
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Arthur D. Little, Inc
Acorn Park
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
10. Pro|ect/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-01-2951
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, n.r.. PfUfifl
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
The study determines in which cases and under what circumstances it is
feasible for Federally owned boilers to utilize-solid waste as a
supplementary fuel. The study provides the data necessary to write a
guideline to aid operators of Federally owned boilers in modifying their
systems to utilize solid waste as a supplementary fuel. The study
examines industrial sized boilers, /The modifications necessary, the
solid waste preparation required, and system economics.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
solid waste
energy
boilers
industrial boilers
Federal boilers
solid waste derived fuel
refuse derived fuel
I7b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
17c. COSATI Field/Group
j 18. Availability Statement
Release Unlimited
19. Security Class (This
Report)
uqcm
|2T No. of Pages
20. Security Class
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
PORM NTIS-8S (REV. 10-73) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-DC S2BS-P74
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-123c) in the solid
waste manaqement series.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1
1.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1.1
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK 1.1
1.3 SOLID WASTE AS A SOURCE OF FUEL 1.3
2.0 INVENTORY OF FEDERALLY OWNED BOILERS 2.1
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1
3.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FEASIBILITY OF CONVERSION 3.1
3.1 ECONOMICS OF CONVERTING COAL FIRED BOILERS 3.1
3.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 3.40
4.0 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL CONVERSION OPPORTUNITIES 4.1
5.0 REFERENCES 5.1
Appendix A
Appendix B
4*
iii *
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
C8 ' °I ^O
C,, disposal costs ($/ton)
d
C_, capital amortization charges ($/ton)
C , additional operating costs (exclusive of capital amortization) ($/ton)
o
C , transfer costs ($/ton)
C.M, transport costs ($/ton)
f, fossil fuel value ($/106 BTU)
Hw, heating value per ton of waste (10° BTU/ton)
I, capital cost ($)
(L, cost of picking up waste from a transfer station and dropping off the
load at the boiler site ($/ton)
C , cost of operating a transport vehicle on the road ($/ton mile)
M, haulage distance
E,~cost of owning and operating a transport vehicle ($/hr)
L, driver - wages ($/hr)
T, tonnage (tons)
V, average over-the-road vehicle speed (miles/hr)
t, time (hrs)
P, .air pollution control equipment costs ($)
F, firing time (hrs)
TPD, tons per day of refuse
PPhl_, minimum boiler steam load, ///hr
D
D, design steam capacity (///hr)
r, fractional firing achievable if refuse is fired at a constant rate
24 hrs/day, 365 days/yr.
iv
-------
POTENTIAL FOR UTILIZATION OF SOLID WASTES IN FEDERALLY OWNED BOILERS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
In October of 1974, the Office of Solid Waste Management of the U.S.E.P.A.
initiated a nine month contract with Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) to
explore the potential for utilizing properly prepared solid waste as a
supplementary fuel in Federally-owned boilers. The objectives of the
program were:
1. To determine in which cases and under what circumstances
it is feasible for Federally owned boilers to utilize solid
waste as a supplementary fuel.
and
2. To provide the data necessary to write a guideline to aid
operators of Federally owned boilers in modifying their
system to utilize solid waste as a supplementary fuel.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
In pursuit of the program objectives, the following tasks were undertaken:
Task I - Preparation of an Inventory of Federally-owned Boilers
1. Assembly of Data
Through contacts with individuals responsible for utility
operations in various Federal agencies, an inventory of
Federally-owned boilers was compiled, including to the
extent possible:
a. location
b. agency ownership
c. purposes for which the boilers are used
d. load requirements
e. basic characteristics related to refuse burning potential
2. Preliminary Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Conversion
On the basis of the Inventory data assembled, an assessment
was made of which boilers appeared to be technically capable
of being converted. The assessment must be of necessity
considered preliminary, pending detailed examination of
engineering design blueprints.
For the technically feasible cases identified, an estimate
was made of the number of tons of solid waste per day which
could be fired into the boilers if conversion were implemented.
1.1
-------
Task II - Classification of Candidate Boilers
In preparing the inventory, boilers were classified into three generic
categories:
A. Those presently firing coal
B. Those originally designed to fire coal, but presently firing
oil or natural gas
C. Those designed for and firing oil or natural gas
Federally-owned boilers in Category A, which encompasses most of the boilers
technically capable of being converted, are of two types - (1) small stoker-
fired boilers in the range of 5,000-250,000 lb/hr., used primarily for
heating, and (2) large pulverized coal fired TVA boilers in the 600,000 -
6,000,000 lb/hr. range used primarily for generation of electricity.
For the stoker fired boilers, three types of refuse were considered:
Type I - source segregated and shredded paper and plastics
Type II - shredded and magnetically separated municipal type
solid waste
Type III - shredded, air classified, size and moisture-reduced
prepared solid waste fuel
For the pulverized coal boilers only Type III waste was considered.
Task III - Economics of Boiler Conversion and Operation
1. Development of an Analytical Framework
The economic benefits of utilizing solid waste as a supple-
mentary fuel may be defined as the difference between dollar
savings (due to the value of the fossil fuel displaced and
the waste disposal costs foregone), and dollar costs (due
to bringing about the conversion and subsequently operating
the system).
2. Estimation of Costs of Conversion
For each technically feasible class of boiler/refuse type
combinations, estimates were made of the capital investment
requirements for each of the major components of a solid
waste boiler conversion system - receiving and preparation;
storage; and refuse burning.
3. Estimation of Operating Costs
Estimates were made of the major operating cost components
associated with the utilization of solid waste as a supple-
mentary fuel. These components include: capital amortization;
maintenance; labor; electricity; transfer and haulage (when
off-site wastes are brought in); and in the case of Type III
systems, fuel purchase.
v<
1.2
-------
4. Estimates of Potential Savings
From disposal cost data and fossil fuel values supplied by
the Federal facilities, or estimated, the magnitude of the
potential dollar savings, if conversion were implemented, was
calculated.
Task IV - Availability of Refuse as Supplementary Fuel for Boilers Capable
of Being Converted
Estimates were made on the basis of waste generation data supplied or
population statistics, of the supplementary fuel available from the following
sources:
1. The facility served by the boiler
2. Other Federal facilities within 50 miles of the potentially
convertible boiler
3. Municipalities within 25 miles of the potentially convertible
boiler
The available wastes were then matched against the boiler load requirements.
1.3 SOLID WASTE AS A SOURCE OF FUEL
The threat of increased costs or absolute shortages of fossil fuels,
combined with the growing costs and increasing nuisance of solid waste
disposal, have enhanced the attactiveness of recovering energy from solid
wastes.
1.3.1 Energy Recovery Demonstrations
The burning ot refuse" to produce steam is not a new concept. It is
well-established practice in the lumber, pulp and paper, furniture and
millwork industries, which generate large quantities of wood wastes,
and in cane sugar mills, which generate large quantities of bagasse. In
Europe, particularly in Germany and France, heat recovery incineration
has been practiced successfully for many years. In the U. S. as early as
1962, at the Naval Public Works Center in Norfolk, Virginia, an impending
waste disposal problem and a projected need for additional steam generating
capacity, stimulated design and construction of two 180TPD water wall
incinerators with a steam generating capacity of 50,000 Ib/hr. They
have now been in operation since 1967, and a second facility is planned
for the Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia.
The success of the water wall incinerator in Norfolk may be due in part
to the existence of a captive customer for the steam generated. Several
U. S. communities, such as Chicago, Illinois and Braintree, Massachusetts,
also currently operate large steam generating incinerators, but the steam
has not, in fact, been sold to potential users because of contractual
or operational difficulties. Quite generally, the problems communities
face in obtaining long term committments from energy users has been a
major barrier to the successful implementation of the water wall
incinerator approach.
1.3 B<
-------
Most of the energy recovery systems in existence have been designed speci-
fically to handle solid wastes, with or without a supplementary fossil
fuel. There has been some reluctance to adapt existing fossil fuel
boilers for the use of solid waste as a supplementary fuel. The importance
placed on reliability in utility boilers, and to some extent in industrial
boilers as well, mitigates against the use of a new type of fuel when
unforeseen problems could force unexpected and costly interruptions in
service. There is probably no better way to overcome this reluctance
than a few full-scale, well-publicized successful demonstrations.
In 1972, municipal solid waste (MSW) was successfully accommodated as a
supplementary fuel in an existing utility boiler. Union Electric and
Combustion Engineering, in cooperation,with the city of St. Louis and the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, are using prepared domestic refuse
to supply 10% of the fuel requirements in the Meramac No. 1 boiler, a
125 MW tangentially fired pulverized coal unit. The MSW is shredded,
magnetically separated, and air classified to separate the non ferrous and
inert fraction from the light combustible fraction, which is fired into
the boiler.
Successful demonstration of solid waste firing in existing Federally-owned
boilers would not only provide a tangible demonstration of feasibility to the
private sector, but would also create a working expertise within the
Federal government,from which the private sector might derive information
on the technical and economic problems and benefits of conversion. The
only Federally-owned boilers comparable to Union Electric's Meramac No. 1
are those under the jurisdiction of TVA. Most of the Federally-owned
boilers capable of burning a solid fuel are rather small stoker-fired
units, currently used to supply steam for processing and heating purposes.
Successful use of solid waste in these boilers could open up untapped
opportunities for energy recovery, adding to existing heat recovery
incineration and demonstrated utility boiler applications.
1.3.2 Heating Values of Solid Waste and Fossil Fuels
The heating value of solid waste prepared for use as a fuel, compares
very favorably with the heating values of many conventional fuels,
although the heterogeneous and imprecisely known composition of refuse
makes it somewhat difficult to predict its burning characteristics
exactly. in the context of this program, we have considered three
types of solid waste fuel -source segregated waste paper, cardboard and
plastic; mixed municipal refuse, and an air classified shredded waste
derived fuel. Typical compositions for each of these types of fuel are
given in Table 1.3-1.
The primary Constituent in each tvpe of fuel is paper, which has a higher
heating value (when dry) of about 7500 Btu/pound. The heating value of the
solid waste fuels depends upon the specific composition and also upon
the ash and moisture content, but it typically will fall in the range
shown below.
1.4
-------
Range of Higher Heating Values for Solid Waste Fuels
Range (Btu/lb) Average (Btu/lb)
Source Segregated Paper 7000-8000 7500
Mixed Municipal Refuse 4000-5000 4500
Air Classified, Shredded Fuel 6500-7500 7000
Source: ADL estimates
These numbers are to be compared to the heating values of more conven-
tional fuels shown in Table 1.3-2. Peat is seen to have a lower heating
value than solid waste. Wood is comparable in heating value to mixed
municipal refuse, and lignite has about the same heating value as air
classified shredded fuel and a lower heating value than source segregated
paper.
10 <
-------
TYPICAL COMPOSITOM OF REFUSE BASED FUELS. WT %
Mixed Air Classified
Source Municipal Shredded
Segregated Refuse Fuel
Paper 95
Lumber
Textiles,Leather,&Rubber
Plastics 5
Food Wastes
Yard Wastes
Ferrous Metals
Non-ferrous Metals
Glass
Miscellaneous(dirt, etc.)
43
5
3
3
15
11
7
2
9
2
51
6
4
4
18
13
3
1
TOTAL 100
Percentage of wet refuse "as received"
SOURCE: ADL estimates
100
.100
TABLE 1.3-1
1.6
-------
HEAT CONTENT OF CONVENTIONAL FUELS
Higher
Heating Values
Peat (in Btu/lb)
Peat 3,235
Wood 4,690
Lignite 7,065
Sub-bituminous- B 10,245
Anthractie 11,100
Bituminous - Hi
Volatile B 12,235
Bituminous - Volatile 14,460
#6 Fuel Oil 18,265
92 Home Heating Oil 19,565
Methane 23,895
TABLE 1.3-2
1.7
-------
2.0 INVENTORY OF FEDERALLY OWNED BOILERS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
A tabular inventory of the Federally-owned boilers identified during
the course of this program is presented in Appendix I. The boilers
are listed by state, and are subdivided within each state into three
categories as follows:
A. Facilities currently burning coal
B. Facilities originally designed for coal, but currently
burning oil or natural gas
C. Facilities designed for and currently burning oil or
natural gas
It may be anticipated as a first approximation, that the technical
feasibility of using solid waste as a supplementary fuel is
greatest in category A boilers which are already equipped to burn
solids and which have ash handling capability. The technical feasibility
of converting category B boilers to solid fuel (either coal or solid
waste) might be expected to vary, depending upon the extent of the
modifications that were made when coal was abandoned in favor of oil
or natural gas. If solids and ash handling facilities are still intact,
reconversion for the use of solid waste as a supplementary fuel should
be technically only slightly more difficult for category B than for
category A boilers. Where ash pits have been bricked or cemented over,
'where grates have been removed, and where extensive modifications have
been made to the boiler itself, the use of solid waste as a supplementary
fuel is almost precluded. Conversion of category C boilers, which
were designed to handle only liquid or gaseous fuels, would be expected
to present the most difficult technical problems.
It should not be concluded from the foregoing discussion that all
category A boilers and no category C boilers are technically capable
of being converted. As discussed in Section 3.3, the specific
boiler configuration - placement and construction of water walls, bridge
walls, tubes, baffling, etc.- also has an important bearing on the
technical feasibility of introducing solid waste and assuring high
combustion efficiency.
2.2 INVENTORY SUMMARY
A total of 1305 Federally owned boilers were identified during the course.
of this program through contact with:
o Department of Defense
o Department of the Air Force
13*
2.1
-------
o Department of the Navy
o Department of the Army
o GSA, Washington
o GSA Regional Offices
o Veterans Administration
o TVA
o ERDA
A breakdown of the boilers Identified is given in Table 2.3-1, by agency
jurisdiction and category (as defined in section 2.1). Typically,
a given installation (e.g., Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) will be
equipped with more than one boiler. Since the present study represents
the first attempt, to our knowledge, to assemble an inventory of
Federally owned boilers, we have no way of assessing whether the
information presented is complete. From discussions with people
responsible for boiler operations in the various agencies contacted, we
suspect that the gaps in the data base, if any, would be primarily in
under-reporting of small boilers, with a capacity of less than 20,000 Ib/hr.
Data on the 203 Federally-owned coal-fired boilers identified (exclusive
of TVA) are summarized in Table 2.3-2. For the most part these are
stoker fired boilers used in steam generation for process and heating
applications. The boilers range In size from 3400 to 279,000 Ib/hr.,
with an average of 72,800 Ib/hr. and a median of 60,000 Ib/hr.
Over two-thirds of the boilers identified have a capacity less than
70,000 Ib/hr.
The geographical distribution of Federal Installations (Including TVA)
currently burning coal is shown in Figure 2.2-1.
-------
Locations of Federally-owned Coal Fired Boilers
-------
NUMBER OF FEDERALLY-OWNED BOILERS BY AGENCY
A. Coal Burning
Boilers
I
W
to
Agency Jurisdiction
Air Force
Army
Navy
GSA
VA
TVA
ERDA
Total
No. of
Boilers
70
52
9
14
3
61
46
255
No. ol
Install*
15
9
3
4
1
11
3
46
B.
CATEGORY
Boilers Converted
from Coal
No. of No. of
Boilers Installations
8
130
2
4
51
4
^^^^^^H
199
2
24
2
1
11
1
•OTM^
41
C. Boilers Designed
for Oil or
Natural Gas
No. of No. of
Boilers Installations
189
145
106
17
394
40
53
30
3
122
851
248
Grand Total: 1305 boilers in 335 installations
-------
SIZE OF FEDERALLY-OWNED COAL FIRED BOILERS (exclusive of TVA)
Total Number of Boilers: 203
Average Boiler Size: 72,800 Ib/hr.
Range: 3400-279,000 Ib/hr.
Size Distribution
<10,000 Ib/hr.
Number of Boilers
14
> 10, 000 -
> 20, 000 -
>30,000 -
>40,000 -
>50,000 -
>60,000 -
>70,000 -
>80,000 -
>90,000 -
> 100, 000
> 150, 000
> 200, 000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
- 150,000
- 200,000
22
16
32
11
26
6
18
3
9
28
3
15
34
21
15
23
TABLE 2.3-2
2.5
-------
3.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FEASIBILITY OF CONVERSION
A preliminary analysis of the feasibility of conversion to solid waste is
presented in Section 3.1 for the coal-burning Federal installations
Identified. The analysis is based primarily on the comparative costs of
two options: (1) disposal of the wastes by conventional means and
(2) utilization of the wastes as fuel. Costs were calculated on the
assumption that 50% of minimum (usually summer) load would be supplied
by solid wastes. The sensitivity of the results to the assumptions made
is discussed in Section 3.2. Boiler-specific considerations, which would
have to be taken into account in subsequent engineering design, are dis-
cussed in Section 3.3.
3.1 ECONOMICS OF CONVERTING COAL FIRED BOILERS
3.1.1 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
In defining economic criteria of feasibility, it is important to draw
the boundary within which the economic analysis is made to include all
important economic effects. In this case, the boundary must include, in
addition to the boiler facility, the source of the waste and the alterna-
tive means of disposal of that waste if it is not utilized as boiler fuel.
Within this boundary, the principal economic factors to be considered are:
1. The capital cost of modifying the boiler and establishing a waste
preparation facility.
2. The operating costs of the waste preparation facility and the added
operating costs for firing the waste fuel into the boiler and
handling the resulting ash.
3. The amortization of the capital charges, specifically the
amortization period and interest rate.
4. The value of the fossil fuel (coal, gas, or oil) saved by
burning waste.
5. The cost of transporting the waste from the point of generation
to the boiler.
6. The cost of disposing of the waste which is avoided by utilizing
the waste as boiler fuel.
Figure 3.1.1-1 shows the alternative uses of waste, and defines the basic
economic elements identified above. If the waste is disposed of by
conventional means (Option 1), the cost is:
Cx = Cd ($/ton)
Alternatively, if the waste is utilized as boiler fuel (Option 2), the
cost is:
C = C_ + C + C + C.M - fKw
2 I o t n
3.1
-------
ALTERNATIVE USES OF WASTE
^Fossil Fuel
Value ,f($/106 BTU)
Capital Cost I ($)
-Wixed amortization charges (L ($/ton)
-^Operating Costs Co ($/ton)
Transfer and
Transport cost
C. + C.M ($/ton)
t n
Disposal
Cost
C. ($/ton)
a
FIGURE 3.1.1-1
3.2
-------
where:
CT fixed amortization charges associated with the capital cost of
boiler modification and waste preparation
Co added operating costs (labor, utilities, and maintenance) asso-
ciated with waste preparation, firing and ash disposal
C cost of transferring the waste from local collection vehicles
to transport vehicles.
C,M cost of transporting the waste from transfer station to the
facility, where C. is the transport cost per ton mile and M is
the haul distance.
fHw saving in fossil fuel costs, where f is the value of fossil
fuel per million Btu and Hw is the heating value in MMBTU per ton
of waste
Utilization of waste as fuel provides a net economic benefit if C« is
- - ~
+ Co + Ct + ChM - fHw < Cd
less than C.., or if
(1)
The methodology used for calculating each of the major cost elements in
equation (1) is given in the sebsection's below.
In general, calculations were based on three types of systems, as follows:
o Type I System - Where source segregated materials, including
paper and plastic wastes, are shredded and fired directly into
the installation's boiler.
o Type II System - Where refuse from the installation, nearby
Federal installations and/or surrounding communities is received,
shredded, magnetically separated, and then fired into the
existing boiler.
o Type III System - Where a refuse based fuel is directly fired into
the installation's existing boiler. (Since the preparation of
refuse based fuels is economically attractive on a scale of
1,000 TPD or greater, we have assumed that the federal installation
will purchase the refuse based fuel from a manufacturer rather
than setting up an on-site preparation plant.)
The characteristics of these three firing systems are compared in Table
3.1.1-1. The Type I system is designed to handle source segregated papei
and is the simplest and smallest of the three firing systems considered.
It will handle the paper and plastics generated at a given installation
but will not handle such things as cafeteria wastes or other components
normally found in municipal refuse. We have assumed that approximately
50% of the wastes generated at an installation would be source separable
-------
COMPARISON OF FIRING SYSTEMS
Type I
Waste
Source
% of Installation's Waste
Refuse Receiving & Preparation System
Receiving Hopper
Infeed Conveyor
Shredder
Motor
Conveyor to Storage
Building
Storage
Refuse Firing System
Source Segregated Paper
Installation
50%
Yes
30" Belt
5 tons per hour
(24" x 30" inlet)
75 hp
24" Belt
No
3 days2
Pneumatic
Type II
Mixed Refuse
Installation and
Surrounding Communities
100%
Yes
48" Belt
20 tons per hour
(48" x 60" inlet)
300 hp
36" Belt
Yes
3 days
Pneumatic
Type III
Refuse Based Fuel
Refuse Fuel Plant
0 or 100%
Yes
None
None
Pneumatic (50 ton/hr
No.
3 days or more
Pneumatic
An installation does not have to deliver its wastes to a refuse plant in order to purchase byproduct fuel
This system could be designed without storage by regulating shredder flow. Costs are lower for systems
greater than about 35,000 pound per hour minimum steam demand.
-------
paper and plastics. The remaining portion of the wastes would have to be
landfilled or disposed of using some other means. As a practical matter,
source segregation is only likely to be feasible within a particular
Federally owned facility. This was demonstrated at Car swell Air Force
Base, for example, where purely voluntary source segregation of wastes
directly associated with the installation was put into practice. If
wastes from the surrounding community must be included, source segregation
is unlikely to be practicable. Furthermore, the need for separate
collection of non-combustibles would create some problems.
The Type II system is designed to handle all of the components found in
municipal refuse. Since it does not depend on voluntary segregation, it
could handle not only the installation's wastes but also wastes from
nearby installations or from surrounding communities. The Type III
system must handle a volume of waste equivalent to a municipal population
of at least 400,000. No Federal installations generate sufficient waste
to supply a refuse based fuel plant, and few, if any, could handle the
total output of a plant producing refuse based fuel.
3.1.1.1 Fossil Fuel Cost Savings (fHw)
The heating values, Hw, assumed in the calculations are as follows:
Hw (106BTU/ton)
Segregated paper (Type I) 15
Municipal Solid Waste (Type II) 9
Refuse based fuel (Type III) 14
The values of fossil fuel potentially displaced (f) vary greatly in
different regions of the country and for different fuel types. Recent fuel
costs have also tended to be quite volatile, except for installations on
long-term, fixed-price contracts. The general range of cost for 1974-75
is given below:
Fossil Fuel Displaced Fuel Value Range ($/106BTU)
Coal 0.61-2.77 (1.54 average)
Oil 2.06-2.75
Natural Gas 0.40-1.09
3.1.1.2 Transfer Costs (C ) and Transportation Costs (C.M)
Getting the waste to the boiler site for prepartion and use as a fuel will
generally require the construction and operation at the source of a transfer
station to receive, store temporarily and prepare for shipment of the waste
material. The operation of the station and the transport of the waste from
station to boiler site incur costs which must be considered in the economic
analysis of utilization of waste as a boiler fuel. These costs are developed
below.
3.1.1.2.1 Transfer Stations
Two types of transfer stations were considered. The first is based on a
3.5
-------
a hopper-compactor system which loads compacted waste into 65 cubic yard
transfer trailers. This system is in use in many places handling municipal
solid waste, and is generally the more economical at large capacities
(above about 50 tons per day).
The second type of station is based on roll-off containers into which
waste is deposited and hauled uncompacted on specially equipped vehicles.
This system utilizes no dangerous machinery and so can be operated unattended,
except for daily clean-up. This system is used at many industrial sites
and Is generally the more economical at low capacities (below 25 tons per
day).
The two types of systems are diagrammed in Figure 3.1.1.2.1-1. Our
estimated capital and operating costs for the two systems are given in
tables 3.1.1.2.1-1 and 3.1.1.2.1-2. In each case, the systems are designed
to handle twice the rated daily capacity in order to accomodate inevitable
fluctuations in waste generation rate. Costs of land and any unusual site
development are not included.
3.1.1.2.2 Transport
«
The per ton cost of hauling waste from the transfer station to the boiler site
is given by
C = CT + C (2M) ($/ton)
L V
where C is the cost associated with picking up and dropping off the load,
C is trie cost of operating the transport vehicle on the road (in $/ton-mile),
and M is the distance from transfer station to boiler site. (The term 2M
appears in the equation since the return trip is also charged against the
load taken).
These cost factors, C_ and C are given by
t ($/ton)
| ($/ton-mile)
where E is the hourly cost of owning and operating the vehicle, L is the
driver's wages, T is the tonnage carried, t is the total time required to
pick up and drop off the load, and V is the average over-the-road vehicle
speed.
Compacted waste is carried in 65 cubic yard tractor-trailer vehicles at a
compacted density of 600 Ib/cubic yard, giving a full load capacity of
about 20 tons. The cost of a tractor and "wo trailers (one on the road,
one at the transfer station) is about $60,000. Normal operating life is
usually assumed to be 5 years at a 90% use factor, so that the total
operating life of the vehicle is 5 x 2080 x 0.9 = 9360 hours. Equipment
amortizations therefore amount to 60,000/9360 or $6.41/hour. Operating
costs are about $2.50/hour, giving a total hourly equipment cost of
$8.91/hour. Driver's wages are taken to be $6/hour.
3.6 23<
-------
Entrance
Picker Truck
Exit
Top View
Transfer Vehicle
Section A A
SidaView
TYPICAL MANNED TRUCK TRANSFER STATION
Covered Shed
Truck Lane
TYPICAL UNMANNED TRANSFER STATION
Figure 3.1.1.2.1-1
3.7
-------
COST OF TRANSFER STATIONS
WITH COMPACTION OF WASTE
Capacity
-------
COST OF TRANSFER STATIONS
WITHOUT COMPACTION OF WASTE
Capacity (TPD) 3 6 9 12 24 48
Capital Cost ($1000) 19.5 29.1 38.7 48.3 86.7 . 163.5
Operating Cost ($/ton)
1. Labor 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00- 1.00
2. Capital Charges8' 3.12 2.47 2.26 2.15 1.99 1.91
3. Maint. & Ins.b< 0.63 0.56 0.50 0.46 0.42 0.39
5.75 4.03 3.76 3.61 3.41 3.30
a. Based on payout of capital investment for equipment over 5 years
at 8% interest and for buildings and site over 20 years at 8% interest.
b. 3% of fixed capital investment per year.
Source: A. D. Little, Inc. estimates.
TABLE 3.1.1.2.1-2
3.9
-------
Assuming an average over-the-road speed of 30 miles/hour and a total pick-up
and drop time of 30 minutes, the cost factors In the preceding equation
are:
B " $8.91/hr.
L - $6.00/hr.
T ° 20 tons
t - 0.5 hours
V - 20 mph
and the transport cost is:
C = 0.37 + 0.05M ($/ton) (compacted waste)
Uncompacted waste is hauled in 40 cubic yard roll-off containers at an
uncompacted density of 400 Ib/cublc yard, giving a total load of 8 tons.
Taking the vehicle cost to be $40,000 and the operating cost to be $2.00/hr.
and assuming a total pick-up and drop time of 20 minutes, the relevant
cost factors are:
E - $6.27/hr.
L • $6.00/hr.
T = 8 tons
t = 0.33 hours
V «• 30 mph
Substituting into the general transport cost equations gives
C = 0.50 + 0.10M (uncompacted waste)
3.1.1.2.3 Total Transfer and Transportation Costs
Summing the haul costs in Section 3.1.1.2.2 and the transfer costs given
in Section 3.1.1.2.1, we can calculate the total cost of moving the waste
from the source to the boiler site. These costs are shown in Figure
3.1.1.2.3-1 as a function of the distance from the transfer stations to
the boiler and the amount of waste handled at the transfer stations.
Comparing the costs given suggests several general guidelines in choosing
between systems which compact the waste and those which do not. At
capacities of 50 tons per day or greater, compaction systems are preferaole
regardless of the haul distance. At capacities much below 25 tons per day,
the choice depends on the haul distance. At 25 tons per day, the break
even distance is about 20 miles, with compacting systems being favored
at longer haul distances.
3.10
2V<
-------
**)
M
O
U)
tsJ
I
o
r
CD
I
c
CO
10
,20
30
40 50 60 70
Distance from Transfer Station to Boiler (miles)
80
90
100
-------
These cost figures are, of course, based on general assumptions. In each
specific case of significant interest, more detailed engineering studies
taking local conditions into account would be required to determine costs
accurately and to choose properly between alternatives.
3.1.1.3 Capital Costs
The major capital cost components of a solid waste boiler conversion system
are associated with: receiving and preparation; storage; and refuse firing.
Each of these components is discussed in some detail below with relation
to Type I, Type II, and Type III systems as defined in Section 3.1 above.
3.1.1.3.1 Receiving and Preparation System Costs
The receiving and preparation system for Type I and Type II facilities
includes a refuse receiving hopper, an infeed conveyor to the shredder,
the shredder itself, an outfeed conveyor, and all necessary couplings and
motors. Capital costs are summarized in Table 3.1.1.3.1-1. The primary
difference in the two facilities is the physical size of the shredder.
For the Type I system we have assumed that segregated paper and plastics
could be adequately handled using a shredder having an opening of 24 by 30
inches. A shredder of this physical size has a capacity of about five tons
per hour. The Type II system requires a much bigger opening to handle the
physical size of the materials that are expected to be received. For
example, a large bag of trash is typically over three feet in diameter.
We therefore have assumed that a shredder inlet opening of 48 by 60 Inches
will be required. A shredder of this size has a capacity of about 20 tons
per hour.
For the systems described in Table 3.1.1-1, the maximum refuse capacity is
40,000 tons per year and 160,000 tons per year for Type I and Type II
respectively. Both systems have considerably more capacity than would be
required for almost all of the Federal installations surveyed as part of
this work. We have, therefore, assumed that these systems would be operated
only a few hours per day as needed to prepare the facility's refuse for
firing.
The Type III system is simpler than either Type I or Type II because the
shredder is not required. In this case, a refuse based fuel is assumed
to be delivered directly to the installation where it is directed into a
storage bin similar to the ones used for Type I and Type II systems.
3.1.1.3.2 Storage
Storage of a prepared refuse has proved to be a very difficult materials
handling problem. In the EPA St. Louis project several bridging problems
with the refuse developed so that live bottom bins with extremely high
starting torque were required. Because of this and the fact that refuse
has a very low packing density, the cost for storage is one of the major
costs of a refuse firing system. In Figure 3.1.1.3.2-1 we have shown the
3.12
-------
CAPITAL COST OF STORAGE BINS FOR REFUSE BASED FUELS
ja
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Total Installed Cost
Total Installed Cost
Erected Cost
50
100
150
I
25
50
75
Erected Cost
200
I
100
250 Refuse Los
(tons/day)
125 Storage Volume
10rcu.ft.)
(3 day)
FIGURE 3.1.1.3.2-1
-------
CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR
REFUSE RECEIVING AND PREPARATION FACILITIES
Type I Type II Type III
Equipment Cost (EC)
Receiving Hopper 1,500 8,000 10,000
Infeed Conveyor 9,000 34,500 22,300
Shredder 10,000 45,000
Motor & Coupling 1,300 9,200
Outfeed Conveyor 12,000 19,300
Magnetic Separator — 10,000
Conveyor & Metal Storage — 9.'OOP __
Total EC 33,800 135,000 32,300
Freight 9 5% of EC 1,700 6,700 1,600
Installation @ 50% of EC 17,000 67,500 16,100
Installed Equipment 52,500 209,200 50,000
Building and Site Work — 151,300
Total Direct Cost (DC) 52,500 360,500 50,000
Engineering @ 10% of DC 5,300 36,000 5,000
Contractor's Fee @ 831 of DC 4,200 28,800 4,000
Contingency
-------
cost of three days storage as a function of delivered refuse load, (volume as
proportional to required storage discussed below). The break in
the curve is the result of differing structural requirements for two major
designs. In almost all of the Type I refuse firing systems a storage
capacity in excess of 50,000 cubic feet will not be required. For Type II
firing systems handling more than approximately 100 tons per day, the costs
are determined from the unper curve shown in the figure.
For both Type I and Type II systems, three days of storage is generally
considered adequate. The abscissa in Figure 3.1.1.3.2-1 can be converted
to necessary volume of storage from the following relation:
(Storage volume) = (TPD fired) x 3 days of storage) x (2,000 Ibs/ton)/
11 Ibs/cu ft packing density). A refuse packing density of 11 Ibs/cu
ft was used in this calculation, based upon experience at the EPA demon-
stration project in St. Louis.
The storage costs for the Type III firing system are determined in the
same manner as for Type I and Type II systems. In this case, however,
since the refuse is not processed on the installation itself, it may be
desirable to install more than Just three days of storage capacity.
To illustrate both the cost estimation procedure and the sensitivity of
costs to the number of days allowed for, consider a plant firing 100 TPD
of refuse. A Type I or Type II facility will require about 55,000 cubic
feet of storage at a cost of almost $670,000. (According to the data in
Figure 3.1.1.3.2-1 , a storage bin of this size could be built for only
$450,000 using the design represented by the lower curve. However, con-
siderable structural problems would be anticipated if the design represented
by the higher curve were not used.) A Type III facility would require
between 55,000 and 91,000 cubic feet of storage depending upon whether
three or five days are required. The costs would be between $670,000 and
$760,000 respectively.
3.1.1.3.3 Refuse Firing System Costs - Stoker Firin?
The refuse firing system for a Type I system requires a pneumatic conveyer
of approximately 200 feet from storage to the boiler, the addition of two
or more refuse distributors to distribute the refuse evenly across the
boiler grate, and the addition of an overfire air system. The addition
of a stoker or other ash handling equipment is considered later.
The major factor in designing a pneumatic fuel conveyor system is the
abrasive character of the transported fuel. Hence, the Type I and Type III
systems are the same, since a properly air classified fuel is similar to
source segregated shredded paper. In this regard, however, one of the
primary difficulties encountered in the St. Louis demonstration was the
rapid erosion of pneumatic conveying system elbows because of the abrasive
nature of the prepared fuel. The refuse firing system for Type II wastes
should be fabricated from heavier materials of construction because of
the added abrasion characteristics due to the presence of glass and metals
in the wastes.
3.15
-------
CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST
FOR REFUSE FIRING SYSTEM (Stoker Firing)
Conveyor from Storage to Boiler
Pneumatic Conveyor
Installation
Total
Boiler Firing System
Distributors
Installation
Total
Overfire Air System
Ducting & Controls
Installation
Total
Total Direct Cost (DC)
Engineering @ 10% DC
Contractor's Fee @ 8% DC
Contingency @ 15% DC
Total System Cost
Type I
ler
27,800
9,200
37,000
38,500
8,200
46,700
18,000
16.000
34,000
117,700
11,800
9,400
17,600
156,500
Type II
37,100
9,200
46,300
51,000
8,200
59,200
18,000
16,000
34,000
139,500
14,000
11,200
20,900
185,600
Type III
27,800
9.200
37,000
15,000
7.500
22,500
59,500
6,000
4,800,
8,900
79,200
Source: ADL Estimates
TABLE 3.1.1.3.3-1
3.16
-------
In almost all cases, the equipment required for refuse firing will be
sized to allow free passage of refuse particles and will not depend on
the firing rate in the range from 0 to 10 tons per hour. Since this firing
range spans the range of firing rates expected at Federal installations,
the refuse firing modification costs are considered to be constant, regard-
less of the size of the system. Typical system costs are itemized in Table
3.1.1.3.3-1. Specific refuse modification costs can be expected to vary
from installation to installation, and would of course have to be determined
for individual cases before preceding with engineering implementation.
3.1.1.3.4 Stoker Modification Costs
In most cases, a boiler which does not have an existing stoker will be
unsuitable for conversion to refuse firing. In the case of boilers
designed to burn oil or natural gas only, the high particulate loadings
expected from refuse firing could cause considerable boiler tube fouling
due to the narrow tube spacing generally found in these particular boilers.
In boilers which at one time were designed to burn coal but which have
since been converted to oil, our survey indicates that in almost all cases
the stoker was removed along with the ash handling system and the coal
feeding system. The problem is, therefore, not one of adding the stoker
alone but of adding all of the coal feeding and ash handling equipment
associated with a coal boiler. Typical costs for these additions are
shown in Table 3.1.1.3.4-1. It can be seen that the cost for the stoker is
only about 30% of the modification costs that could be incurred if the boiler
had to be retrofitted to handle a high ash content fuel. In most cases
the added expense makes refuse firing prohibitively expensive. However,
there are special cases where reconversion of boilers to solid fuel firing
(refuse and/or coal) could be considered as economically viable. A
specific case in point is that of the work currently going on at Fort
Monmouth.New Jersey.
3.1.1.3.5 Air Pollution Control Costs
Many of the boilers in Federal installations do not have air pollution
control equipment. If the boiler were to be converted to fire refuse
based fuel, a pollution control device such as an electrostatic precipitator
would be required. For the purposes of this work we have estimated the
installed precipitator costs from the following relationship:
P($) = 61.3 (lbs/hr)0'72
where (lbs/hr) is the design capacity of the boiler.
The operating costs for the air pollution Control equipment including
maintenance, and power costs can be calculated from the following factors:
Maintenance - 2% of capital investment per year
Power - $0.01 per 1000 Ibs of steam per year
3.17
-------
COAL FEEDING. STOKER. AND ASH HANDLING COSTS
Boiler Size (1000's Ibs/hr)
SO
100
200
Equipment
Coal Feeding
Stoker
Ash Handling
Total Equipment Cost
Freight @ 5%
Installation @ 50%
Total Direct Costs (DC)
Engineering @ 10% of DC
Contractor's Fee @ 8% of DC
Contingency @ 15% of DC
Total
21,000
87,000
33.200
141,200
7,100
70,600
218,900
21,900
17,500
32,800
31,800
140,000
53,500
225,300
11,300
112,700
349,300
34,900
27,900
52,400
48,400
230,000
87,800
366,200
18,300
183,100
567,600
56,800
45,400
85,100
291,100
464,500
754,900
Source: ADL Estimates
TABLE 3.1.1.3.4-1
3.18
-------
The costs are applicable only to those installations that would not require
air pollution control devices except in the case where combined firing of
refuse and conventional fuel is adopted.
3.1.1.3.6 Capital Cost Summary
A summary of the general capital cost requirements for handling Type I,
Type II or Type III wastes in stoker fired boilers is given in Table
3.1.1.3.6-1. These are of course not suitable for engineering design
calculations, but should provide a ball-park estimate of the costs that
might be expected.
For tangentially or horizontally fired pulverized coal boilers, which
are found only at TVA Installations among the Federally owned boilers,
a Type III system would have to be used. Technical and economic conversion
criteria specifically applicable to TVA units are discussed in Section 3.1.1.7
3.1.1.4 Operating Costs
The operating cost components of a converted boiler system include:
capital amortization, labor, electricity, and maintenance. These costs
were estimated for Type I, II and III systems (stoker fired) based, on
the following assumptions:
Amortization - 8% for ten years
Electric power - $0.025 per Kwh
Maintenance - 2% of equipment modification costs
Operating labor - $5.00 per hour
Labor overhead - 20% of labor costs
Administrative overhead - 50% of labor costs
Results of estimates for each operating cost component are given in the
following subsections.
3.1.1.4.1 Labor Costs
Each of the three refuse systems includes a receiving and preparation
area and a storage and firing area. The estimated number of operators
required for each of these areas is shown in Table 3.1.1.4.1-1. On both
the Type I and Type II systems two operators will be required for safety
reasons in operating the shredder. Since the Type I shredder has a
maximum capacity of five tons per hour and the Type II system has a
maximum capacity of twenty tons per hour, we have assumed the labor
requirements to be 0.4 manhours per ton anc 0.1 manhours per ton respec-
tively. We have assumed that whenever the shredder is not in operation,
the two operators could be gainfully employed somewhere else on the
installation.
The labor requirements for operating the storage and firing portions of
the refuse firing system depend upon the number of hours per year that
3.19
-------
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATING EQUATIONS FOR CAPITAL COST'OF REFUSE FIRING SYSTEMS
Firing System
ss
«
r1
n
OJ
Capital Costs
Receiving and Preparation
Storage
Up to 100 tons per day
100 tons per day or more
Refuse Firing
Stoker Modification
-Adjustment
-Replacement
Air Pollution Control
Type I
69,900
153,000 + 2,924 (TPD)
536,000 + 1,337 (TPD)
156,500
2,500
185 (Boiler capacity)
0.68
Type II
479,400
153,000 + 2,924 (TPD)
536,000 + 1,337 (TPD)
185,600
2,500
185 (Boiler capacity)
0.68
Type III
66,500 up to 500 TPD
133,000 over 500 TPD
153,000 + 2,924 (TPD)
536,000 + 1,337 (TPD)
79,200 up to 250 TPD
158,400 over 250 TPD
185 (Boiler capacity)'
0.68
61.3 (Boiler capacity)0'72 61.3 (Boiler capacity)0'72 61.3 (Boiler capacity)0'72
-------
this system must be operated. This in turn depends upon the steam demand
at the facility. The costs could be as high as a maximum of $68,000 per
year based upon a total of 8,000 operating hours at $5.00 per hour plus
20% labor overhead and 50% administrative overhead. The actual costs are
determined by prorating the $68,000 to reflect the ratio of available
refuse to the amount of refuse that could be fired at maximum capacity.
For example, a boiler with a minimum steam load of 30,000 pounds per
hour could fire up to two tons of refuse per hour at a maximum firing
rate of 50% of the boiler load. If the installation has available approx-
imately 24 tons of refuse per day, then this facility would be firing
approximately 50% of the time (24 tons 4- 48 tons per day maximum) and
the yearly labor costs would, therefore, be $34,000. This method of
calculation has been used for both the Type II and Type III systems,
although other options are obviously possible. We have assumed that
because the Type I system is relatively small and in almost all cases
in close proximity to the boiler house, no additional labor would be
required to monitor the refuse firing system in this case. The boiler
operators currently on duty could pick up this assignment as an additional
duty. On the other hand, the Type II and Type III systems 'ire expected
to be considerably larger than the Type I system so that the extra man
would probably be needed.
3.1.1.4.2 Electric Power Costs
The electrical load for each of the three systems is shown in Table
3.1.1.4.2-1. In both the Type I and Type II systems the shredder is
assumed to be operated at full capacity for as many hours as are required.
'The usage rate is determined by dividing the delivered refuse load
by the shredder capacity. For the Type III system there is no shredder
but rather a high capacity live bottom receiving hopper which is used
to convey the incoming refuse fuel to the storage bin. The system shown
in the table has a capacity of 50 tons per hour and in most cases could
be operated by the truck driver who delivers the refuse fuel to the
installation.
The power requirements for the storage and firing depend upon the hours
per year that the boiler is fired. For the Type I system we have assumed
that firing will be spread out over 16 hours rather than firing at
maximum capacity. This minimizes the impact of refuse firing on any
one boiler crew so that for a system this small, an additional operator
will not be required for the refuse system. In the Type II system we
have judged that an extra operator will be required in which case it
is to the advantage of the facility to fire the refuse into the boiler
at maximum capacity. Hence, the power costs for this system depend
upon the actuil hours per year that the system will operate and the power
costs should be prorated in the same manner that labor costs were
prorated. Finally, the Type III system is designed to operate around
the clock, 8000 hours per year. Since the refuse based fuel is manu-
factured at an external facility in capacities far greater than could
be consumed at any one installation, we have assumed that the facility
3.21 38-=
-------
FIRING SYSTEM
Type I
Type II
Type III
LABOR REQUIREMENTS
Receiving & Preparation
Operators Manhours
2 0.4 manhr/ton
2 0.1 manhr/ton
1/2 4000 roanhr/yr
Storage & Firing
Operators Manhours
1
1/2
duration of firing
4000 manhr/yr
TABLE 3.1.1.4.1-1
3.22
-------
I
n
co
FIRING SYSTEM
Type I
Type II
Type III
ELECTRICAL POWER REQUIREMENTS
Receiving & Preparation
Installed
Load
75 hp-hr
300 hp-hr
hpv '-1
Usage
15 hp-hr/ton
15 hp-hr/ton
2.5 hp-
1 hp-hr - 0.746 kvH
Assumes firing spread out over 16 hours
2
Refuse fuel unloader operating at 50 tons per hour
Storage & Firing
Installed
Load
25 hp-hr
30 hp-hr
0.4 hp/TPD
Usage
10 hp-hr/ton
27 hp/hr during
firing
8.8 hp-hr/ton*3^
TPD
Based on 8000 hr/year
-------
will have no difficulty in purchasing the amount of fuel required for
maximum firing. Later in this report we -have explored the sensitivity
of firing a Type III system with only a partial load.
3.1.1.4.3 Maintenance Costs
In all three cases we have assumed the maintenance costs to be approx-
imately 2% of the equipment modification costs. These costs would
Include both the materials and labor.
3.1.1.4.4 Capital Amortization Costs
The investment cost associated with the refuse firing modifications
has been amortized at an annual interest of 8% over a period of 10
years. Hence the annualized capital charge is 0.149 times the initial
investment.
3.1.1.4.5 Operating Cost Summary
The operating costs for the three firing systems are summarized in
Table 3.1.1.4.5-1. Both the capital amortization and the maintenance
costs are based upon the capital costs of the modifications and
total 0.169 times the total capital investment. The other operating
costs for the firing system amount to $4.90 per ton for the Type I
system, and $2.15 per ton plus $9.00 per hour for the Type II system.
(The total number of firing hours, F, is calculated from the following
equation:
_ (8000 hr/vr) . (TPD) . 1
(1000 BTU/#) PPhlg . 50% (24 hr/day)
io*Hw ' 75%
where:
F =-Firing hours
TPD = Tons per day of available refuse
(PPhln) = Minimum Boiler steam load, ///hr.
D
This calculation is based upon a maximum refuse firing rate of 50
percent of the boiler heat input and a boiler efficiency of 75 percent.
The factor F is used in calculating the operating costs of the Type II
refuse firing system.) The operating costs for the Type III system
are equal to $68,000 per year plus $.21 per ton for electric power.
Power costs associated with the stoker or air pollution control device
amount to less than $.01 per 1,000 pounds of steam and, therefore,
have been neglected in this operating cost analysis.
3.24 41<
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATING EQUATIONS FOR OPERATING COST OF REFUSE FIRING SYSTEMS
Firing System
u>
i
n
•
^t
•
£»
•
1
Operating Costs
Capital Amortization
8%, 10 years
Labor Plus Overhead
Electric Power
$0.025/Kwh
Maintenance
2% capital cost
Shredder Hammer Replacement
Type I Type II
0.149. x $ I/CTPY) 0,149 x $ I/CTPYl
t fn n n^; i ®*^ x ^
3.40 0.85 + CTpY)
n -n o in i °'5Q x F
0.50 0.30 + CTpY)
0.02 x $ I/CTPY) 0.02 x $ I/CTPY)
1.00 1.00
Type III
0.149.x $ I/CTPY)
68,000/tfPY)
0.21
0.02 x $/CTPY)
— -
-------
3.1.1.5 Economic Analysis Procedure
For each of the stoker fired boilers identified in the inventory,
economic feasibility calculations were carried out for Type I, Type II,
and Type III systems, using the basic analytical frameowrk described in
Section 3.1.1 and the cost parameters developed above.
3.1.1.5.1 Type I Systems (Source Segregated Paper) - Capital and
Operating Costs
In the equations presented in Table 3.1.1.5.1-1, (TPD) refers to the
tons per day of wastes fired. This has been assumed to be one-half (1/2)
of the wastes generated, based on the average composition of the
municipal solid waste, presumably segregated.
3.1.1.5.2 Type II Systems (Shredded and Magnetically Separated Wastes)-
Capltal and Operating Costs
Table 3.1.1.5.2-1 provides the equations for calculating capital and
operating costs of converting industrial type coal burning boilers to
handle Type II solid waste as a supplementary fuel. Four cases are
considered - facilities up to and over 100 TPD which have the necessary
stoker and ash handling capability in working order; and facilities
in the same size ranges originally designed to burn coal, but which
no longer have the equipment to handle solid fuel.
3.1.1.5.3 Type III Systems - Capital and Operating Costs
Table 3.1.1.5.3-1 summarizes capital and operating costs for Type III
Systems. The $14.00/ton refuse based fuel costs includes transportation
and haulage. As previously indicated, Type III waste fuel cannot be
economically produced in communities with a population less than about
500,000. In Figure 3.1.1.5.3-1, operating costs in $/106 BTU (exclusive
of electrostatic precipitor costs) are plotted as a function of the
quantity of refuse burned in a facility. The curves suggest that a
Federal facility which cannot accept more than 50 TPD of the output of
a Type III waste production plant is likely to lose out to larger
customers, which must be available if the plant is set up in the first
place.
3.1.1.5.4 Transfer and Haulage Costs
For waste obtained from other Federal facilities, the city or the county,
transfer and haulage costs must be added to the operating costs. The
two values '-hich are needed to determine transfer and haulage costs from
Figure 3.1.1.5.4-1 are the distance to the boiler and the amount (in
tpd) of refuse being hauled. The amount being hauled is either the
total waste or a fraction of the total required to fire the boiler at
50%. Distance was calculated in one of the following ways:
3.26
-------
.70
.60
.50
-> .40
M 00
.30
.20
.10
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
TPD
Operating Costs as a Fraction of Refuse Burned - Type III System
-------
o
CD
5?
Uncompacted waste
Compacted waste
40 50 60
Distance from Transfer Station to Boiler (Miles)
100
-------
COST CALUCLATIONS FOR TYPE I SYSTEMS
Capital Investment ($)
I = 379,400 + 2924 (TPD) up to 100 TPD
I = 762,400 + 1337 (TPD) above 100 TPD
Op Cost C_+C ($/ton)
C + C = 6.25 + 1767(TPD) up to 100 TPD
I o
CT+ C • 5.52 + 3537(TPD) over 100 TPD
I o
If ESP is required add;
to Capital Cost ($): (61.3) [D]0'72
where D = Design steam capacity in Ib/hr
[Dl°-72
to Op. Cost ($/ton): 0.0283 l J
(TPD)
TPD = tons of segregated waste fired per day
TABLE 3.1.1.5.1-1
-------
COST CALCULATIONS FOR TYPE II SYSTEMS
A. Facilities Having the Necessary Stoker and Ash Handling Equipment
1. Up to 100 TPD
Capital Investment ($)
I - 820,500 + 2924(TPD)
Operating Cost ($/ton)
Cj + CQ = 3.50 + 380/TPD + 395 r/(TPD)
2. Over 100 TPD
Capital Investment ($)
I = 1,203,500 + 1337(TPD)
Operating Cost ($/ton)
Cj + CQ = 2.68 + 557/(TPD) + 395 r/(TPD)
B. Facilities Requiring Stoker and Ash Handling Equipment Additions
1. Up to 100 TPD
Capital Investment ($)
I = 1,160,500 + 2924(TPD)
Operating Cost ($/ton)
Cj. +Co = 3.50 + 537/(TPD) + 395 r/(TPD)
2. Over 100 TPD
Capital Investment ($)
I = 1,543,500 + 1337(TPD)
Operating Cost ($/ton)
Cj. +CQ = 2.68 + 715/(TPD) f 395 r/(TPD)
where (TPD) = tons/day of refuse fired
r = fractional firing achievable if refuse is fired at a
constant rate 24 hrs/day, 365 days/yr.
47<
TABLE 3.1.1.5.2-1
3.30
-------
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR TYPE III SYSTEMS
Up to 100 tons per day
Capital Costs: I = 298,700 + 2,924 (TPD)
Operating CostsrC^ = 324/(1TO) + 1>56
From 100 TPD up to 250 TPD
Capital Costs: I - 681,700 + 1337 (TPD)
Operating Costs: CQ+ Cj - 501/(TPD) + 0.83
From 250 TPD up to 500 TPD
Capital Costs: I = 760,900 + 1337 (TPD)
Operating Costs: CQ + CT = 538/(TPD) + 0.83
Over 500 TPD
Capital Costs: I = 827,400 = 1337 (TPD)
Operating Costs: CQ + C.[ = 569/(TPD) + 0.83
Add to all operating costs; $14.00/ton fuel costs
If Stoker replacement is needed add;
to capital costs: 185 (D) 0.68; D = boiler capacity, Ib/hr.
to operating costs: (0.086) (D)°'68/(TPD)
If ESP is needed add;
to capital costs: 61.3(D)0'68
to operating costs: (0.028) (D)°'68/TPD
TABLE 3.1.1.5.3-1 48<
3.31
-------
1. The straight line distance from facility to major city was
estimated using a state map with .the two locations;
2. for a county, the distance was assumed to be 2/3 of the radius
of a circle having the same area as the county;
3. for the few cases where the facility was within the city a
cost of transport and hauling was taken as $1.00/ton for a
small city or as the transfer cost for large cities.
As an example, consider a facility located 30 miles from a city and
requiring 100 tpd from the city. Using the graph, the transfer and
haulage cost would be $4/ton.
3.1.1.5.5 Disposal Cost Credits
If wastes are burned as fuel, disposal costs are foregone. If a
facility can burn only a portion of the wastes that would have to be
collected to supply 50%(or some economical fraction) of minimum load,
then the wastes not burned would still have to be landfilled. Net
disposal cost savings may be read off the graphs in Figures 3.1.1.5.5-1
and 3.1.1.5.5-2, which are plots of the fraction of total wastes collected
that could be handled by a facility. To illustrate the use of the graphs,
let us assume that a Federal installation can handle 100 TPD of solid
waste in its boilers; that 20 TPD are available from the facility
and 80 TFD must be obtained from the surrounding community. Assume
further that the surrounding county has 200 tpd available. The
two pieces of information required to estimate the disposal cost saving
are: a), total waste load of the county (200 tpd) and b). fraction of
waste to boiler (80 tpd needed/200 tpd available = 0.4). Thus the
disposal cost savings is about $1.95/ton.
In estimating the disposal costs for waste from two sources, a weighted
averaged was used. Consider the following case:
Waste from: facility - 10 tons
city - 40 tons
Cost for disposal: facility: $5.25/ton
city: $3.75/ton
Disposal Cost = 10(5.25)^40(3.75) = $< 05/t(jn
3.1.1.5.6 Fossil Fuel Cost Credits
The heating values per ton of waste assumed for Types I, II, and III
systems are given in Section 3.1.1.1. The heating value of the fuel
potentially displaced ($/106 BTU) was obtained directly from the
Federal facilities investigated.
43<
3.32
-------
DISPOSAL COST SAVING ($/Ton)
•>J o
s I
c 2
yo „
« 1
OJ ^^
>
1-. T3
»
co
CO
Cn
o
I
o
n
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
I
I
I
I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 .200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
Total Waste Load (TPD)
-------
DISPOSAL COST SAVING ($/Ton)
OJ
en
H
A
10
20
30 40
Total Waste Load (TPD)
50
60
70
-------
3.1.1.6 Results - Stoker Fired Boilers
For each stoker fired, coal burning Federal facility identified, a
table of estimated capital and operating costs of conversion and a
graph of net benefits of conversion are given in Appendix 3.1 The
first entry in each table (Maximum refuse rate at 50% firing) gives
the number of tons/day of Type I, II, and III wastes required to satisfy
50% of the facilities minimum load. Where minimum load data were
supplied by the facilities, they were used directly. When data were
not available, minimum load was assumed to be 25% of installed boiler
capacity. This estimate was based on the general observation that most
Federal facilities seem to use about 50% of installed capacity to supply
maximum winter load and that steam utilization drops by about a factor
of two in the summer. Calculations were based on minimum load to
permit steady-state operation year round. While it was assumed for
purposes of illustration that 50% of minimum load would be supplied from
solid waste, the equations presented above enable calculations to be
made for any percentage firing. From a practical point of view, the
50% range is reasonable for the relatively small boilers found in
Federal installations, since much less tends to be uneconomic, and
mu*ch more can create load matching problems. The calculations are
based on minimum load requirements and no attempt has been made to
pinpoint the specific boiler or boilers that might logically be converted
within each facility. For several facilities where the load calculations
indicate potentially large economic benefits of conversion, some of the
boiler -specific considerations that would enter into an engineering
design feasibility calculation are discussed in Section 3.3.
Data on available refuse from each facility was either obtained directly or
estimated from employment and residential population, using multiplier factors
of 2 Ib/person/day and 3.2 Ib/person/day respectively. Available refuse
from other Federal facilities within a 50 mile radius was calculated
from the Annual Report of Federal Civilian Employment by Geographical
Area^ ', using a multiplier factor of 2 Ib/person/day. Wastes available
from the city and county within a 25 mile radius were calculated from
population figures, using a multiplier factor of 3.2 Ib/person/day.
To illustrate the use of the Tables and graphs in Appendix 3.1, let us
consider the data for Eilson AFB in Alaska. The installed capacity at
Eilson is 600,000 Ib/hr; 50% of minimum load is then estimated as
75,000 Ib/hr or 1800 x 106 BTU/day. Since the fuel value of Type II
waste is 9 x 106 BTU/ton, the waste load requirement would be 267 TPD,
assuming a burning efficiency of 75% (i.e.,(1800/9) 0.75 = 267). Only
31.2 TPD are available from the facility •'tself. If this is all assumed
to be paper waste, it could be used to supply 5.8% of minimum load in a
Type II system. From the equations given in Section 3.1.1.4.5 on-site
operating costs for preparation, storage, and firing are calculated to
amount to $25.01/ton and transportation and haulage costs are
assumed equal to zero. Other entries are calculated similarly. The
cost of coal at Eilson was given to us as $0.86/10^ BTU, allowing a
3.35
-------
credit of $7.757ton of solid waste burned. There is in addition a
disposal cost credit of $8.80/ton. The bar chart for Eilson shows the
various costs, credits, and net benefits for a Type II system utilizing
wastes from the facility alone, and from the facility plus other Federal
installations, the city and the county. In this example, there would be
a net cost for any Type II system. The county is not sufficiently large
to Justify a Type III system. For a Type I system, which is really only
practical for the wastes generated on the base, the dollar benefits
would also not offset the costs.
Table 3.1.1.6-1 summarizes these cases identified where net economic
benefits could result from the use of solid waste as a supplementary
fuel in Federally owned stoker-fired coal-burning boilers. There are
of course important benefits, other than dollar savings, that could be
derived from the use of solid waste as a supplementary fuel. The
potential benefits of fossil fuel saving (even coal is a finite resource),
and reduction in the land area required for ultimate waste disposal,for
example, are difficult to quantify but could be of over-riding significance.
For Chanute AFB in Rantoul, Illinois, for example, we have calculated
small net costs of Type II energy recovery systems involving wastes from
efther the base alone or from the base and city combined. However,
there is no longer landfill space on the base, and Champaign County
itself is looking for new landfill sites. There are few areas available
that would not involve taking valuable agricultural land out of production.
3.1.1.7 Results - TVA Boilers
The only large Federally owned pulverized coal utility-type boilers are
under the jurisdiction of TVA. Table 3.1.1.7-1 summarizes the data
that were made available to us on TVA installations. On the basis of
this information, we have made a preliminary assessment of the technical
feasibility of adapting the individual boilers to burn Type III waste.
For pulverized coal boilers, only a prepared refuse derived Type III
waste can be considered.
With reference to Table 3.1.1.7-1, the first two boilers listed are
nuclear units and obviously unsuitable. Thirteen additional units are
listed as unsuitable because they are of one of the following boiler types.
A — Supercritical, once through, forced circulation type boilers.
B — High pressure, controlled circulation type boilers with
twin furnaces.
It is unlikely that the owners and operators of such units would be willing
to burn soliit waste until a great deal moie is known about the fuel
burning characteristics of refuse derived fuel in less sophisticated
utility boilers.
Two units are questionable - one because there are no data on the present
firing equipment and the other because of an abnormally high volumetric
heat release which could cause problems.
53<
3.36
-------
I
OJ
to
6/1
Plant
Rl*OTJil G T^OT'T'V
J} L U •* L 1 9 F C L ^ V
Sequoyah
Allen
Bull Run
Colbert
Cumberland
Gallatin
Sevier
Johnsonville
Kingston
Paradise
Shawnee
Watts Bar
Widows Creek
Boiler
Capacity
M Ibs/ST/HI
1 7780
J. J JO \J
14900
2000
6400
1280
3900
9300
1650
1900
1280
1000
1100
1000
1280
4900
8000
1000
600
1000
850
3850
3850
Boiler
I Pressure
QSO
y j v
765
2400
3500
1800
2400
3500
2000
2000
1800
1450
2000
1800
1800
2400
3500
1800
850
1450
1800
2400
2400
Boiler
s Circ
Mi */*1 A
rlvlC o.€
Nucle
Nat
1
Nat
1
1
C
C
C
Nat
Nat
Nat
C
1
1
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
C
C
Furnace
Type
U-
ar
Press
Press
Suet
Press
Press
Twin Suet
11
Twin Suet
Suet
Suet
Suet
Twin Suet
Press
Press
Suet
Suet
Suet
Suet
Twin Press
it
9 of
tamers
______
0
80
18
30
48
32
32
24
16
16
16
24
14
23
16
8
16
16
40
40
Burn
Type
i
Tilt
Horiz
Horiz
Horiz
Tilt
Tilt
Tilt
Tilt
Horiz
Tilt
Tilt
Cycl-
one
ii
Horiz
1
Horiz
Horiz
Tilt
Tilt
ff of
Pulveri-
sers
________
0
10
6
10
11
g
8
p
2
4
6
4
10
4
4
4
4
10
10
• Mfg.
,. .______—
BW
CE
BW
BW
BW
CE
CE
CE
CE
FW
CE
CE
BW
BW?
BW
BW
BW
BW
CE
CE
Feasible
Burn Waste
no
no
?
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
H. Vol At RE
yes
yes
no
no
-------
Seven units, averaging 1,300,000 pounds of steam per hour boiler
generating capacity, appear to be adaptable. Firing 20% waste would
require approximately 50,000 pounds of prepared Type III waste per hour-
25 tons per hour, 600 tons per day.
Capital costs may be estimated roughly from the equations given in
Table 3.1.1.3.6-1, modifying the refuse firing system costs as follows
for tangentially fired boilers:
Receiving and Preparation 133,000
Storage (536,000 + 1337(TPD)) 1,338,200
Refuse Firing
Pneumatic conveyors (A) 111,200
Installation 36,800
Boiler firing system 22,500
Total Direct Cost(DC) 170,500
Engineering @ 10% DC 17,000
Contractor Fee @ 8%DC 13,640
Contingency @ 15%DC 25,575
226,715
$1,697,915
Operating costs may be estimated from the relations given in Table
3.1.1.A.5-1 for a 600 TPD facility. They come to approximately $1.83/ton.
To this must be added $14.00/ton for the fuel purchased, giving a total
operating cost In the neighborhood of $15.83/ton. This is easily offset
by the fuel savings credit, fHw, of about $21.567ton, where Hw = 14 x
10*> BTU/ton for Type III waste, and the average value of coal, f, is
presently about $1.54/10^ BTU. We understand that an engineering design
report on the potential for solid waste utilization in TVA boilers is
expected to be issued by TVA in September. This will obviously cover
the TVA installations in far greater depth than is possible here.
3.38 S5<
-------
CONVERSION OPPORTUNITIES WITH POTENTIALLY FAVORABLE ECONOMICS
$/ton
i
w
U>
cr
,1
•o
00
o
«»
(^
Federal Facility
928th Tactical Air-
lift at O'Hare
Chanute AFB
Ft. Benj . Harrison
Iowa Army Ammun. Plant
Lor ing AFB
Otis AFB
Detroit Tank Plant
Kincheloe AFB
K.I. Sawyer AFB
System
Type
II
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
II
II
II
I
II
Waste
Source
Facil
Fed. .
Facil
Facil
Facil
Facil
Facil
Facil
Fed.
Facil
Facil
Facil
Facil
Facil
Facil
Facil
Facil
Facil
. &
other
Instal.
•
•
. &
•
. &
city
other
Operating
Costs
28.14
15.00
19.49
24.17
12.91
19.27
26.21
Fuel
Value
21.78
12.30
7.38
20.55
6.12
23.04
23.04
Disposal
Credit
5
11
11
4
4
8
8
.10
.73
.73
.80
.30
.27
.11
Net Economic
Benefit
(-1.
9.
(-.
1.
(-2.
12.
4.
26)
03
43)
18
49)
04
94
Instal .
. &
. &
•
•
. &
. &
. &
.
•
city
county
county
city
county
22.22
14.31
17.59
23.94
23.50
15.92
17.24
18.38
27.56
23.04
23.04
34.50
20.70
20.70
17.37
12.96
21.60
24.93
7
2
1
1
3
3
5
8
8
.74
.90
.96
.96
.70
.47
.09
.40
.40
8.
11.
18.
(-1.
•
4.
•
11.
5.
56
63
87
28)
90
92
81
62
77
-------
CONVERSION OPPORTUNITIES WITH POTENTIALLY FAVORABLE ECONOMICS
$/ton
System
Federal Facility Type
i
5
U>
•
M
U) I_i
• .
£ ON
0 |
I-1
•0
OQ
•
NJ
O
i-h
U)
S3
A
Camp Lejeune
Rickenbacker AFB
Defense Elec. Supply
Center
Wright-Patterson AFB
Tobyhanna Army Depot
ERDA-Savannah River
Holston Army Ammun. Plant
Radford Army Ammun. Plant
Marine Corp. Dev. &
Education Command
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
II
II
I
II
Waste
Source
Facil.
Facil.
Facil.
Facil. & city
Facil.
Facil
Facil
Facil & county
Facil. & city
Facil. & city
Facil.
Facil
Operating Fuel
Costs Value
8.90
7.02
12.69
21.20
11.32
9.74
18.44
8.27
14.33
20.49
13.95
16.12
17.55
10.53
9.15
15.48
27.75
16.65
14.55
16.02
14.31
21.24
29.40
17.64
Disposal
Credit
.72
.72
3.26
5.20
3.53
3.53
5.84
3.00
3.60
3.60
4.30
4.30
Net Economic
Benefit
9.37
4.23
(-.28)
(-.52)
19.96
10.44
1.95
10.75
3.58
4.35
19.75
5.82
-------
CONVERSION OPPORTUNITIES WITH POTENTIALLY FAVORABLE ECONOMICS
H
•O
oo
OJ
o
Federal Facility
Central Heating &
Refrigeration Plant
Capital Hill Steam
Plant
West Heating Plant
Washington Navy Yard
Virginia Heating &
Refrigeration Plant
$/ton
System
Type
I
lant I
II
II
I
I
II
I
II
II
rd I
I
±ant
ii
Water
Source
Fed. Instal
Fed. Instal.&
city
Fed . Instal .
Fed. Instal. &
city
Facil.
Facil. & other
Fed. Instal.
Facil. & other
Fed . Instal .
Fed. Instal.
Fed . instal .
Fed. instal. &
city
Facil. & other
Fed . instal .
Fed. instal.
Fed. instal.
Operating
Costs
9.69
9.16
8.45
6.56
17.83
11.40
10.42
10.02
8.62
7.36
20.11
14.43
9.70
Fuel
Value
28.35
28.35
17.01
17.01
28.80
28.80
17.28
28.35
17.01
17.01
19.80
28.35
17.01
Disposal
Credit
2.90
2.70
2.90
1.95
4.25
2.90
2.70
2.90
2.50
2.08
4.81
4.25
3.50
Net Economic
Benefit
21.56
21.89
11.46
12.40
15.22
20.30
9.56
21.23
10.89
11.73
4.50
18.17
10.81
-------
3.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
3.2.1 COMPARISON WITH OTHER FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
There are very few published data on the burning of municipal type solid
wastes in small steam-generating boilers, with which our feasibility
estimates can be compared directly. The St. Louis experience relates
to the use of prepared solid waste in a utility boiler, of a type found
only in TVA installations among Federally-owned facilities. A number of
industries routinely recover steam by burning processing wastes in their
boilers. While the size of a typical industrial boiler is comparable
to that in the majority of Federal facilities, the wastes that are
handled are different (bagasse in sugar manufacturing plants; coffee
grounds in instant coffee manufacturing; Kraft liquor in paper mills).
Furthermore, in both industry and the Federal government, steam recovery
incineration has often been adopted in preference to the burning of
wastes in existing boilers. Part of the reason is the massive shift
away from coal to oil and natural gas in steam boilers in response to
.recent air pollution control requirements. Modification of boilers
designed for liquid or gaseous fuels, or reconversion of boilers that
originally burned coal, to enable the burning of solid waste as a
supplementary fuel, is in many cases either technically infeasible or
prohibitively expensive. A number of Federal facilities are considering
the use of solid waste as a supplementary fuel, but the results of
economic analysis have not been released for publication.
H. G. Rigo in a technical evaluation study of solid waste heat reclamation
at the Philadelphis Naval Shipyard, provides a capital cost estimate for
a system very similar to our Type II to be used in conjunction with
an agitated bed incinerator complex. Although the systems are not
identical, some comparison of cost estimates can be made as shown in
Table 3.2.1-1. While our estimates for equipment costs are somewhat
higher, the major discrepancy is seen to result from the estimated
Installation costs.
For the burning of Type III wastes within an existing boiler, operating
costs (exclusive of capital amortization) estimated in Reference 2
and by ADL are compared in Table 3.2.1-2 for a 57.1 TPD installation.
Agreement is seen to be reasonably good. The major discrepancies are
in labor costs, (where we have added a 20% labor overhead and a 50%
administrative overhead onto a slightly higher base salary) and in the
credits taken for fuel savings (where Reference 3.2-1 bases their calculations
on the value of the steam generated, and we base our calculations on the
value of the fuel displaced).
3-42 52-
-------
COMPARISON OF COST ESTIMATES FOR AN UNREFINED COARSE
PRODUCE WITH STORAGE (REFERENCE 3.2-1 AND ADL)
Equipment
Conveyers (2)
25 TPH Shredders (2)
Bucket Elevators (2)
Storage
Feeders
Receiving'Hopper
Total Equipment Costs (EC)
Installation
Total Direct Cost
Engineering Profit, O.K.,
Contingency
Total Fixed Capital Investment
Costs ($)
Reference 3.2-1
10,000
72,000
8,000
150,000
25,000
™
ADL
53,800
90,000
-
210,000
37,100
8.000
265,000
18,250 (6.9%
EC)
283,250
99,150 (35%)
382,400
398,900
190,100 (47.7%EC)
589,000
194,370 (33%)
783,370
Table 3.2.1-1
3.43
eo<
-------
COMPARISON OF OPERATING COST ESTIMATES FOR FIRING TYPE III WASTES IN
EXISTING BOILERS ( Reference 3.2-1 and ADL)
Operating Cost Elements Reference 3.2-1 ADL
Electricity (920 MW/yr) 20,200(10.022/kwh) 23,000(10.025/kwh)
Labor (3 people, 8 hrs/day) 36,000 68,000($5.00/hr+70%O.H.
Maintenance 8% od Capital Inv. 21% of Capital Inv.
Capital Amortization 0.119 x Capital Inv. 0.149 x Capital Inv.
Fuel savings on 137,500 klb/yr -433,000(steam @ -215,875(oil @ '
of steam generated $2.35/klb) $1574/106 BTU)
Disposal Savings on 20,800 TPY -245,200 -245,200
@ $11.89/ton
TABLE 3.2.1-2
3.44
-------
3.2.2 EFFECT OF ESTIMATED PARAMETERS ON CALCULATED ECONOMIC BENEFITS
In Section 2.0, we estimated the net economic benefits of burning solid
waste as a supplementary fuel as the difference between savings (of fuel
and disposal costs) and costs (capital amoritization, labor, electric
power, maintenance, transfer and haulage). The basic equation may be
written in the form:
Net Benefits = Savings - Costs
NB = (fHw + Cd) - [(Cj-K^) + (Ct+ ChM)] (2 )
where the symbols are defined in the Glossary. and Cs = Cj + Co
For Type I Systems operated on segregated paper and plastic wastes
supplied from the facility itself, the transfer and haulage costs
(C +C. M) may be set equal to zero.
Equation (3) for this case reduce to:
(N.BOj. = (fHw + Cd) - (Cj. + CQ) (3)
For Type I wastes, Hw = 15 MM BTU/ton. The average and range of values
of f and C. for the cases examined in this work are:
a
£ • $1.5A/MMBTU ($0.50-3.00)
(C.)av = $4.90/ton ($1-12)
a
Using these average values, and the value of (C- + C ) given in Table
3.1.1.5.1-1 for a facility handling less than loO TPB (boiler load
requirements less than about 60,000 Ib/hr) , the net benefits become:
(N.B.)X= (28) - (6.25 +
The refuse available from Federal facilities is found to range from 1.3
to 175 TPD, with an average of 30 TPD. Within this range, the net
benefits are a strong function of the wastes available, assuming that the
boiler capacity is sufficient to accept the total quantity. Values of
C for the range of available facility wastes are shown in Table
3.2.2-1. In the vicinity of 2 TPD, costs would exceed savings, even if
the constants in the equation for Cg were a factor of two too high. Above
about 50 TPD, net savings could be realized, even if the constants were a
factor of two too low. If the fuel and disposal cost savings were in the
upper part of their range (15 fmax+Cd,max) - $57/ton, it would still be
uneconomic to handle as little as 2 TPD). In the lower limit of savings,
(15 fjnin + Cd>n,in) = $8.50/ton, benefits, or small costs would be expected
above about 70 TPD. Since the estimated value of Cs is not expected to be
in error by more than a factor of two, it is probably safe to conclude
that any facility able to collect over 50 TPD of source segregated waste,
and having a solids burning boiler with a capacity of more than 30,000
Ib/hr, might find it worthwhile to investigate the possibility of imple-
menting a Type I system.
We have assumed that source segregation is only practical within a given
Federal facility. If community wpstes must be included to make the
system economic, it would probably be necessary to go to a Type II system.
3.45
-------
COST PARAMETER ESTIMATES FOR TYPE I SYSTEMS
TPD C_ + C = 6.25 + 176/TPD ($/ton)
2 94.25
10 23.85
20 15.05
30 12.12
40 10.65
50 9.77
60 9.18
70 8.76
80 8.45
90 8.20
100 8.01
TABLE 3.2;.2-1
3. «6
-------
COST PARAMETER ESTIMATES FOR TYPE II SYSTEMS
Cg - 3.50 + 577/TPD (TPD 100)
TPD C = 2.68 + 754/TPD (TPD 100)
"•"-•"" 8
$/ton
2 292
20 32.35
50 15.04
100 9.27
150 7.70
200 6.45
250 5.70
300 5.19
TABLE 3.2.2-2
3.47
-------
For a given quantity of waste, a Type II system is always more costly
than a Typo T system, and the savings are somewhat less due to the tower
heat content of the refuse (9MMBTU/ton for municipal waste compared to
15 MMBTU/ton for segregated wastes). For the Type II system, using
average values of f and C., the net benefits are given approximately by:
(N.B.)n^ (18.76) - [Cg + (Cfc+ M)] Ch (4)
The transfer and haulage costs, as discussed in Section 3.1.1.2, lie in
the range of $5-10/ton for haul distances of 25-50 miles. Thus if net
economic benefits are to be achieved C should be in the vicinity of
$8-$14/ton. A listing of estimated C Svalues as a function of quantity of
waste handled is given in Table 3.2.2-2. Allowing for possible errors
in C , we would suggest that Type II systems set up in cooperation with
the surrounding community are most likely to show favorable economics in
a size range over about 100 TPD, supplying a boiler load greater than about
60,000 Ib/hr. If a facility generates in the order of 100 TPD itself,
and has sufficient load requirements, it might find it worthwhile to set
up a Type II system, and to accept community wastes at a later date,
with a view towards reducing $/ton costs.
3;2.3 BOILER SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS
Most of the foregoing analysis has been based on load requirements. The
choice of the specific boiler or boilers within a given facility that
could most effectively be converted is beyond the scope of the present
program. This choice depends not only on load, but on detailed boiler
design, age of the boiler, space available in the vicinity of the boiler,
and other engineering factors. A number of boiler-specific considerations
that might enter into a design feasibility analysis are discussed in a
general way in this section.
Boiler types which should be relatively easy to convert to handle
properly prepared solid waste as a supplementary fuel are listed in
Table 3.2.3-1, and sketched in Figure 3.2.3-1. They are for the most
part stoker or hopper fed coal burning boilers, which should be able to
handle Type I, II or III wastes. The pulverized coal (PC) boilers would
generally require Type III wastes. The three and four drum configurations
might be fitted with ash handling and solids delivery equipment, even if
presently burning oil or natural gas.
Coal fired boilers that might be more difficult and expensive to convert
are listed in Table 3.2.3-2 and sketched in Figure 3.2.3-2.
Sketch E shows a two drum boiler with side and front water walls, water-
cooled bridge walls and a two or three pass baffling. This type of unit
is normally fired by a spreader, under feed or traveling grate stoker.
To convert for solid waste firing, the front wall would have to he altered
either by bending tubes to provide an opening for the introduction of
waste or by raising the lower header and shortening the tubes. If the
wall construction were of either the tangent tube or welded wall type,
3.48 t'o
-------
the header would have to be raised. Water cooled bridge walls would have
to be penetrated for over fire tube-nozzles. If these walls were of a
tangent tubp or welded wnll construction, all of the over fire air wouJd
have to be introduced through the front wall. This is a compromise
arrangement which Ls not always effective. All of these modifications are
time consuming and expensive. Furthermore, any time that modifications
are made to tubes in a boiler there is a possibility of upsetting the
water and steam circulation. In some cases, boilers represented
schematically by Sketch E are made without baffles. In such a design,
in addition to the above modifications, there may be more particulate
emission from the boiler and the possibility of plugging the gas passages
and erosion of the tubes.
Sketch K shows a two drum boiler, with the top drum located ahead of the
lower drum, having side water walls, a long mud wall, and baffles for two
or three passes. To convert this type of boiler for solid waste firing,
the front wall would have to be altered either by bending tubes, or
by raising the header and shortening the tubes to provide openings for
the introduction of waste into the burners. The header would have to be
raised only if this front wall were of the tangent tube or welded wall
construction, which is not typical for this type of design. If a type
K boiler has been installed with the lower drum set on saddles resting
on the floor, it may not be possible to install over-fire air in
the rear. It is also possible that the furnace volume may not be
sufficient for burning waste material. In such a case, it might be
necessary to raise the boiler or to excavate the pit to increase the
furnace volume.
Sketch L shows a longitudinal drum type boiler with front water walls.
To convert for solid waste firing, the front wall would have to be
altered either by bending tubes or by raising the header and shortening
the tubes in order to introduce waste into the furnace. Provided that
this type of boiler is presently stoker fired, no further changes should
be required. However, this is the basic design of most "package" boilers
which are oil or gas fired and in these cases conversion would be technically
infeasible. On the other hand, lower capacity, field erected, oil or
gas fired boilers of type K are usually no different from the stoker
fired units and should also only require front wall modifications, and
the addition of ash and solids handling equipment.
Table 3.2.3-3 lists types of boilers which are not convertible for technical
reasons. These include controlled circulation, once through, super critical,
and/or wet bottom types similar to sketches E, F, G, H, and K in Figure
3.2.3-1,2,3. Also incJuded are boiler types designed for only oil and gas
firing, for which the volumetric heat releases ere extrenely high. The
gas passes ;icc tight and participate matter could bridge the spaces. Furthermore
the high gas velocities in the passes could cause erosion when particulate
matter is carried in the gas streams. Capacity would have to be down rated.
Forced draft and induced draft fans would have to be replaced. Front and
rear water wall modification would be required to gain access to the furnace
required to burn waste. Furnace bottoms would require nodifications to
be able to remove ash.
3.49
-------
Some blowers would have to be added and modified. Air heaters and
economizers would possibly require modification.
Sketch M Boilers, also known as A types, cannot be converted because
they are generally designed for oil and gas firing and the gas passes
are so designed that it is practically impossible to keep them free from
fly ash or particulate accumulation.
3.50
67<
-------
B
, coal fired
, coal fired
Boiler Configurations Easy to Convert to Solid Waste Firing
FIGURE 3.2.3-1
3.51
-------
Boiler Configurations Difficult to Convert to Solid Waste Firing
FIGURE 3.2.3-2
3.52
-------
A
M Front
MSide
Boiler Configurations Not Convertible to Solid Waste Firing
FIGURE 3.2.3-3
3.53
-------
EASY TO CONVERT TO FUEL FIRING
Boiler Type
4 Drum
3 "
2 " SGU
2 " "
2 ii i.
2 " "
2 " »
2 " "
2 " Z
2 " Z
2 " Z
2 " longi-
tudinal
2 " "
2 " "
2 ,, „
Water Walls
with or w/out
with or w/out
side, hi, or
no front
11
11
with
side, hi, or
no front
with
side, hi, or
no front
"
ii
n
n
n
with
Baffles
3 or 4 pass
3 or 4 pass
2 or 3 pass
2 or 3 pass
"
n
single
single
2 or 3 pass
"
n
3 pass
n
n
n
Firing Type
coal, oil, gas
coal, oil, gas
spreader
underfeed
hopper feed
PC
spreader
PC
spreader
underfeed
hopper fed
spreader
underfeed
hopper fed
PC
Sketch
B or
A or
F
F
F
F
F
F
H
H
H
J
J
J
J
C
D
TABLE 3.2.3-1
3.54
-------
DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE BUT CONVERTIBLE TO WASTE FUEL FIRING
Boiler Type Water Walls Baffles
Firing Type
Sketch
2 Drum SGU side lo front
ii ii
ii it
M ii
ii z ii
ii z ii
ii z ii
" longi-
tudinal
ii it ii
ii it ii
2 or 3
ii
ii
single
2 or 3
ii
ii
ii
ii
it
pass spreader
underfeed
hopper fed
spreader
pass spreader
underfeed
hopper fed
spreader
hopper fed
underfeed
E
E
E
E
K
K
K
L
L
L
TABLE 3.2.3-2
-------
NOT CONVERTIBLE TO WASTE FUEL FIRING
Boiler Type
2 Drum SGU
"
11 Z
Water Walls
with
11
11
Baffles
single
2 or 3
n
Firing Type
oil , gas
oil, gas
oil, gas
Sketch
G
E or F
H or K
" Z " cross flow coal, oil, gas H or K
" A " 2, 3, 4 coal, oil, gas M
SGU having controlled circulation or once-through circulation
SGU supercritical pressures
SGU wet bottoms
Note: SGU — steam generation unit
When only coal firing is mentioned, any
type of stoker or pulverized coal is included.
TABLE 3.2.3-3 73<
3.56
-------
4.0 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL CONVERSION OPPORTUNITIES
A number of Federal facilities were identified in Section 3.0, where it
would appear that net economic benefits might result from the use of
properly prepared solid waste as a supplementary fuel. While the
potential for net economic benefit is one factor to be considered in
implementation planning, it is by no means the only one. Some of the
additional considerations are pointed out below.
A list of stoker-fired conversion opportunities with potentially favorable
economics was presented in Table 3.1.1.6-1. In some cases, more than
one option is presented for a given facility - a Type I or Type II
system using facility wastes alone; or a Type II system using in addition
wastes for other Federal facilities, the surrounding city or the
sourrounding county. A system based on facility wastes alone can be
much easier to implement than one which requires negotiation with outside
groups. For the same amount of waste within a given facility, the
economic benefits of a Type I system always exceed those cf a Type II
system. However, the voluntary source segregation necessary for successful
implementation of a Type I system may or may not be easy to bring about,
depending on many factors. Furthermore, if a facility could make use of
an amount of solid waste fuel in excess of that generated on-site, a Type
II system might be preferred, run initially with facility wastes and
subsequently with additional wastes from outside. In general, the
larger the amount of waste handled in a Type II system, provided the waste
does not have to be transported too far, the lower the costs will be in
$/ton, and the greater the economic benefits.
Type III systems for Federally-owned facilities were found to be potentially
cost effective only for some of the TVA installations and for Wright-
Patterson AFB. The fundamental reason is that there are two very Important
constraints placed on the size of a Type III firing unit:
1. A plant manufacturing Type III fuel has an economic minimum
size of approximately 1,000 tons per day of refuse. Hence,
such a plant would only be set up in an area where the
population within a 25 mile radius is in excess of about
500,000. (The 25 mile limitation is not absolute, but was
the area we were asked to consider under the program.)
2. Since the capital amortization and operating costs of a
Type III firing system in $/ton decrease sharply with the
amount of waste burned there is a minimum practical firing
range of about 50 TPD below which the use of Type III fuel
would be impractical.
The only convertible Federal facility identified within a community of
500,000 or more, with a sufficient load requirement to consider installation
of a Type III firing system is Wright Patterson AFB. Type III firing
systems are technically feasible for several TVA installations, which
certainly have sufficient load requirements to accept a significant
74<
-------
fraction of the output of a Type III plant. With the possible exception
of Bull Run and Widows Creek, however, no TVA installations are located
within 25 miles of a community of 500,000. Although the 25 mile limitation
for community wastes was a specific restriction of our program, it is
likely that cost effective Type III systems receiving wastes from a
larger area could be implemented for several TVA facilities. TVA has
already initiated a $400,000 program to investigate such possibilities,
obviously in far greater depth than would be possible within the context
of our study.
Wright-Patterson AFB has a minimum (summer) load requirement of 81,000 Ib/hr.
The quantity of Type III fuel needed to supply 100% of this load is of
the order of 185 TPD (assuming a 75% burning efficiency). While we do
not know definitively which of Wright-Patterson's boilers might be
technically suitable for conversion, the base does have four traveling
grate stoker fired boilers with a capacity of 100,000 Ib/hr, and one
with a capacity of 119,600 Ib/hr. The capital investment for a 185 TPD
Type III firing system is calculated from Table 3.1.1.5.3-1 as $929,049,
.exclusive of air pollution control equipment.
Operating costs, fuel savings credits and net economic benefits are
summarized below:
On-site operating costs = 501/(TPD)+ 0. 83 = $3.59/ton
Type III fuel costs = $14.00/ton
Total costs $17.597ton
Fuel savings = fHw = $1.85 14MMBTU _ „.
MMBTU X ton " $Z5.
Net benefits $8.49/ton
We have previously indicated that Type I and Type II systems also appear
to be economically feasible for Wright-Patterson.
The potential conversion opportunities identified as part of this report
are based on current costs of alternative fuels and current costs of disposal.
These costs are almost certain to Increase with time, making the use of
solid waste as a supplementary fuel more attractive for more installations.
We have also based most of our analysis on the use of solid waste to supply
50% of minimum load. If a greater fraction of the load were met by the
solid waste fuel, there would be economies of scale in the waste firing
system, and correspondingly increased economic benefits. Our economic
analysis has been largely confined to facilities currently burning coal.
As indicated in Section 3.2.3, some types of oil fired units could also
be modified with little difficulty and at modest cost to handle a solid
waste fuel.
4.2
75<
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT OF FUELS PRODUCED FROM
SOLID WASTE
1. Annual Report of Federal Civilian Employment by Geographic Area,
December 31, 1972, Prepared by U.S. Civil Service Commission
2. H. G. Rigo, Technical Evaluation Study: Solid Waste Heat Reclamation
at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pa., May 1974,
Department of the Army, Construction Engineering Research Lab.
5.1
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
This appendix contains information on federally owned boilers. It was
compiled from information supplied by various government agencies and
through phone contacts primarily with operators of category A and B
boilers. The installations are listed by state followed by a map indicating
the locations of the boilers. This list is not a complete list of all
federally owned boilers.
The chart for each state contains the following information:
• Boiler category - A, B or C - as explained in text;
• Name of facility and the Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) or county in which it is located;
• Agency ownership;
• Rated capacity in 1000 Ib steam/hr;
• Load in 1000 Ib steam/hr and an indication of whether the
value is an average, peak, minimum, summer, winter, etc.
• Type of firing: pulverized coal (p.c.)
stokers (travelling grate, spreader, etc.);
• Date of installation;
• Refuse capacity and combustion firing % - amount of solid
waste facility can fire based on the given per cent firing;
• Refuse supply - facility: based on information supplied by
facility or responsible federal agency.
other federal facility: based on 2 Ib/employee/day
times the number of federal employees
in the county or SMSA
community: based on 3.2 Ib/person/day times population
(In converting wastes from cubic yards to tons, a conversion of
8 cu.yd.= 1 ton was used.)
• Notes - includes any air pollution control (AFC) equipment
(MC-mechanical collector; ESP-electrostatic precipatator) and
the efficiency; current firing if not coal; limitations that
may prevent conversion, i.e., package boiler; source of
community waste, i.e., city or county
The maps following each chart show locations of all boilers and 25 mile
radius for category A and B boilers. The key is:
o
Category A; ^^ ) Category B; x Category C
78<
-------
UNITS
33,000 BTU/BHp
1000 BTU/hr - 1 Ib steam/hr
1 MW - 106 watts
1 watt = 0.0569 BTU/min.
1 MW - 56,900 BTU/min. = 3,414,000 BTU/hr
= 3,414 Ib steam/hr
79<
-------
Alabama
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Colbert
County/
Colbert
Jackson
County/
Widows Creek
n
c
A
tluntsville
SMSA/ Red-
stone
Arsenal
Montgomery
SMSA/
Maxwell AFB
Montgomery
SMSA/VA
Hospital
Agency
• TVA
TVA
Army
Air
Force
VA
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
4@ 211.65
MW ea
Load
l;000ff/hr
avg. load
is 55Z of
{design
550 MW
69 140.6
MW ea
575 MW
550 MW
4@ 40 ea
5 boilers
27,650
Total
avg load
is 51Z of
design
ivg. load
is 46Z of
design
avg. load
is 57Z of
design
winter:
100 to
120
summer:
100
Type
of.
'Firing
p.c.
p.c.
p.c.
P.c.
. «• .
oil
gas
gas
Date
of
Insta.1.
1955
1965
1952 to
1954
1960
1964
1956 to
1959
Refu&e
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Z
50
50
50
50
Refuse
Fac,.
small
small
•
Suppl)
Other
Fed.
' (tpd)
COTB«_ .
in
88
Notes
M.C. and
ESP MC-50Z
ESP- 88 to 97Z;
waste from county
ESP-50Z; not
suitable for
conv.
MC-60Z, waste
from county
ESP-95Z
ESP-50Z
firing 15
fuel oll;no
APC
natural gas
is primary
and present
fuel; oil is
alternate
gas with 82
fuel oil as
alternate
-------
Alabama
SMSA-
County/
Plant
'uscaloosa
SMSA/
VA Hospital
A
Agency
VA
•
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr
37
(Total)
Load
i;ooo*/hr.
Type
of t
Firing
gas
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Csrpac."
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac.. .
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com....
Notes
gas and //2
fuel as
alternate
-------
Ontpnllo Gadlden. P.edmonl ocrVw , / , ^
'-'i.-L/ i. „ fJ
Gro»« Hillr
lull,'
.0^
Georgiini
J
Lr
Monrocville
V
Atm0f. 0
Abbtvillc
o I
Do than'
° T1
\ \
I I• *?\
iCbickiHw ^i • 5 V
Mobile
o
Flirhopc
»
r
v * Mobile Po.nl
ffr/r so/s A/ 'w s
-------
Alaska
SMSA- |
County/
Plant
Ft. Richardso
Eielson AFB
f Clear AFB
/Ft. Greely
go
63
A
••••••
Agency
i
Army
Air
Force
Air
Force
Army
Rated
Capac .
l,000///hr.
8@ 135 ea
6(3 120 ea
J@ 110 ea
3@ 50 ea
Load
l;0000/hr,
avg. 350
(only 5
boilers
in oper.]
Type
of.
Firing
travelling
grate
stokes
oil
Date
of
Instal.
1950-
1951
Refuse
CSfTaV.-
tpd.
267
Comb.
Firing
%
50
Refuse
Fac .. .
31.2
•
Supply
Other
Fed.
2.0
1
(tpd)
Com. .
279
103
103
Notes
A boilers have
been converted
to gas while 4
still burn coal ;
waste from city
of Anchorage
M.C.-have
abundant supply
of coal; waste
from City of
Fairbanks
11 other
boilers fire
oil-24,880,000
#/hr total;
waste from City
of Anchorage
packaged
boilers, burn
oil
-------
/
95
t^
A
"-.~4-S. X
f*»<*. / r ."-v
I ShlKh^.r.«
«W«. "•?- 8"' ^
: - '"""ali 's(ihfl U o
/ v""—.L-u ,
ALASKA
-------
Arizona
SMSA-
County/ —
Plant
Phoenix SMSA/
VA Hospital
Yavapai Count
/VA Hospital
Tucson SMSA/
VA Hospital
A
Agency
VA
' VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr.
3@ 9 ea
3-61
total
3-45
total
Load
l,000i?/hr,
Type
of
Firing
Date
of'
Instal.
Qapac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac..
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com... .
Notes
gas and //2
oil
gas and //2
oil
gas and //2
oil
-------
J
o
I X I
/INDIAN, •*
\*£S£RVATION
\ /
is-J™. N /
r^~'."As^—>-, £
M A h'V *- ^ NATIONAL . ,(\"
— ' ' | ^/«.>G.an<) Clnyon I .f> °Moen4p. HOPI INDIAN
; I iur? r.rJ.^lS^Jv . __i *E?.E*Y*I!Qli ]_— - ^stf
INDIAN *ESE'?W>T4/OrV
-i j RourJ
Rotit
i ^
s .
Cameron
Policci0 °
K«.m C.nron Fort Dtl.inceo
Gin«do° Si.nt '
,,
Hickbtrty
,1
| Odtrr
—J , ~, "\tA r **y'^ __ . -w__ J
i i T^t/wscr c»>»fc*j -
,s.i,I™r'~i1_ ""-*0" '
|> o V Fl«2s!afl
^-.AshFo-k0^ ,«rWlll"p.V '^ U
Li, *""; vT~^.~^'0*j/ "•"' M0w ^
. — , „ S»nd»'s
\Tppock
• W4Vy
^
.Y.J., °- r
MI
y ,
/ / 1 . |
' /COLOHAOO ^ —(-r
\ .&IVEP I Wickenburg
/wo »csj Wer,d«n0 CntOMirJ
TONTO
APACHE MN
''INDIAN HfSERVATibN
APACHE
Forl Ap.eh. ', AID'n?
Sllomc
'°C,bol.
fOWEST
Peori. I *?'f= , f
Gltndi
BILA
'CAPLOS V /
INDIAN
RESERVATION
N
«iviif I
\7 I -^J
,
c. -
L.
.^ Byi.» , -V
3 Florence -H«yri«r. X —- J X
G.li Bend N*r MOfJ 'Cociidje
Casn Grande °
r'^
M /.
Bo«.e
*f ' T1AT_ jub~ O
, NATIONAL
-------
Arkansas
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Fort Smith
SMSA/ Fort
Chaffee
Pine Bluff
SMSA/Pine
Bluff Arsenal
Washington
County/
Fayetteville
VA Hospital
Little Rock
SMSA/VA
Hospital
Little Rock
Rock VA
Hospital
3
Agency
Army
Army
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr.
3@ 20 ea
1@ 5
2@ 20 ea
3@ 8.6ea.
3@ 12.3ea
*
2@12.lea.
2@l8.7ea.
Load
i;0000/hr<
operate
in winter
only
Type
of §
"Firing
gas
Date
of '
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac •. .
•
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com,.. .
•
Notes
burn gas, no
APC
gas, no AFC
gas and #2
oil
gas and ^2
oil
•
gas and 92
oil
-------
\
Rogm"
*, oB.rry.,11* ej;^,,,r, : Mountain Homt . OSll»
Hirdy Pac«honlisD.
__ , ,
X in-.Ji
/ ,£.
Mountain VIM ,
Burtn
FO*£ST
f.istm.r
BlIdKrx*.
Jonesboro
O
Trun,«m,°
^\
We,t MemphU
-I
° Stutljart
Qltnwood*
Mur(r«Mboro
Artixttlphii
Ptoe Bluff J(
\
H^
(OUACHITA
""asL
0
V-.
i
r
. • % ; - j
0 N«hvrll« Gurdon Rtton"7 ~^B *fc»
1 . - o "
"—1. • . • Foroyc.0 ^ ,. &„„„
HOP*. . °B..rd.n
Mirrwf- MontKtHo WcG**we
$• : «Ctmdtn A,..«,Jcit»°,
. 0
Dtrmot^
^ Stin>ps "•) ' . ""*''•. • "* ' - •
to" ; "7»Dor*o M""b»"' T"'""*
. , Crow.lt .-*.' t.
Junction -• „ , -
•>1
?
J
*.
r
Y
S8<
-------
California
c
3
A
SMSA-
County/
Plane
Salinas-Monter
SMSA/Fort Ord
San Francisco-
Oakland SMSA/
Presidio of
San Francisco
Sac r amen to SMS
Sacramento Army
Depot
San Francisco-
Oakland SMSA/
Alameda NAS
San Bernadino-
Riverside-
Ontario SMSA/
Norton AFB
Sacramento SMS
McClennan AFB
San Diego SMSA
ACFZ
Los Angeles-
Long Beach
SMSA/TTOK
Fresno SMSA/
VA Hospital
Agency
ey Armv
Army
\ Army
Navy
Air
Force
\ Air
Force
Air
Force
Air
Force
VA
Rated
Capac .
1,0000/hr
29 24 ea.
40 21 ea.
19 18
(inactive)
39 19 ea.
2@ 2 ea.
2@ 35 ea.
2@ 120 ea.
49 16.4 ea
39 19 ea.
10 25 ea.
59 21. Sea.
29 33 ea.
39 97 ea.
i
Load
l'.0000/hr<
Type
of
'Fir ton
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac.
cpd.
Comb.
Firing
I
Refuse
Fac.. .
•
Supply
Other
Fed.
•
(tpd)
Com*..
Notes
gas; package boilers
gas; no APC
gas
gas
gas; no APC; space
limitations
gas; no APC; space
limitations
gas
gas
gas and 02 oil
-------
California
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Jan Franc is co-
Dakland SMSA
Livermore VA
tospital
U>s Ange los-
ing Beach SMS
>ong Beach VA
lospital
'.os Angeles-
vong Beach SMS
.A VA Hosp.
'an Francisco-
lakland SMSA/
tart Inez VA
'ospital
!an Jose SMSA
alo Alto VA
'ospital
an Jose SMSA
Menlo Park
'A Hospital
an Deigo SMS/
an Deigo VA
ospital
an Francisco
'akland SMSA/
an Francisco
A Hospital
os Angeles-
ong Beach SM
hn Pornnnclo
Agencv
VA
VA
A
VA
A
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
A
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
2@ 12.2ea.
1@ 13.8
3@ 24 ea.
10 32
3@ 40.7ea.
10 8
20 12 ea.
3@ 19.7ea.
10 12.4
2@ 20. Sea.
24
3@ 15.3ea.
1@ 12. 7
2@ 19 aa.
Load
i;0000/hr
^
N
1
,
Type
of
Firi"ng
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac- .
i Supply
Other
Fed.
•
' (tpd)
Com...
Notes
gas, # '2 oil
gas , // 2 oil
gas, 9 2 oil
gas, »2 oil
gas, #2 oil
gas, 0 2 oil
oil
gas, 96 oil
gas , // 2 oil
-------
California
SMSA-
County/
Plant
os Angeles-
ong Beach
MSA/
epulveda VA
ospital
0
t
Agency
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
1@ 15 .4
2(3 22 ea.
load
l;0000/hr
Type
of
Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac-. .
Supplj
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com... .
Notes
gas, // 5 oil
-------
V«k3wW'>Y'v.$v
\j,*T-L£.,K] •«{ $iPjK>4Mf
f^^^jfyk&ffiJf f^\T
s£.u -**!!'.''« 'to+i-lM
iC. ««. rli}>?rjJv\ j t^.lK»fE rU f
nSSP^L-^BS
-------
Colorado
A
B
C
c*
«
A
SMSA-'
County/
Plant
Pueblo SMSA/
Pueblo Army
Depot
Colorado
Springs SMSA/
Fort Carson
Denver SMSA/
Array Med.
Center
Colorado
Springs SMSA/
USAF Academy
Denver SMSA/
Loury AFB
Rocky Mountair
Arsenal
Bent County/Ft.
Lyons VA Hosp.
Mesa County/
Grand Junctioi
VA Hospital
Agency
Army
Army
Army
Air Force
Air Force
Army
VA
VA
Raced
Capac.
'1,0000/hr
2@ 50 ea.
3@ 12 ea.
3@ 40 ea.
1@ 25
2@ 52 ea.
2@ 60 ea.
2@ 30 ea..
10 80
30 100 ea.
2@ 10 ea.
20 5 ea.
20 25 ea.
1@ 10.4
1@ 20.3
1@ 19
3@ 9.7 ea.
Load
r.000#/hr
annual •**
410
summer-
oil only
constant
avg:16 .
Jan.
58
winter:
50,000*/h
summer:
12,000*/h
Type
of
'Fir teg
travelling
grate
stoker
Date
of
Instal.
1964
1958
1942
1940
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
60
Comb*
Firing
Z
50
Refuse
Fac. .
33
140
.
Supply
Other
Fed.
143.4
,
(tpd)
Com...
218
Notes
M.C., refuse from
Pueblo, Ft. Carson
within 50 miles
gas, frl oil as
standby, no APC
gas, no APC
natural gas, no APC
1 of 10,000 ff/hr
boilers is coal but
is not in use;
others are gas
package boilers; gas
gas, #2 oil
gas, 92 oil
-------
p.) J^i
\ riSSL \ -<***-
« Cr.,f
Marb.il "'v.,, -*• »"«
' 'V-/
orrafef jf'i, e i ,~B,,t1Vn,
/. .. o I / ' \
Io^ocHfford o •>' t-
.. • L^i,n,a^- >MJT
-------
Connecticut
c
SMSA-
County/
Plant
few Haven SMSA/
West Haven VA
Hosp.
/New-
ington VA Hosp
Bridgeport SMS,
/ACGZ
New London-
Groton-Norwich
SMSA/ Sub Base-
Groton
CO
A
'"••s. '
Agency
VA
VA
AirForce
Navy
-
Rated
Capac.
l,000tf/hr.
2@ 31.3ea.
1@ 16.5ea.
1@ 6.3
2@ 12.5 ea.
3@ 18 ea.
5@ 75 ea.
Load
r.000ff/hr<
Type
of
'Fir teg
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
Comb*
Firing
Z
Refuse
Fac.. .
•
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Con*..
Notes
gas, 02 oil
06 oil
96 oil
#6 oil; boilers were
built Cor coal bat
coal was never burned;
No APC
-------
.
Torringtoa , „
f O I ^ ~ Manchester
I/ Hartford*'' ° W-HWMHC
* i9 aN«;Briuin°
T ' C
'pD«nbtay :oH«mden < New
xl^
Report
S6<
-------
Delaware
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Wilmington
SMSA/VA
Hospital
Kent County/
Dover AFB
CO
5?
9
Agency
VA
Air
Force
Rated
Capac .
1,0000/hr
3@ 18. 8 ea,
4@ 50 ea
Load
1',0000/hr,
Type
of
'Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
COQDt
Firing
Z
Refuse
Fac.. .
•
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com*..
Notes
06 oil
06 oil, one
package boiler,
no APC
-------
Wilmington
t«\ oll
,, Gwrfttowrt-
" B«»ch
98<
-------
District of Columbia
A
B
A
"C
C
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Agency
Washington/ ,Navy
Navy Yard |
Washington/ jGSA
Central "eatinc
& Refri-..T>lant
Washington/ JGSA
West Heating
Plant
i
Washington/
Boiler Plant
for Capital
Bldg. •
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
L @ 120
1 ffl 1 9ft
L \S -LAV/
L @ 150
it @ 215 ea.
2 @ 400 ea.
3 @ 215 ea.
2 @ 215 ea.
3
-------
Florida
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Jacksonville
SMSA/Naval
Air Station
Jacksonville
SMSA/Naval
Hospital
Jacksonville
SMSA/Newport
.\\aval Station
T
Ipensacola SMS/\
/\Public Works
Center
Pensacola SMS/
Whiting Field
NAS
Bay Lines VA
Hospital
Columbia Count
/Lake City VA
Hospital
Miami SMSA/VA
Hospital
Tampa-St.
Petersburg
SMSA/Tampa VA
Hospital
Agency
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
Navy
VA
y VA
VA
VA
Raced
Capac .
1,0000/hr
4@ 45 ea.
29 20 ea.
2@ 125 ea
2@ 25 ea.
2@ 10.9ea
1@ 10
1@ 11.4
2@ 10. Sea
1@ 6.4
3@ 20 ea.
3@ 18 ea.
Load
r,0000/hr<
Type
of
'Firi-ng
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Z
Refuse
Fac.. .
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com*..
Notes
latural gas
latural gas
76 oil
latural gas
designed for gas;
firing #6 oil currently
gas; no. 2 oil
06 oil
92 oil
oil
-------
^/yfe^
: Jfe^feH
>*vE^,->^
*«,
J- "i1 xu •'* r- * r* *•''••
F*^8*-*, '?-, t^v...
-J. • y ,-•» 4™ f * •
/ u
. ly.'f / / ' >.. J^tlW... ,,
^-«-~. rr» LM'c«*. ; B-^JK ^ajri
/ ---sW-^|^^^.
/ ^^/r^^^^^
^^^•"C^^osSii V
/ J °'^7^tV7^?"^^
-/v-b / ^vV^i;--
r-C:%^- --Ci^TL,^
1 '°"^-,r
^..VfcpT*8*
f~0>'-«*"., «,.c
*~*»f &**:#£
. s r
-------
Georgia
i
*•
t
i
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Macon SMSA/
Robins AFB
Atlanta SMSA/
ACFL
^Atlanta SMSA/
,;VA Hospital
Augusta SMSA/
Zenwood VA
Hospital
Augusta SMSA/
Forest Hill
VA Hospital
Laurens Count]
Dilblin VA
Hospital
Augusta SMSA/
Ft. Gordon
Columbus SMSA/
Ft. Bennlng
Agency
Air
Force
Air
Force
VA
VA
VA
VA
Army
Army
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr.
3 @ 55 ea
2 @ 100 ea
2 @ 7 ea
1 @ 20
1 @ 25
4 @ 100 ea
2 @ 50 ea
1 (3 40
2 @ 20 ea
20.6
14.4
21.1
86
2 @ 12 ea
4 @ 17.8
ea
5 (? 29 ea
3 @ 57 ea
Load
i;0000/hr-
Type
of
'Firi-ng
Dace
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Z
Refuse
Fac.. .
'
Supply
Other
Fed.
•
(tpd)
Com...
Notes
gas; no APC;
no room for
conversion
gas; 2 boilers @
50,000 Ib are
inactive, no APC
gas, # 6 oil
gas , $ 5 oil
gas, • i? 5 oil
gas , ff 2 oil
gas, no APC
gas, no AFC, no
space available
-------
' ^ ') '(' ^ ™WV*r - -T - 7
H ir- N Blu« R'1«e -r'^" ---o-J- ' Cllylon/
/ l.lj^^™°°<»<^<>^ ' /
/wrtJ • T^j., '°»«r 7_^-o..; .
''„ o'MoJnt Berry ^"
n «
i.' ,7 .C-'
I
Buford!
< .J = ->
^ \
a.';.w ° \
,, --... "*"
Commwce !
m».,,j0 North AlUnl.
' Br,m.ni Atlanta y Ori
1 ° fDou«i,?,,n« r "Deoitur "M
000/V££
OCONfc
Griffin O " j- [ rSh^o, , . -- os"""
I Point
'Thom.ston
. .
0 iFor.^ ^o -/
; - J£i!*TT
.ndcn.,11.
..~
T.,boll0n'
V| '4 IFttrKV
Vcolumbus 1 .
V«n£ Robin,
lll^ C .5
-
"*"«ht,,H..
|«»ntboro -?;.
o
Bu«n. VT.U
A jof^
Lumpkmv Anlfricin \ V«nni -i^t«stm«rr :
_ " ° ° ^I.-
(
. Pembroke =. f\
Reidt.iiie ' Savannah o'
°Glennville - • "
tkllindc
—-P^ -—*~ :
'aldontj -^ V "Wooatme
10 -3 <
-------
Idaho
A
C
C.
£
•a
SMSA-
Councy/
Plant
Elmor County/
Mt. Home AFB
Bannock County
Federal Office
Bldg.
Boise SMSA/
VA Hospital
i /N
T.-
Agencv
Air
Force
GSA
VA
Rated
Capac.
3 @ 31 ea
1 8 65
2
10.1
2 5
11.8 ea
Load
winter:
62
Type
of
"Firi-ng
S tokers
Stoker
Date
of
Instal.
1954-59
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
70
Comb.
Firing
Z
50
Refuse
Fac. .
30.9
Supply
Other
Fed.
0.5
•
(tpd)
Com..
39
Notes
MC - 85%; ESP
installed but not
operating; refuse
from county
inactive
gas, 82 oil
-------
fyssfc™ "H-i41"-*^
;v
\
-n,
/
Sl«f
I
\r
SALMON
'V
/f c-L,^'"0
X I. HAT''-^. fa*
\r^.^°^°°fa^
JES7
- X
r>
(. ri* t ivfVAL
\ *Sf S«im
^^ FOREST
V"^\— ^ j!
/ ' !-• £
CHALLISC'J
;P'sC
4-s.V
.^B.Vr
r r T
^A"0" X
K^i»
\ "^ "^
V.
-------
Illinois
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Davenport -
Rock Island-
Moline SMSA
Rock Island
Arsenal
Chicago SMSA/
•* 928th
t»
[champaign-
1 Urbana SMSA
Chanute AFB
Vermilion Cty.
Danville
VA Hospital
Williamson Cty
Marlon
VA Hospital
St. Lou is SMSA
Granite
City Army
Depot
Chicago SMSA
Joliet
Army Ammo.
Plant
Chicago SMSA
Ft. Sheridan
Agency
Army
Ur Force
lir Force
VA
. VA
Army
Army
Army
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
2040.2 ea
1050 .25
1@32.2
4(344.8 ea
3033 ..5 aa
3025 ea
^
3@25 ea
2020 ea
30100 ea
je'40 ea .
Load
i;0000/hr
300
wince
60
-.summei
under
18
134
40
winter
only
80
summer:
7
Type
of
"Firrng
Stokers
Stoker
Stoker
Date
of
Instal.
1941
1963
1968
1943
1939
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
107
31
59.5
COIDD •
Firing
Z
50
50
50
Refuse
Fac.. .
:rash
7.5
Jood6 . 7
3.2
40.8
0.5
.
0.5
Suppl)
Other
Fed.
7.6
61
2.9
' (tpd)
Com....
113
7885
57.5
Notes
rery crowded;
designing APC
iO APC; planning to
bandon coal boiler
raste from Rantoul
;as; no APC; have an
incinerator
;as; no APC; have an •
incinerator
10 APC; oil
{as; 2 are inactive;
no APC
;as and oil
-------
Illinois
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Chicago SMSA
Argon
National Lab.
Carroll Cty./
Savanna
Army Depot
St. Louis SMSA
Scott AFB
Chicago SMSA
Naval Air
Station
Chicago SMSA
Public Works
Center
Chicago SMSA
Research
Center
Q
A
•s i
i
Agency
ERDA
Army
Ur Force
Navy
Navy
VA
Rated
Capac .
l,000ff/hr
170
!@24 ea.
!@85 ea.
!@40 ea.
:
-------
"Abmjdon . . Eurtlui .
'Peoria0
Bushnell . pjfcj,,
Racomb Canton0 , Normal
,-,.~trV\tlt' U«nto«m° /£'
': -.MA
^ „ ,.- = : "<'«lwi«e -.' '•!"-' ' „ Lincoln
fc-w [ ~f"T ^T I N o~ T
\ /Jacksonville: s Springfield
/ O ." " C' .'0 '
x\ ' -?a^'-
H
x
Tu&cola
, Virdtn
o
Carrollton 'car[lrvi(|«
Pan. c !
Sh . o
fJEay 3i*Hft Loulfl oriri i« cS8teTi
<
/
Robinson"
Qlnty La«'tr.ctvillel
/
'Mount Vfrno.i
108<
-------
Indiana
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Indianapolis
SMSA/Ft.B.
Harrison
Miami County/
Grissom AFB
Grant County/
VA Hospital
Louisville
SMSA/Indiana
rlrmy Ammo.
^lant
Louisville
SMSA/Jeffersot
ville, Ind.
Steam Plant
Louisville
SMSA/Jeffersoi
Proving Grouiv
Parke County/
Newport Army
Ammo Plant
Indianapolis
SMSA/Cold
Springs VA
Hospital
Agency
Army
Air Force
VA
Army
GSA
-
Army
s
Army
VA
Raced
Capac.
l,000fl/hr
7@ 18 ea.
2@ 40 ea.
3@ 30 ea.
3@ 24 ea.
34
9
1017 ea.
3@ 26 ea.
2(3 60 ea.
7
6.8
13
Load
1',0000/hr
144 max
15
'inter loa
nax : 60
Type
of
"Firing
stoker
stoker
1
Date
of
Inscal.
1952
1968
1955
1959
1941
1941
1941
Refus/?
Capac .
tpd.
30
35.5
Comb.
Firing
I
50
50
4
3
Refuse
Fac. .
48
20
.
Supply
Other
Fed.
17.5
0.7
(tpd)
Corn.. .
24.5
Notes
APC by 1977
limited space, no AFC
waste from county
gas, no APC, have an
incinerator
02 oil, no APC
not in use
oil/gas no APC '
oil/gas
package boilers; oil
oil, package boilers
06 oil
-------
>'• Q w.ncheiler
Munci* *
mdenon
ritj
*A
[ll(ld Richm<&d
VCIuKjut- I o \ Beech C'ove / ConnenviHf '
I -' •- B,U,t ****** \ / . , |
I b ° i'" ^>~ -< "«h»i»« i
t^Terre H.Jto^ ""1Srt" F'.»uln Sh'°">»"1" ! i
-A .-" L Gteensbur, i |
J Edinbufj!
"^ BJoomington T 1 ! o
>"i"" ° i- L ^1 ; Columbu.
0Linl(>n
'.Bickneii--
\- o
Bedlord .-J "Spij""""
C.IT Huni »!6ur
J* n ,. Boonev,ll» '
f_ Evansville "
' „ —or-
v
x
-------
Iowa
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Des Moines
County/Iowa
Army Ammo
Plant
Johnson
County/
Knoxville
VA Hospital
Marion Count)
Iowa City
VA Hospital
Des Moines
SMSA/VA
Hospital
Agency
Army
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
4@ 45 ea
4@ 21-2
ea
2(3 12 ea
2(? 14 ea
20 ea
Load
i;000fl/hr,
225
Winter
80
Summer
Type
of i
Firing
p.c.
Date
of
Instal.
1940
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
88
Comb.
Firing
%
50
Refuse
Fac.. .
20
Supply
Other
Fed.
0.3
' (tpd)
Com.. .
73
Notes
no APC
oil
oil
gas, //2 oil
-------
«| ¥"•*„ *i(5,,r I^IK 'C»»'i«» C'dr
• >*HmkoWl • »*
Poc«hoiMn ° o Cit
T»gi* Orovt ' n
U-ar
,
\ • .0 0R«I Okk
V— -— S « L-.—„ _.
:- - tt. nVtoir*"
*r«. _ Bwford / • _^;tTJ_
-------
Kansas
SMSA-
Councy/
Plant
Wichita SMSA/
ACFS
Leavenworch
County/VA
Hospital
Leavenworth
County/Ft.
* Leavenworth
A
^ Geary County/
* Ft. Riley
TOpeka SMSA/
VA Hospital
Agency
Air
Force
VA
Army
Army
VA
Rated '
Capac.
l,000*/hr
2@ 60 ea.
2@ 20 ea.
5@ 28 ea.
2@ 25 ea.
1@ 30
7
16
4@ 22 ea.
2@ 33 ea.
8
18
2@ 26 ea.
Load
r,0000/hr
Type
of
FiritiR
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Z
Refuse
Fac- .
.
Supply
Other
Fed.
-
(tpd)
Com*. .
Notes
jas, package boilers
gas, //5 oil
gas; package boilers
gas; no AFC
•
gas.; 62 oil
-------
E
>^
A
^j o«0,tO« f
ICKAPOO .. ' . '
_
;WrtMBftoO ^ i^J i ' • -, -ta^-lt ' '
> P ln<)«>«r.d«n«« _,; *•
-------
Kentucky
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Mahlenberg
County/Para-
dise
McCracken
County/
Shawnee
Louisville
SMSA/VA'
Hospital
Christian
r^County/
V»Ft. Campbell
A
Harden County/
Ft. Knox
Kenton County/
Ft. Thomas
VA Hospital
Lexington
SMSA/VA
Hospital
Lexington
SMSA/VA
Hospital
Agency
TVA
TVA
VA
Army
Army
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr.
3@ 6786
MW (ea.)
10 @
175 M ea
3 @ 19 ea
2@ 14 ea
3(3 21 ea
3@ 25 ea
3@ 34 ea
2@ 25 ea
2(? 31 ea
2@ 45 ea
3@ 253 ea
3@ 17.25
ea
Load
1',0001/hr.
58% of
design
68% of
design
4 to 25
Type
of
•
Firing
p.c.
p.c.
Date
of
Instal.
1963 (2)
1969
3-1953
4-1954
2-1955
1-1956
1955 to
1967
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
.
Comb.
Firing
%
Refuse
Fac. .
20-3C
,
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com... .
Notes
wet bottom;
ESP-95%
m.c./ESP-
60/95
gas
gas, oil
no APC
gas, oil
planning
APC
gas, #2
oil
gas, //2
oil
gas, //2
oil
-------
S
A
BowlinaGreen I ^__ .
* Gtasgo'
\,k,on I „«"«"'«'"« *
O ""I
Hnpkinsvilte \ o Tompkiniv.Mt
-------
Louisiana
SMSA-
County/
Plant
New Orleans
SMSA/VA Hosp.
A*
Agency
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr,
3(? 19 ea.
Load
l;0000/hr,
Type
of
'Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac-. .
•
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com-_.
Notes
gas, #2 oil
-------
l»ll»n~ -•• :
' EAST rjvBALIEg I»LJVD
118-
-------
Maine
A
C
*•
t-
C,
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Aroostock
County/
Loring AFB
Cumberland
County Naval
Air Station
York County/
Naval Shipyarc
Kennebec
County /VA
Hospital
i
i
i
Agency
Air
Force
Navy
Navy
VA
Rated
Capac .
l,OOOI?;hr
3 @ 66 ea
2
-------
w
,'tff. A-iJt:*
M L ' •* ''4
j r..< \ s. " -**>**.^\""
> i-.jiK:.'. ^-i
,°i
A MM>>^ •***«-?*£+-•*] M«h,.Ci ?V
,A ^.>-»i* 4* ^-.-^. : • j»%iV /
c.'._..-i . - , \ . I/ .^_-_ °1-^ C- t
-------
Maryland
B
C
, ,
r-:
A
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Baltimore SMSA
Fort Meade
Georges County
Andrews AFB
Baltimore SMSA
Naval Academy
Baltimore SMSA
Naval Ship R&D
Center
Baltimore SMSA
Aberdeen Prov-
ing Ground
Frederick
County /Ft.
De trick
Agency
Army
' Air
Force
Navy
Navy
Army
Army
Rated
Capac.
'1,0000/hr
5 @ 13.8 e<
3 @ 45 ea.
3 @ 21 ea.
3 @ 33 ea.
2 @ 52 ea.
2 @ 29. 5ea
3 @ 100 ea
1 @ 20
1 @ 25 -
2 @ 40 ea
3 @ 53ea.
1 @ 20
1@2
2 @ 35ea.
1 @ 17
1
-------
Maryland
1
c
K
A
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Baltimore SMSA
VA Hospital
Baltimore SMSA
Fort Howard
VA Hospital
Wash.,D.C.
SMSA/Suitland
Heating &
Ref rig. Plant
Baltimore
SMSA/Ft. Meade
Heating Plant
Washington, D.C
SMSA/Germantou
Heating Plant
Acency
VA
VA
GSA
GSA
GSA
i
Rated
Capac.
3 @ 16.7
ea
3 @ 12.1
ea
3 @ 35 ea.
1 @ 66
3 @ 60 ea
,
1@8
2 @ 14 ea.
Load
i;000ff/hr.
operate
year-
round
avg. 15.2
avg. 5
*
Type
of
'Firing
'
Date
of
Instal.
•
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
•
Comb.
Firing
X
Refuse
Fac. .
•
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Conu.
Notes
gas and 02 oil
gas and 02 oil
n fuel oil
02 fuel oil
n fuel oil
-------
I ,
-------
Massachusetts
A
B
C
M
A
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Barns table
County/ Otis
AFB
Hampton County
Westover AFB
Boston SMSA/
Watertown
Arsenal
Boston SMSA/
Natick Labs
Boston SMSA/
Han scorn Field
Boston SMSA/
AF Plant 28
(ACCJ)
Boston SMSA/
Bedford VA
Hospital
Boston SMSA/
Brockton VA
Hospital
Springfield-
Chicopee-Holy-
oke SMSA/ North
hampton VA Hos
Boston SMSA/
W. Roxbury VA
Agency
Air
Force
Air
Force
Army
Army
Air
Force'
Air
Force
VA
VA
VA
VA
Rated '
Capac.
l,000?/hr
3 Q 31.2
ea.
2 @ 16.3ea
2 @ 23 e*
3 @ 45 ea.
1 @ 22
3 @ 20 ea.
3 g 53 ea.
1 @ 52
3 @ 60 ea.
total
1 g 21
1 @ 21.9
2 @ 35 ea.
1 @ 22.6
2 @ 30.4 e£
1 6 11
2 @ 19 ea.
f
1 @ 16.5
2 @ 31.3 ea
Load
2 on in
winter
avg.
48.000 1W
hr
Type
of
Firing
Spreader
Stoker
Date
of
Instal.
2-1954
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
41.5
Comb.
Firing
50
Refuse
Fac.. .
31.1
. Suppl;
Other
Fed.
1.8
'
-------
ewburyoort
/ OrJorth Adam*
PHUfielU
'° M ' A S DS
' O Lawrence c Gloucester
LoweU 0 Beverly
5 N w p O Lyn*0° Salem
Somerrille-/! „
Cambridge^ Boston
-------
Michigan
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Detroit SMSA/
Detroit Tank
Plant
Chippewa Count
Kincheloe AFB
Marquette
County/ K.I.
Sawyer AFB
, ^
M
C73
A
Detroit SMSA/
Selfridge ANCB
Dickenson
County/Iron
Ht. VA Ilosp.
lasco County/
Wurtsmith AFB
Ann Arbor
SMSA/ V A Hosp.
Agency
Army
Air Fore
AirForce
AirForce
VA
AirForce
VA
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
3@ 60 ea.
,4045 ea.
2@ 30 ea.
2@ 16 ea.
6@ 45 ea.
4
-------
Michigan
c
\
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Calhoun County
VA Hosp.
Saginaw SMSA/
\ Hosp
Calhoun County,
Federal Center
A
Agency
VA
VA
GSA
Rated '
Capac.
1,0000/hr
&
-------
r "s •/ , • -T^, •
\» t & f iBw-v fi'wa V*W«.>v» >-•
B«o«.,•-• -'.-«*« S""
); Hwbor., ' *•«*.- ,' '• •
-------
Minnesota
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Minneapolis-
St. Paul SHSA/
Twin Cities AA
Minneapolis-
St. Paul SMSA/
Minneapolis VA
Hospital
Stearns County
St. Cloud VA
Hospital
Asencv
Army
'
VA
' VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000ff/hr
3 9 85 ea
4 @ 100 ea
4 @
18. 5 ea
1 @
17-25
2 9
21 ea.
2 @
18 ea.
Load
I'.OOOfl/hr
avg:
105
•
Type
of
Firittg
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
i
Comb'. ™
Firing
Z
' Refuse
Fac.
! Suppl)
Other
Fed.
' (tpd)
Com...
Notes
gas
1 on gas; 5 on 85
fuel oil
gas and 92 oil
-------
\ ..
CrooKstc»i
I I
\Mcorhead
Blrntsvlle
Veckmridf*
Fostton
o Bigliy
,. i J-^CMIPP£W<_
#liifT
M I N1 N E
' ,Wh«ton , .
.'.' ' ' Gunwood
Pr.ir«
___ .
BuWllo y, o k> WMl Bll'
• '
Diwson
o I °Monlevideo
ouU Park o, '
! Gnn.te Fills HuicK-rnco- Bloolpington o It Piui /
1 O eOlwi Giincot" ""i,n»r-s Hismiaso
I 5C.nbx i. .. i/"»c» s.oox . R iStiiJf P*v*'t
oBelli Fij.r.e
' Mtrshill
Glylord
\
Roch«t«r y,-inonax
5.1 C-i- «'
P.«s
jverr.
/' "i»5.agr
Au«tin
'A -
C«'«:" • '..
\
130<
-------
Mississippi
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Harrison Count;
Gulfport VA
Hospital
Jackson SMSA/
Jackson VA
Hospital
Harrison Count;
Keesler AFB
C.J
A
Agency
/ VA
VA
/ Air
Force
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
18.4
14.2
8.5
27.5
17.5
10
3 @
33. 4 ea.
Load
Type
of
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
J.
Refuse
Fac. .
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Conu. .
Notes
gas and 02 oil
gas and 92 oil
natural gas
-------
-' ' Hnnando
f '. Hnnando Ashlandl .
Wei ^ I/"*"* S(K'"«* «J r ""^ -r HC
L / * • ij«r FOR o°
"- / . pStnatobia....,;
> / . --=-J^ fNw Albany
^ SI *"'- • I • °B§I
f£ • ~~-- eMlrt" I" "** Ponlotoc. ,« o .
• • . w a Tuptto Fulton'
-*«—
ulwt"'
uwt'
,
, -• ~.-.^-- oSrtntdt ,
Clmii'nd
WMI Po.nl •- "
<
.Creanwood Eut>0"o
'.(.Ltli-m . ,,,.B«. ^ Columbui-O
Ag " . indiinol, S(.rk,,He - |
f'\ Aektrnun 4/"__ \^ NCXUBEE^
j ---i ' r- A ro«B/«SE£| " * J ^ «•»-- j
4*M^ ^^r .L(<) > «-r«w'-.4i-i1^,
» ~ *A200 S --'•.,* ---- "I o I "U/f I
,!p -y vi£ft__ _J:g jP»f«hl °KoKiusto : M*c°" .,
ViRollinfi.*
s is i s s i p P i 1
OoCil, i C.rth,,, ^\? „ , £!«,,;,. j
' Canton'
e | s* IHO Kt*
^cwUJaCk8<^
'' J I Nf J
lUMWNwM i ' Qg,,m,n.
CnfllalSpfmn | '-•J '*
V i -*
V \ . ^ "' IT"-l'*l"V'»f 1 ^_ j ,_^ .
./— , Port Gibson \ i oMtndanhall °R c •
t \ Hazlehurst0 V |'"•«•» «
fayttteo ; ^ JHOMOCHITTO t j "o i(aytiest>oro0V ,
**$ j< "*T MonMcdlo
i'1'' r- /'' ~>c«j ?
0 Summit i --columbu '*-.. OHittta«burg •
-->,
' Poollrvillt f •
(Z i'-">_jjul
' -ro^
"-1 !•••*«•'« o '
».1^i :
_., i ; H ? i
v> .
V «Picnui« - ^ Moss
Gulfport Po.nl ^ (
,^JM Christian O o:i__i °
, Bay o ° Buon p,jc,jouia
Saint Louis .
V- ,-->'•• fo,«.N
-------
Missouri
j
I
c
t-
c
c
'
/
SMSA-
County/
Plane
St. Louis SMSA/
Jefferson
Barracks Hosp.
Johnson County
Hhiteman AFB
Kansas City
kSMSA/Richards-
JCebaur AFB
J
Lake City AAP
Pulaski County
/Fort Leonard
Wood
Boone County/
Columbia VA
Hospital
Kansas City
SMSA/VA Hosp.
Butler County
Poplar Bluff
VA Hospital
St. Louis SMSA/
' St. Louis VA
Hospital
Agency
VA
/ Air
Force
Air
Force
Army
Army
VA
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
1.0000/hr
3@ 33 ea.
3@ 35 ea.
4@ 138.5
total
3@ 25 ea.
1@ 10 -
3@ 20 ea.
2@ 18 ea.
3@ 27 ea.
20 46 ea.
2760 total
3@ 19 5 ea
3@ 12 3 ea
(
3@ 18 8 ea
Load
r,000ff/hr
winter :
35
avg:
28
Type
of
FiritiR
Dace
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Z
Refuse
Fac. .
•
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com*..
Notes
gas
gas; boilers were
designed to accomo-
date spreader stokers
natural gas and fuel
oil
gas
oil; 46f0000/hr
boilers are package
boilers
gas and 02 oil
gas and 02 oil
gas and 02 oil
gas and 06 oil
-------
Belnany
Ktrkjwllt
E*
Gil
ht.
c Cameron
lint Joseph
B'«*'""'
*w,»\>
V - £«c«liior Soring. Carrollton L N.,,
^ op,,^*"' ' >^:w' s,.,.
Marlhill1
rTfensasCjtv 8w«««i """""'
'^'o51""""" " ~^;~"^
Wwfensbi
HoWen «
. Ose«ia
N««),
G'e.1nfi.l()
*I s s
Bolivi
! . nC,-,h
t".«. Springfield
Cape Girardeau ^.
- iMounl
-
yu«
-^~e" o^-
134<
-------
Montana
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Great Falls
SMSA/
Malmstrom AFB
Fort Harrison
VA/Hospital
Custer County/
Miles City VA
Hospital
A'
. Rated
Capac .
Acencv 1 1,0000/hr,
\ir
Force
I/A
I/A
> @ 13. 4 ea,
LO
2 @ 12 ea.
) @ 10 .Sea.
•
Load
1',0000/hr
winter :
12.4
Type
. of
FiriYig
Date
of
Instal.
1940
(convert.-
1960)
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Z
Refuse
Fac.. .
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Corn...
Notes
gas; limited space
gas and 82 oil
02 oil
-------
Montana
SMSA-
) County/
Plant
Great Falls
SMSA/
Ma 1ms tr on AFB
Fort Harrison
VA/Hospital
Custer County/
Miles City VA
Hospital
CO
s?
. Raced
Capac.
Agency I 1,0000,/hr
Mr
Force
VA
VA
I 9 13. 4 ea
LO
I @ 12 ea.
I @ 10 .Sea.
Load
1',0000/hr
winter :
12.4
Type
of
Date
of
Instal.
1940
(convert.-
1960)
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
2
Refuse
Fac- .
s Supplj
Other
Fed.
r (tpd)
Com... .
Notes
gas; limited space
gas and 82 oil
#2 oil
-------
iF
fe> ***'
'K $$>.'•
.v~'f' H*^
v^-v^-"*
:'%Tl^---
'f^^^^^
/'^ •••-^ •-'°"-<^<( •***!»
: Jo^-r^^-^A^t"^
:.-}«?£'&•¥>. '% ^V--/.
^"^•-;;A ^W*
,- "^^ - .- -i ','.,\'<'-
-------
Nebraska
SMSA-
Councy/
Plant
Hall County/
Grand Island
VA Hosp.
Lincoln SKSA/
JLncoln VA Hosp
Omaha SMSA/
Omaha VA
Hosp.
03
cc
A
Acencv
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000fl/hr
39 11.3 ea
3@ 8. 62 Sea
3@ 12. Sea.
Load
i;OOOS/hr
Type
of
Date
of '
Instal.
Refusp
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Z
Refuse
Fac.. .
! Supplj
Other
Fed.
' (tpd)
Com.. .
Notes
gas and 92 oil
gas and 02 oil
gas and #5 oil
-------
.Co*
Ch,^ Gordon, »-•= weSJ._|
V"~. F ' '- • T- "
•/T^Otr MinQRARA N W R oB«tt* "^^ ^ ^ -maf^~
l~\
' sifxzs.
' I ;
i ;
' i H»»niirii/'otd0
l|
, | 0AI!,inc«
.y 'wood Lake0
1 ' l_»< v* »
^L~L~
• - ' 1
4 H inn.s "uneno
1 GMj£f* I llr 0-f-ifNT :»iev*
Spencer" --^ /HwiTS* VX
•'•''-' >^fli- «r« ^5'3T;v,
| " ^ J,> "% '^
Atkinioni oO'Ne.H i * '" Laur«l| o«kola Citj*
i 0Pla.~.e« oi,.^^ _ A
]
Thtdford _j[
5a>^
NAT \fOR
5,Trvon ' l\
"f>
"*:^ y.. ifViiVivtB^wv L — |
OP,«« " Ip.Jss-^-H
N«h«h°l TlWtn ^ ofcMM* ' »K V,
_ -.- 1— — *-• ^tsnton Ljo"* P
• V»«t 0 oOakU'*''
Madison- , „ , . ,,
''•' -•:/, " 0 oBurH" '>v- ' 'i 0Newrn»n Grove '
k
S' 1/JAIbiOn A \
|\ l» j BI""0*.Jv
I i ,.,»'P 9chuyl«»0 | p^nmoto "' N V »
SupWon"
0Bro»en Bo« Fulleftonl -' Columbus" E»»l 0-"a»i«.
r* 1 - V«"«T ~
. :- i.:/'1 oiv.dC.ty, Omaha $
LMpCit^o • _ °W.hoo :A,
Ogaiun 0N""h P1>'"
O
i- •-.
f '
Gothtnburt"
"G.aol
t.
0Curt,«
gStockvilte
Impvft*!0
• . . ^-.
W«uwti
* C.mb,.dg.
Trenton oMcCook
Seavei
,..,,,.,* "Sl'omjburj T
„„„, city ! AMiiantl0
'' GrandUtan^ ^v S«««rd, ; weep.n«"
"^—Kton . *"„•"-« r'°" i L^01" t
Kearn*vJ ° 0F"«<1< ' "!pb'»^.»
nElwood oSutton
o! oOtncv* jo Peru^
I °M.nd«n Center' c ^ t>u'n
Holdrne" \
MO""jf'ooB"""
0O»lord 1 ,(1 _ ^ «»>ITHI'*
C.tyo Frankl.n Rrt Cloud (jeihler0 ' Pa-i«< dlv ra!>
Benkglmm a ', * ~ ,~ .Superior - — — — ' " '~
-------
Nevada
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
tineral County/
NAD, Hawthorne
Nev.
Reno SMSA/
Reno VA Hosp.
e
A
Agency
Navy
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
1@ 20
3@ 5.2 ea.
Load
Type
of
'Firi-ng
Date
of '
Tnstal.
Refusf
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac- .
1
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com...
Notes
#6 oil
//6 oil
-------
* — J^' "'
jJQ RUBY V ULt V / A
°Curn«
•/>*
0Mc3ill I 1
i < H*! S i Lv//i|
h i —'• li ''•s. I
1 «">T L V I r B«V«-I
''••$& TO,*^'
I
Searchlight \
J
\«e^
V
\
-------
New Hampshire
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Rockingham
County Pease
AFB
Manchester
SMSA/Manchestr
VA Hosp.
A
Agency
AlrForce
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr
2@ 110
3@ 10 ea.
Load
i;0000/hr
Type
of
Firing
Date
of '
Instal.
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac.. .
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com-..
Notes
gas
96 oil
-------
Oi
?* <<
U
V
;*>
V ^
''"•rfBtVii
jV.
/' ^-Y ^^?- v.
^ rtylhciilK.^ •
• --.',„
r-
Funklin
i r \f
Roch«5l«r
, .
°\
* Kttru" ;
/ .- c -»
' Plttf&oroujM«
''^ Manchester
Hi
Nashuao
143<
-------
New Jersey
SMSA-
r Coun ty/
Plant
Philadelphia
SMSA/Fort Dix
N.Y. -Northern
N.J SMSA/
Bayonne MOT
Monmouth Count
iCFort Monmouth
ii
i,
N.Y. -Northern
N.J. SMSA/
Pica tinny
Arsenal
Philadelphia
SHSA/HcCuire
AF3
Ocean County/
Lakehurst MAS
N.Y. -Northern
N.J. SMSA/
Naval AIP
Propulsion
Test Lab
N.Y. -Northern
N.J. SMSA/ East
Orange VA
Hospital
Agency
Army
Array
Army
Army
Air Forc«
Navy
Navy
VA
Rated '
Capac.
l,OOOtSttr
2@ 34 ea.
2@ 40 ea.
8@ 50 ea.
3@ 60 ea.
10 81
20 20 ea.
2@ 29 ea.
4@ 39 ea.
2(3 10 ea.
10 45
2@ 31 ea.
4@ 50 ea.
39 35 ea.
10 45
3@ 40 ea.
4@ ,26 ea.
Load
l>000ff/hr
Type
of
Tiring
-
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capae.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Z
Refuse
Pac.. .
"
s Supplj
Other
Fed.
f (tpd)
Com*..
Hoces
only 3 of 8,50,000ff/
hr boilers were once
coal; all are now oil
oil; 81,000 #/hr
boilers la package
type
oil
oil; 45.000 f/hr
boiler is package
type
natural gas
06 oil
06 oil
06 oil
-------
New Jersey
SMSA-
County/
Plant
N.Y. -Northern
N.J. SMSA/
Lyons VA
Hospital
N.Y. -Northern
N.J. SMSA/
Gamerville VA
Hospital
rfk
A
Agency
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr
15
18
2@ 26 ea.
3@ 9 ea.
Load
i;0000/hr
-
Type
of
Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
cpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac.. .
Supply
Other
Fed.
' (tpd)
Com...
Notes
gas and 92 oil
06 oil
-------
/Hwr«M.2SS"*W
M=*"iw fcEHLJr
146<
-------
New Mexico
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Albuquerque
SMSA/
Kir t land
AFB
Albuquerque
SMSA/
VA Hospital
3?
Agency
Air
Force
VA
Rated
Capac .
l,000///hr
4@ 30 ea
12 ea
12.1
12.6
Load
lTOOOi?/hr
Type
of t
'Firing
Date
of
Instal.
1952
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac -. .
• Suppl}
Other
Fed.
T (tpd)
Com...
Notes
gas, no APC
gas 92 oil
-------
fcY f,«**aw ^-r^ ^
P»'« Tj
Shit
F.nningt
-------
New York
SMSA-
r County/
Plant
Senesse County/
Jatavia VA
{ospital
Jew York SMSA/
fontrose VA
{ospital
New York SMSA/
Castle Point
VA Hospital
few York SMSA/
Brooklyn MOT •
m
t&
C0
A
Orange County/
US Military
Academy
Mbany County/
fetervliet
Arsenal
Utica-Rome SMS/
Jriffiss AFB
Agency
VA
VA
VA
Army
Army
Army
/ Air
Force
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
10
4 @
25.3ea.
1 @ 12
2 @ 20 ea
4 6 15 ea.
186
2 @ 48 ea
2 € 95 ea
4 9 100 ea
/
Load
l;0000/hr
'
Type
of
"FirteR
Date
of
Instal.
1966
1950
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Z
Refuse
Fac...
'
! Supplj
Other
Fed.
r (tpd)
Com^. .
Notes
gas; have an
Incinerator
gas and 92 oil
oil
oil; additionally -
2 oil C 28,000 0/hr
ea) tube configura-
tion prevents
conversion
oil; additionally -
4 oil (2 6 206,000
0/hr ea and 2 @
43.000 0/hr ea)
oil; limited space
oil
-------
New York
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Clinton County
Plattsburgh
AFB
Albany-
Schenectady-
Troy SMSA/
Albany VA
.Hospital
Pi
BBteuben County
[Bath VA
Hospital
New York SMSA/
Bronx VA
Hospital
New York SMSA/
Brooklyn VA
Hospital (Ft.
Hamilton)
Buffalo SMSA/
Buffalo VA
Hospital
New York SMSA/
Northport VA
Hospital
Agency
1 Air
Force
VA
1 VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr
6 (3 50 ea
4
-------
New York
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Clinton County
Plattsburgh
AFB
Albany-
Schenectady-
Troy SMSA/
Albany VA
Hospital
feSteuben County
.Bath VA
Hospital
New York SMSA/
Bronx VA
Hospital
New York SMSA/
Brooklyn VA
Hospital (Ft.
Hamilton)
Buffalo SMSA/
Buffalo VA
Hospital
New York SMSA/
Northport VA
Hospital
Agency
f Air
Force
VA
/ VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
6 @ 50 ea
A
-------
'
\
\
!
p
^ " 1
1
o
Wesiln i
Jamcntown
•• ... °
0
'
Medina 0
oKockpftrt A'bKSn
0 North *"v *
o "vn'°
Lackawanna 0
Sprmgville f
,-f
j-tlamanca Belmont0
Olean0 j
S
jjC***,
jri ^ o
S * Cm
f/yt'^u , •
1* ft • >'•'.
;y1Mexftndria Bay '•'-
A
Js
i v£p
/ *••<*>
,\ r A tf '
^v. "".' --
Br^kpo^r -' '
\ Rochester
ZHtflI\ O -
•V ir rt N**»»rl»
"* ~ | Senco.i
/ « G«n«
i*ffV Y»"0
Dan&vill«
N £
Bath
o o
Hornelt
°W«llsville
,
o-' ).*
i^V
-*^° ^U(tica
-A Hwmmir"
r i O *""** IfZfwA N w a ., '
fl o "
1 0
\1\J Cor t
O Ithaca
Walkini Glen
El™» o«gocE'^i
, ° Hjm.lton
md
On«onla
D
Sidney c _{
Walton
ntt
^ A "
'
-------
North Carolina
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Ons low County/
Camp Lejeune
Fayet teville
SMSA/Fort
Braggs
yjk
C/l
CO
A
Craven County./
Cherry Point
Marine Corp.
Air Station
Wayne County
Seymour John-
son AFB
Fayet teville
SMS A/
Fayetteville
VA Hospital
Agency
Navy
Army
Navy
Air Force
VA
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
4 9 100 ea
17
25
4 @ 26 ea
4 9 38 ea
3 @ 95 ea
3 @ 35 ea
1 @ 45 ea
2 @ SO ea
2 @ 25 ea
2 @ 12 ea
1 @ 8.6
Load
1',0000/hr
max: 360
Type
of
"FirlYiR
Stoker
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
177
Comb.
Firing
Z
SO
Refuse
Fac.. .
175
! Supplj
Other
Fed.
3.1
' (tpd)
Corn*..
50.4
Notes
Gas - originally
coal: 3 @ 95,000
0/hr ea; 1
-------
North Carolina
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Oteen VA
Hospital
Rowan County/
Salisbury VA
Hospital
Crt
A
Agency
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
3 @ 17.5
ea
3 @ 28.1
ea
Load
r.OOOfl/hr
Type
of
Firi-ng
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac. .
Supply
Other
Fed.
' (tpd)
Com... .
Notes
gas and //2 oil
gas and #2 oil
-------
-=• -^X^^&^-r-
-.... TT^-T-fjJf \ Asx.[ ,
, V4 -'v* r'StotttwBis. V
-------
North Dakota
SMSA-
t County/
Plant
Ward County/
Minot AFB
Grand Forks
County/Grand
Forks AFB
Fargo-Moorhead
SMSA/Fargo VA
Hosp.
M
A
Agency
AirForce
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
51? 25 ea.
1@ 42
i
j
AirForce
VA
-
20 25 ea.
2@ 45 ea.
4@ 6.5 ea.
Load
i;0000/hr
Type
of
'Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Coino*
Firing
Z
Refuse
. Supplj
Other
Fed.
' (tpd)
Com*..
Notes
natural oil; one
boiler could be
converted to burn
lignite
06 oil
gas & 92 oil
-------
: '*«t z*
** W 19
fvmn
L.k. .
0T'0«« •
» ;J LOSTWtoO
" . w K
no ns RocMik.*
: • C.ndo"
Towow " . •
LAKE N W a
nt W jig Q
'Mvwr
0Fr>v«l.<
0N C.!/
"LilchkiHe
"Lisbon
L« Motirt0
Wyndirer*
157<
-------
Oklahoma
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Oklahoma SMSA/
Tinker AFB
/AF Plant «
(ACFH)
Muskogee
County
Muskogee VA
Hospital
Oklahoma City
S! ISA/Oklahoma
City VA
Hospital
VA Hospital/
Tuskegee
I).
Agency
Air
Force
Air
Force
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
XOOOfl/hr
3 § 20 ea.
4 @ 80 ea.
3 9 100 ea
1 @ 80 '
2 @ 100 ea
3 8 7. ea^e
3 @ 19 ea.
2 @ 30.'.2
ea.
1 @ 24.2
Load
1',0000/hr
i •
. Type'
• of
Firm*
Date
of
Inscal.
Refuse
Capac.
cpd.
COULD*
Firing
Refuse
Fac. .
t Supplj
Other
Fed.
f (tpd)
Com.. .
Notes
gas
gas
gas and 12 oil
gas and 82 oil
gas and f6 oil
-------
Bo.ic.i,
"••«
I ^
I , BuM.lo "% Al»o ji,
i»ne ^n. SAtr 01AIKS N W »
._
Ir
X i
BUck«H
o
Ponca City
INDIAN ,
.<> B.rnid.110
1 i O
Enid
Shjltuek
OhMIU
StUlwater0,
I CK»«l>'nd" ' -L
S»nd Springs
| 0W.t<«g.
-t .... —
r Cu&iing Orumnghl
Chcyenn*
,* Erick
I • Guthru
Kingfisher
~-. • "•"»<, i tomona
^ 0 c!:'"K LE"*J: A ° H
Vty
Stroud
o
"Chlndltr
Br.sto
.Jw\
Tub*
-o^-*"
o
M.,k.l
Gihion
h .
SHI»«ll
1 Cordr N
Norman
O ' Ttc
- HotMrt
«** '* •••
C""et" An.d,,k<,0 ! "CHickash. Purr,,,
irjrelttl ,' •
k«° Sti(k»
'.• \t'vfr °Eu'«uU °
ptUni
,
\
V
Ao«ctw°
QJUwton
Plull Vllkty
Wynncwood
W«utik»l
,Ry«n
• °jj i
OOM
Ardmore
-------
Ohio
A
h
0
c
I
B
C
»
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Columbus SMSA
Rickenbacker
Air Force
Base
Dayton SMSA
Defense
Electric
Supply Ctr.
i Dayton SMSA
i Wright -
5 Patterson
Air Force
Base
Cincinnati
SMSA/VA
Hospital
Dayton SMSA/
VA Hospital
Cleveland
SMSA/
Brecksville
VA Hospital
Ross County/
Chillicothe
VA Hospital
Agency
Air
Force
Air
Force
Air
Force
VA
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
3(3 31 ea
49 31.2 ea
2
-------
Ct.nn.lut
CedllWnl
Biyin
>' " N.
pokonj
'
^
«** s^ - -
' X 'flintwillt
"=ro«r i~o EucUd " E»ti.«
nd H«4ght»
Shaker Height. .
.
01
Q Prm»
Elyri. P
««
uww S.MU.KV Bucyrus
°*1>h0! Oliim. , ^Manifldd yv°°
1°
Alliance o S"V
• Mawillon z«n piitnim o
"
MMMMM1 iBn I
00 /
it«< Canton / --- „
M™ «"*• •*•—-"• , : Eaa/Uverpoolpj
W.pakoneli Kenton V- 'v.. Millnsbu'i.
.O ,— " I O
c
.
Portsmouthj^- . V. ^A , N*r j r
^ «' - >
-------
Oregon
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
damdth County/
Kingsley Field
Portland SMSA/
VA Hosp.
Douglas County
/Roseburg VA
Kosp.
Jackson County
/White City VA
Hosp
CTi
A
Agency
Air
Force
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr
2@ 12.5ea.
10 14.5
3@ 15.6 ea
3@ 10 ea.
4@ 10.4ea.
1@ 12.7
Load
winter:
14
summer : 7
Type
of
'Firi-ng
spreader
stoker
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
12
Comb.
Firing
X
50
Refuse
Fac- .
6.9
•
Supplj
Other
Fed.
0.8
• (tpd)
Com*. .
37
Notes
waste from Klamath
Falls
t6 oil
gas and 92 oil
gas and 92 oil
-------
£
CO
A
Kmchelo. Point cOme.!,!,
Capt M»f rtfci. T;..-_ HilUbwo
;]*ta. T^pT
.SUyta. f «-'Ki
\ o J OprtnJB.
1 RMnUnd ™ ,
. .
I--/ U--fi«n«^ K%«
fr—Jte--
Qjcxoeo n\r ^ f f L.
>- 'SuthtfliJ j
/f '"."
'. ( VAI Wf Wff N W ft
J _ j!3
-------
Pennsylvania
A
B
u
0
rf
c
'
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Monroe County/
Tobyhanna
Army Depot
Pittsburgh
kSMSA/VA Hosp.
i
Pittsburgh
SMSA/New
Cumberland
Army Depot
Harrisburg
SMSA/Carlialc
Barracks
Frankford
Arsenal
Philadelphia
SMSA/Naval
Shipyard
Philadelphia
SM5A/ASO
Altoona SMSA/
Altoona VA
Hospital
BUtler County
Butler VA Hosp
Agency
Army
VA
Army
Army
Army
Navy
Navy
t
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
4
-------
Scrartton ' \M'"'»"
iMling
"* ?
ir« s
^ Pott«vui« Allentown-^°'
Ihuntinidwi X"^"'-^ I oEmm.us
'£T^~~I Wntyfilo •'-"' JK. ' "«» Blwmfuld^"^ / Qu«l«rtO«n o
HnH^.w.h.,,.^-v/ / '• > _•{• \ u-banoTi j Reading Ooyle
WMto ^!»^S^ -"""' EP!!""
/ ^onnefisvihc^mtnet B«dVd
O '-'luuuiuwn
S •"" "*^o ^ ' -• Cb
r . v j N , GctlyU>u/a c Hir.owei
M«iMiU I ^^j o t«,,M»«»iL«. '••«
CArlislc . •.< ., M'ddietown ,. Nomstown O
JTT ^JL.. _J!!^l^^ 1 %^"o PHlLADELPHlVf V^
0^h'^"'bUr!> ^York U°C"t" w.;, C^., f(?
o ,-^^t« "^Vu ' Ch »"*->r ^~
lM*«*rtrtii-- ' ' • \ I N ' UeUySpu/g ,c HVrOVti -^«.*v -i * **^
'U««»HK* I XF flt«^,M»«»»inw. *"« • • ' - ^!^ /• s. \
165<
-------
Rhode Island
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Newport Count]
/Public Works
Center
Providence
Warwick SMSA/
Providence VA
Hosp.
.?
Agency
Navy
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000f/hr
30 60 ea.
1<§ 50
2@ 80 ea.
2@ 75 ea.
1@ 100
3@ 15.5 ea.
Load
Type
of
"Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac-. .
'
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com._ .
Notes
#6 oil
46 oil
-------
,
t H O D'TBr,.,
/•LAND
| Newport Q
. '« . Potnt
£ Block lilind ,
L
167<
-------
South Carolina
A
C
e*r
GL
A
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Augusta SMS A/
Savannah
River
Beaufort
County/Pare is
Island
Beaufort
County/Naval
Hospital
Charleston
SMSA/Charlesto
AFB
Charleston
SMSA/VA
Hospital
Columbia
SMSA/VA
Hospital
Columbia
SMSA/Fort
Jackson
Agency
ERDA
Navy
Navy
Air
iForce
VA
VA
Army
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
2,470
(19 boilers
4 fl 50 ea.
3 e 21 ea.
4 6 50 ea.
3 6 20 ea.
3 0 16.2
5 $ 38 ea.
2 0 39 ea.
2 @ 60 ea.
Load
peak:
1,898
1
avg:
1,055
Type
of
Firing
p . c . and
spreader
stokes
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
1095
Comb.
Firing
Z
50
Refuse
Fac. .
i.3
i Supplj
Other
Fed.
0.4
' Ctpd)
Conu. .
204
Notes
vaste from Aiken
:ounty, ESP' s are
mder construction
latuxal gas
latural gas
76 fuel, oil
f
;aa and 92 oil
;as and 92 oil
gas; boilers %
39,000 0/hr are
package types
-------
&rSrtfo1^! ——• T » «__
J. G.H«^ oB^fcrt.,,,-
A D =*-r\ 'l I ILI A"
A. R
,
Gf«X|«lo*n
.
'- ••' ': Cap« Rom.ir,
Charleston
:»-- I ^3-ORT SUMTC*
HAT MON
~
169<
-------
South Dakota
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Ft. Meade VA
Hosp.
Fall River
County/Hot
Springs VA
Hosp
Sioux Falls
SMSA/VA
Hosp.
0
A
Agency
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr
3@ 17.5 ea
3@ 18.2 ea
1@ 16.3
1@ 24.6
Load
I'.OOOfl/hr
,
.
Type
of
Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac-. .
> Supply
Other
Fed.
' (tpd)
Com... .
Notes
gas and #2 oil
02 oil
gas and #2 oil
-------
•&m* T
v_«*r_~ ,
13' T>o« •> i '">•-
/ B,«.to, _>7".r-4-~^-^_/
^ CUITlW I _ .I.KM
•MTMUMVj-^L ." "\
i*.™^ •"ixT v -- •
•—.^. **taf'
r- x N^
i
I1
\ x> i L ' •
'•£Sk»wrio«>^ ^vW:/«»j'y'T *"**
^v^f"T:" ?)^H '">•
sHZ*n ^"~ ' ' -"'"• •
-S *M<*;r^\ j » ^ !£,„, tJ.,
~*-4' 0(1 •*.'••
J S - -»*.»4.
i *.'~r i'
si«/^.j/r' -• %^v v - ^-^
.- « J \ ->li«iin». f
j ^rLv."p ,4c^ V^^- «A *
H^^.p^tD^'A "^K *^f£\ 7°-'°V." "
r ,w.»w v~>\ i ."•«• >.„,,.„»• ^
/ (Miuioe> /II5f*V3M ' p1 -^ > *Frmiw" , c«^wf
""' • "*T"-j> 4-:,»*"O''"*f*"/' * "seotu^^^ r J^"^'
"•>~'1"_T- (
-------
Tennessee
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Memphis /Allen
Knoxville/
Bull Run
Stewart Coun
County/
Cumberland
Summer County
/Callaten
Hawkins
County/
Sevier
Humphreys
County/
Johnsville
Roane County/
Kingston
>.
Rhea County/
Watts Barr
Agency
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
Rated
Capat.
l,000ff/hr
39 330 MW
ea
950 MW
under cons
4- total:
1255.2 MW
4@ 205.8
MW ea
6@ 132.3
MW ea
4
-------
Tennessee
A
C
t
•«
C
-/
i
\
i
V
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Sullivan
County/
Holston AAF
Oakridge N
National
/Volunteer AAF
\
[ Memphis SMSA,
) Naval Air
Station
Tullahoma
County/
AEDC
Memphis SMSA
VA Hospital
Rutherford
County/
Murfrcesboro
VA Hospit.il
Mountain
Home VA
' Hospital
Agency
Army
ERDA
Army
Navy
Air
Force
VA
VA
VA
Raced
Capac.
l.OOOWhr
)P 185ea.
30 135 ea.
40 40 ea
40 250 ea
10 100
40 75 ea
30 125 ea
20 150 ea
40 50 ea
10 24
30 72 ea
10 50.4
20 38 ea
10 20
30 25 ea
10 38 ea
10 21
Load.
avg 500
avg 577
Type
of .
'Firing
traveling
5-pc
11- stokers
Dace
of
Instal.
1942
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
425.5
858
Comb.
Firing
Z
50
'50
Refuse
Fac. .
1.8
14
•
Supplj
Other
Fed.
0.5
1.4
r (tpd)
Com*..
76
63.5
Notes
have 3 ESPs .
Installed and
3 ESPs out for
bids; waste from
Kingsport
waste from
Oak Ridge
gas, package
boilers
gas
gas and 82
oil
gas and 12
oil
gas and 02
oil
-------
•'.-1
-------
Texas
•B
C
SMSA-
County/
Plant
El Paso SMSA/
Ft. Bliss
Horn AAP/Long
Red River
County /Red
River AAP
Corpus Christ i
SMSA/Naval Air
Station
Fort Worth SMS;
AF Plant 4
(ACFJ)
San Antonio
SMSA/Brooks
AFB
San Antonio
SMSA/Kelly AFB
Amarillo SMSA
VA Hospital
Howard County/
Big Springs VA
Hospital
^ ^
*
Agency
Army
Army
Army
Navy
Air
Force
Air
Force
Air
Force
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
3 @ 8.4 ea
4 @ 95 ea
4 @ 28
2 § 32
4 @ 50 ea
4 @ 100 ea
1 @ 150
3 @ 30 ea
1 @ 60 ea
2 @ 52
2 @ 56
2 (3 67 ea
1
-------
Texas
c
5
ff
SMSA-
Councy/
Plane
/Bonham VA
Hospital
Houston SMSA/
VA Hospital
Kerr County/
Kerrville VA
Hospital
Falls County/
Marlin VA
Hospital
Bell County/
Temple VA
Hospital
Agency
VA'
VA
VA
VA
VA
f
Rated '
Capac.
l,000#/hr
3 @ 96 ea
3 @ 24.2 e
2 9 89 ea
1 6 45
3
-------
1 /."•*"••
vLaredo.
Y '^
v^«i<^ *OL
''ib'
^^
- ,iaM A*:O«IO oat
y''f MlTAGORDA ISLAND
> jy * .Anw Bat
'ty*rj'
SL '
•^Corpus Christi
V / '
^^' Boflu* Bay
(' PADRE fSLANO
/nr'[..S£>»S«O»£
\ f*o*S
La^iM
-Wa
~ ^L^_\ Browni^llt
XMifcmofBt
177<
-------
Utah
B
C
H
•0
OC
A,
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Toocle County
Tooele Army
Depot
Salt Lake C
City SMSA/
Hill AFB
Salt Lake
City SMSA
AF plant 81
(ACJN)
AF Plans 78
(ACJK)
Salt Lake
City SMSA/
VA Hospital
Agency
Army
Air
Force
Air
Force
Air
Force
VA
Raced
Capac.
1,0000/hr
3@ 25 ea
29 21 ea
1 g 28
30 10 ea
2
-------
179<
-------
Vermont
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Windson
County/White
River
Junction VA
Hospital
GO
O
Agency
VA
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
1@ 4.8
2@ 10. Sea.
Load
I,000#/hr
Type
of.
Fir ing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac-. .
. Supply
Other
Fed.
' (tpd)
Com....
Notes
1tf> oil
-------
,.c Stint
j . i- B
. > J
Mornwillc
, w««i^ • s-u
, j^-* -1
^^ 'B'"< r
\ .-1"* White River /
IBEtM \ -\ Junction'
„._ (lutlind 3p
jirw I*1".' WindswJ
{! Sprin,(i«ld
roa> /
i' ' -X o
/ ^fc • OCllOWS
i pjnj 1
~\ ' ••H /
'4. »ittl«boro'
-------
Virginia"
A
B
C
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
Washington, D.C
SMSA/Marlne
Corp Ed.&Dev.
tenter
Montgomery
County /Rad ford
AFB
Wash., D.C.
SMSA/Virsinia
Heat inf. &
RefriR.°lant
h*
tVj
IS5.
A
Washington, D.C
SMSA/Ft.Belvoi
Isle of "ri«1it
County /Ft.
Eustis
Prince George
County/Ft. Lee
Washington, D.C
/Cameron Scat.
Norfold-Ports-
mouth SMSA/
Oceana ?Inval
Air Station
Norfolk-Ports-
mouth SMSA/
Navy Public
UnrV fnnrpr
Anency
Navy
Army
GSA
Rated
Capac .
l,000ff/hr
2@ 28 ea.
2@ 45 ea.
10 55
10120
6@ 30 ea.
5@ 150 ea.
4 § 80 ea.
1 9 125
^
Army
Army
Army
Army
Navy
Navy
38 15.2 ea
2@ 19 ea.
1@ 29
2« 30 ea.
1€ 37
4@24 ea."
10 28
1@ 33
6(3 13 ea.
1@ 30
3@ 60 ea.
i
2@ 83.3ea.
| Load
i;000fl/hr
winter:
210
winter :
350-400
•
avg. 67.6
tnln. 15
rain. 35
Type
of
•Firl-na
P.C.
Stoker
P.C.
stok«r
Date
of
Instal.
L928
193A
1974
1956
1941
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
87
412
142
Comb.
Firing
Z
50
50
50
Refuse
Fac .. .
10-100
2
0.7
! Suppl)
Other
Fed.
2.2
0.15
L88.6
r (tpd)
Conu..
2.2
225
1814
Notes
Plan to install ESP
in 3-4 years, waste
from Quantico, VA.
Installing ESP's;
waste from Rad ford,
VA.
only have mechanical
collectors.
06 fuel oil
oil
oil. 30,000 l/hr
boilers are Inactive
oil
oil
03 fuel oil
02 oil
-------
Virginia
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Norfolk-Ports-
mouth SMSA/
Navy Regional
Medical Center
Newport News-
Hampton SMSA/
Naval Weapons
Station
Ft Myer
Newport News-
Hampton SMSA/
Hampton VA
Hospital
Richmond SMSA/
VA Hospital
Roanoak SMSA/
Salem VA Hosp.
Wash. ,D.C.
SMSA/McLean
Heating &
Ref rig. Plant
\
Agency
Navy
Navy
Army
VA
VA
VA
GSA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
1@23.86
3@35.79ea.
2@ 40 ea.
5@ 40 ea.
3@ 30 ea.
4@ 30 ea.
1@ 24.4
3@ 25 ea.
3@ 50 ea.
Load
l;0000/hr
Type
of
Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
Comb.
Firing"
Refuse
Fac.. .
-
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com*.
Notes
//6 oil
#5 fuel oil
oil; crowded
gas and #2 oil
gas and 92 oil
gas and #2 oil
#6 fuel oil
-------
HU AMI) •» «• tt
-------
Washington
A
B
C
>
C
C
./
C
•.
X
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Benton County/
Rlchland,
Washington
Tacorna SMSA/
Ft. Lewis
Seattle SMSA/
Puget Sound
)Naval Shipyard
3
k Seat tie SMSA/
Naval Supporc
Activity
Spokane SMSA/
Fair child AFB
Tacoitw SMSA/
McChord AF8
America Lake
VA Hospital
Seattle SMSA
VA Hospital
Walla Walla
County /Wai la
Walla Va Hosp.
Agency _
ERDA
Army
Navy
Navy
Air Force
Air Force
VA
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
10 25
10 30
90 80 ea.
40 10 ea.
20 14 ea.
20 25 ea.
40 77.4ea
10 136
. 10 8B. 5
10 197
•
20 17 ea.
10 26.5
10 30
30 llOea.
10 120
19 50
29 lOOea.
10 9.4
20 12 ea.
30 9 ea.
301 10.7ea
Load
X^000#/hr,
min: 77 avj
145 max.
330
Type
of
'Flrins
stoker
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac .
tpd.
136.5
Comb.
Firing
Z
50
Refuse
Fac^.
(9)
i Suppl)
Other
Fed.
0.4
'
Com*..
59
Notes
raste from Richland
>riginally coal-now
oil
P6 oil
12 oil
[as, first 3 were
eaigned to burn coal
if desired
gas
216 oil
-------
. .»*;•«;'« Kisj^y^ x~-> v-i;
*""W r • fclini'fcii %C~' ;f S::- \
o^Bj^xKLti . H Jt]
I ^xr/ON^i
«r f>AMlra
CV«« Ur-vA
,T "Uo- v-
"VK^SO ,f NATIONAL ^\r fltSEPVATIOfJ
\ ^. 'i'\-i..?\ ,1 5 V. •-
'-;4.- w -
.^•ncouver
"^ ^»p"!2*
-------
West Virginia
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Raleigh County
Beckley VA
Hosp.
Huntington-
Ashland SMSA/
Huntington VA
Hosp.
Berkley County
Martinsburg VA
Hosp.
GD
A
Agency
VA
VA
'VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000#/hr
3@ 7.7 ea.
1@ 6.9
2@ 8.625ea
3@ 35 ea.
1@ 23.5
Load
l»000#/hr
Type
of
Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refi^se
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac.. .
! Supplj
Other
Fed.
' (tpd)
Com...
Notes
gas and #5 oil
gas and 92 oil
#2 oil
-------
•c
;""__
N«« M.rtlnsviMe j 5. !"'
1 C'ty Manmngton ..
Marys
Salt"
QiGivfton
-
Parkenburg „ | CUikibni| ph||^
'PP
*">,
itlinbeiho
( / *
\
^
i
-iSainl Aibaw
0GKn»N<
Cy
* wl.>
IC "J^/
X' v
Hid»on
F«y>tttvil«
r
v.
WiPliains)>r
Mount Hope
* Bee
°Pe - Whrt S
-------
Wisconsin
SMSA-
i County/
Plant
1 Monroe County/
Toraah VA Hosp.
Sauk County/
Badger AAP
i
Madison SMSA/
Madison VA
Hosp.
Wood VA Hosp.
•
A
Aaency
VA
Army
VA
VA
Rated
Capac.
1,0000/hr
4@ 18 ea.
5
-------
APOSTLE ISLANDS
Sand Ulindr. :• ."
Uric Point. J~y«-oct/Ff w
y polon^Sprinu |
/ |TV» .'-./^ !—-,._£ Tj; <_ 0>-?,*>*~_
i' .i\i£. '••-— •*•'" i**1^"!. . P- i»c06rt.*M&Aoy^~
-•"••-fVu "•'£• ?/^ I i ""*•- 'K»'*••«"«' Land
gf--"'.-''.^ :H"n"rd° -.-' 4' jgtsrl -" _1.J~'':'1 '->' :
J '••' .
X< ,,- <•*• , I'SWl'L»kt - L
' Gflnlsburg MC COURTf
, lf>PCWA ; ' O/JC/1L£ ; A
V^ __.^0*|«^'T'E«/ff ^ ,.
iKcwxL . p- txc oo fixwtjrx J. r^^N.^
I T-V 'K»-'W«:." LanaJytJlttJ-V
agtsr I T/ : |~v'-1 .--3' ,; \- '^-.
\ 1-*. -i "* °' J
t ,^ ' j , -oRice Lake .--;
/Saini Croi* Barron ° L idysmith
r"'S -t
' / ? AfPtjry Chetek . •'•^'
,
, .Cornell ^°» I '-,
t New Richmond Bloometo ' .' J.H) Meinll
^ ; . ^ weoiwd >
^Hudson" "' 5— j
I IMenomonie «CT.pw»a Falls o"*er
•J 3R,«er Falls |° Eau Claire , Scholield
W c I |S C ^ "
r rtCnhdb' PO7)i* Mi7|net»
p Sturgeon Bay
V
. oNeillwille
.•
°MlrkhfilM •
*'h'i"d ' Cl.r.tonvin, : ON£IDf , oAlgom.
Stevens Pomt • 'NO , ^
Wjsconsm ' «»/ ;6G««°Bay
•R'P'O* Ne. London x , °De Pe-e
Vauojca Little Chjte
°M^0^^tS't
_ 0' pynoatn Q Sheboygnn
Fond du Lac c
/ur^bus * 3
Waterloo
^^•Madison Ocono(-c«oc „ Wauwata«C'^Shore"°0d
J«'^£S9'Lo.-._.- -O _A^iL"'B
v
190<
-------
Wyoming
SMSA-
County/
Plant
Sheridan Count
/Sheridan VA
Hosp
Laramie
County/Cheyenn
VA Hosp.
K
/I
Agency
/
VA
a
VA
Rated
Capac.
l,000///hr.
3@ 18.3 ea
1<§ 5.2
2@ 6.9ea.
Load
Type
of
Firing
Date
of
Instal.
Refuse
Capac.
tpd.
Comb.
Firing
Refuse
Fac. .
Supply
Other
Fed.
(tpd)
Com... .
Notes
gas & //2 oil
-------
fT^S^^.^V^^^- ^*
rr -r \ 'u7T«UT,,uf'lJ "'' • r°V
!»''—«.-. "^' V inSt^*"" Ch«V«n»«
-------
APPENDIX B
193<
-------
STATE: ALASKA
FACILITY Eielson AFB
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
at 50% firing
from facility
from other fed.
from city
from county
Cap . Inv .
1357232
fae. 1363080
1439104
1456648
I
169
fac.
Op. Cost
on-site
25.01
23.88
16.14
15.23
II III
267 172 tpd
11 , ? tpd
2.0 tpd
56 tpd
103 tod
($/ton fired)
t & h total
9t; 01
fi.91 30 13
6.00 2Q.RR
9.10 24.33
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
1798333
1804180
1962076
2227814
on-site
90
-------
ALASKA
60
EIELSONAFB-TYPEII
8
w
CO
I
s
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
31.2 tpd
Facility
33.2 tpd 87.2 tpd
Facility Facility
and Other Fed. and City
103 tpd
County
On-site Operating Costs
Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Benefits
-------
STATE: COLORADO
FACILITY Pueblo Army Depot
Maximum refuse rate at 50% firing
Available refuse
36
from facility
from other fed. fac.
from city
from county
II
60
III
39
(•n)
(140) +3.4
218
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
780407
789179
789179
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
15.84
15.04
15.04
6.SO
4.50
total
is
71 SA
19.54
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
1221507
1300455
1300455
on-site
22.57
15.47
15.47
t & h
7.70
5.20
total
22.57
23.17
?n_fi7
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
717251
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
14.00
firing
17.11
total
31.11
196
-------
COLORADO
60 r-
50 -
40 -
PUEBLO ARMY DEPOT - TYPE II
1
1
^
I
S
1
fy*| On-site Operating Costs
III HI Transfer and Haulage Costs
1 Fuel Value Credit
^yj Disposal Cost Credit
[:;•::• ) Net Benefits
197<
-------
STATE: District of Columbia
FACILITY Steam Plant serving all buildings on Capital Hill
I II III
88 146.7 94.3
Maximum refuse rate at 50% firing tpd
Available refuse from facility 15.2 tpddeeislativG
from other fed. fac.
from city
from county
188.6
tpd
tpd
tpd
branch of
Gov't.)
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
423845
636712
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
17.83
17.81
8.25
11.40
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
864945
1399638
on-site t & h total
29.85 29.85
7.82 2.60 10.42
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
574433
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
f nol
14.00
firing
5.00
total
19.00
1S8<
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CAPITAL HILL STEAM PLANT
Type I
g
w
40 ._
30 _
20 -
10 -
15.2 tpd
Facility
10 -
20 .
30 _
88 tpd
Facility
Type II
15.2 tpd 146.7 tpd
Facility Facility
Type III
94.3 tpd
-
§
V\
- >o
Is
')C\
K
i JJ
. ;.
F
ss
nffifln!
mi II ii ii
eder
v^
9l
i :
-: :
^
\\
v\
^
'V*
>rV
an
F
V
iMi
llliill
a vjiner
ederal
5C
'."'.'.'
§
k\>
Vs
I
i
On-site Firing Cost
Transfer and Haul Cost
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Cost or Benefit
Fuel Value Credit
±32
-------
STATE: District of Columbia
FACILITY Central Heating and Refrigeration Plant
I II III
229 382 246
Maximum refuse rate at 50% firing
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
from facility tod
from other fed. fac. 188.6 tpj
from city 1814 tpd
from SMSA 6410 tpd
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-slte t & h
1014558 7.39 2.30
1068573 7.06 2.10
tpd
total
9.69
9.16
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
1455658
1714234
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
6.15
2.30
4.66
1.90
total
8.45
6.56
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
1010602
On. Cost ($/ton fired)
firing
total
14.00
2.87
16.87
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CENTRAL HEATING AND REFRIGERATION PLANT
Type I
I
i
40
30 -
20 -
10 -
10 -
20 -
30 -
40 L
188.6 tpd
Federal
229 tpd
Federal
Type II
188.6 tpd 382 tpd
Federal Federal
Type III
246 tpd
_
^
-
rai
^
N\,
X _;
iron
nine
^O
5
l-
ra
an
VlOs
M
Cllll
dCi
tx
es
ty
•
ra
S!N
N.^
HiUm
CIIIII
*x*
es
r<
a
^
.11 i! 1
1CIIII
ndC
S?^7
es
ty
^x
\\(
v\
1
. -::
On-site Firing Cost
Transfer and Haul Cost
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Cost or Benefit
Fuel Value Credit
-------
STATE' District of Columbia
FACILITY West Heating Plant
I II III
172 287 184
Maximum refuse rate at 50% firing tpd
Available refuse from facility
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
from other fed. fac.
from city
from SMSA
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost
on-site
992364 7.57
tpd
188.6 tnd
1814 tPd
6410 tpd
($/ton fired)
t & h total
2.45 10.02
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
1455658
1587219
on-site
6.32
5.31
t & h
2.30
2.05
total
8.62
7.36
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
927708
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
firing
total
14.00
3.55
17.55
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WEST HEATING PLANT
40
30
| 20
01
CO
10
Type I
172 tpd
Federal
Facilities
Type II
188.6 tpd 287 tpd
Federal Federal
Facilities Facilities
and City
Type III
184 tpd
10
e 2°
<3
30
40
On-site Firing Cost
Transfer and Haul Cost
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Cost or Benefit
Fuel Value Credit
-------
STATE: District of Columbia
FACILITY Washington Navy Yard
Maximum refuse rate at 50% firing
Available refuse from facility
from other fed. fac.
from city
from county
I
32
II
53.3
III
34.3
10.8
188.6
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
689252
751241
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
34.44
34.44
15.76
4.35
20.11
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
1130352
1254622
on-site t & h
54.27
16.75 3.90
total
54.27
20.65
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
677266
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
14.00
firing
14.75
total
28.75
204<
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
W
30
.,
1 20
m
10
10
20
J2
I/I
5 30
40
50
•~
type i type N
- ^ ^
32 tpd 10.8 tpd
Facility Facility
^ — -~~
53.3 tpd
Facility
and Other Fed. and Other Fed.
11 JLI
—
—
i
X
&
ttn
'///////////////////A
£<
«£u
^^^W
i^\^^S
b
^ On-site Operating Costs
|j 1' 1 Transfer and Haulage Costs
1 Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Benefits
205<
-------
STATE: IDAHO
FACILITY Mt. Home AFB
Maximum refuse rate at 50%
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE III
firing
from facility
from other fed.
from city
from county
Cap . Inv .
808981
810443
832665
Cap. Inv.
1250081
1251543
1273765
Cap . Inv .
769509
I II III
42 70 45
30.9 tod
fac. 0.5 tpd
tpd
39 tod
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h
17.01
16.84 7.50
14.78 5.50
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h
23.69
23.41 7.50
20.09 5.50
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
fuel firine
14.00 15.75
tp
total
17.01
?A.-tt
20.28
total
23.69
30.91
25.59
total
29.75
-------
IDAHO
60 r
50 .
MOUNTAIN HOME AFB - TYPE II
&
40 -
30 -
30.9 tpd 40.4 tpd 39 tpd
Facility Facility County
and Other Fed.
CM
10
10
20
J2
8 30
0
40
50
fin
-
^
. vS
^
^
£]
-
1
.'••.'.'•
^
^
^N
x\
jg
t
i
. • .
; !!;
LulUJ
A
V
.>
s
.s
s
1
s
s,
S
s
\
S
S
s
1
i
: • • Nol On-site Operating Costs
• ' ' ONI
Iff Transfer anc^ Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
K
-------
STATE: ILLINOIS
FACILITY Chanute AFB
Maximum refuse rate at
Available refuse
I
50% firing 36
from facility
from other fed. fac.
from city (Rantoul)
from county
II
59.5
40.8
2.9
57.5
III
38
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
785767
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
15.00
15.00
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
1240902
1249381
1295581
on-site
19.54
18.69
15.54
t & h
5.80
5.20
total
1Q.SA
24.49
90 7A
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
710915
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
fupl
14.00
firing
17.43
total
31.43
208<
-------
ILLINOIS
60 r
50-
Typel
CHANUTE AFB
Type II
40
tf
| 30
20
10
c
o
t
w
10
20
8 30
An
40
50
fin
36 tpd 40.8 tpd 43.7 tpd
-
.
-
™
Facility Facility
and
I
§<
,.
•, ••
". ""
". *•
I
Facility
Other
i
f
!!l.i
I1!!'
IJ!i
1,
\
1
Fed.
59.5 tpd
Facility
and City
|
y
jyjm
1
La
O. On-site Operating Costs
II, i'i
Mlli'l Transfer and Haulage Costs
| Fuel Value Credit
hX, Disposal Cost Credit
1. •"• .
|x; Net Benefits
209 <
-------
STATE: ILLINOIS
FACILITY 928th Tactical Airlife @ O'Hare Field
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
I II III
at 50% firing 19 31 20 tpd
from facility 3.2 tod
from other fed. fac. 61 tpd
from city (Chicago) 7885 tpd
from county tpd
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
577526 88.48 RR AR
fac. 623725 13.85 T.?n 17 05
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
1018626
1099913
on-site t & h
i so R«;
24.94 3.20
total
15Q.RS
28.14
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
545949
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
firing total
26.53 40.53
14.00
-------
ILLINOIS
928TH TACTICAL AIRLIFT AT O'HARE - TYPE II
o
100
80
$
H 60
' ^e
x?
S
•
1
tVj On-site Operating Costs
I H|| [| Transfer and Haulage Costs
I 1 Fuel Value Credit
f\$ Disposal Cost Credit
|:":'.j Net Benefits
-------
STATE: ILLINOIS
FACILITY Rock Island Arsenal
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
I II III
at 50% firing fi. 10, ,„ tpd
from facility 14.3 tod
from other fed. fac. 7*6 tpd
from city 113 tpd
from county tpd
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
959468 35.93 is 01
far. 981686 25.73 4.50 in.ll
•1104791 12.88 2.80 15.68
TYPE II
Facility
Cap. Inv.
1400568
Fac. and other fed. fac. 1422791
Fac. and city 1884814
County
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
49.30
34.04
t & h
a.sn
an
total
AQ in
IB
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
1038711
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
filial
14.00
firing
13.49
total
77.AQ
-------
ILLINOIS
60 r-
50 -
40 -
ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL - TYPE II
a
1 30
0
m
20
10
10
20
30
40
*.
60
70
80
90
14
F
-
i.3t
acili
pd 21
ty F
andC
•^^v
.9 tpd 107 tpd
acility Facility
ther Fed. and City
1
52
;• ;•' illll J ivd On-site Operating Costs
•'. •'. HKII [I Transfer and Haulage Costs
1 1 Fuel Value Credit
PQ{ Disposal Cost Credit
[•'; .••':{ Net Benefits
-------
STATE: INDIANA
FACILITY Ft. Benjamin Harrison
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
at 50% firing
from facility
from other fed.
from city
from county
Cap. Inv.
749340
fac.
I II III
18 30 19 tPd
48 tpd
fac. 17.5 tpd
tpd
tpd
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
24.17 24.17
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
12211121
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
27 41
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
671564
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
firin
total
14.00
34.09
48.09
-------
INDIANA
60 r-
50 -
FT. BENJAMIN HARRISON
I
40
g 30
01
CO
20
10
10
20
8 30
40
50
en
Typel Type II
IBtpd 30tpd
Facility Facility
_
-
-
: 1
-
25
£
I
R3
1
YJ/\ On-site Operating Costs
1 1 Fuel Value Credit
|>Q
-------
STATE: INDIANA
FACILITY Grisson AFB
Maximum refuse rate at
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fa<
Fac. and city
County
50% firing
from facility
from other fed.
from city
from county (4.
Cap. Inv.
645699
647746
648623
I II III
21 35.5 23
20 tod
fac. 0.7 tpd
tpd
6 mi) 24.5 tod
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h
19.85
19.39 4.QO
19.20 4.70
1
total
1Q.RS
94 ?Q
23.90
tpd
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
1086799
1088846
1089963
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h
9 Vfl7
32.06
28.49
4.90
5.40
total
32.81
36.96
33.89
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
573771
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
14.00
firing
24.03
total
.18.03
-------
INDIANA
601-
50 -
GRISSOMAFB-TYPE II
u
ffi
40 -
30
20 -
10 -
10 -
20 -
30 -
40 -
50 -
60 L-
20tpd
Facility
20.7 tpd
Facility
and Other Fed.
24.5 tpd
County
—
-
—
-
I
!
S3
>&
*£
V^T'
•::"::
$
1
m
1
••'.'.",
%
1
1
III HI 1.1
PS^
KX
v<
.^.y
1
1
1
1
| : •
T7\
S/\ On-site Operating Costs
||j|| Transfer and Haulage Costs
j Fuel Value Credit
XX
£2< Disposal Cost Credit
>:._] Net Benefits
-------
STATE: IOWA
FACILITY Iowa Army Ammunition Plant-
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
at 50% firing
from facility
from other fed.
from city
from county
Cap. Inv.
521703
fac. 522280
628429
I II III
53 88 56.5 tpd
1.7 tpd
fac. 0.3 tpd
73 tpd
tpd
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
147.07 i/,7 07
94. 25 i.nn 95 05
9.45 4.25 13.70
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
962803
963680
1176255
on-site
249.57
195.67
11.91
t & h
1.00
i .no
total
74Q.S7
196.67
i-> 01
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
163906
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
14.00
firing total
7.31 21.31
-------
IOWA
IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
80
60
m 40
20
*rf
s
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
1.7 tpd 2.0 tpd 74.7 tpd
Facility Facility Facility
and Other Fed. and City
On-site Operating Costs
Transfer and Haulage Costs
| _ I
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
:::;:. Net Benefits
-------
STATE: MAINE
FACILITY Lorine AFB
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
I
at 50% firing 52
from facility
from other fed. fac.
from city (Limestone)
from county (30 mi)
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost
on-site
387605 12.51
fac. 391114 12.26
400471 11.68
540805 9.63
II III
88 565 tpd
28.1 tod
1.2 tpd
4.3 tpd
211 tpd
($/ton fired)
t & h total
17. SI
7.50 1Q 76
5.00 16.68
4.70 14.33
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
902664
906173
915238
1077812
on-site
19.27
18 71
17.47
10.06
t & h
7 sn
4.75
4.25
total
19 °7
26.21
22.22
14.31
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
862985
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
14.00
firing
13J34
total
27.86
-------
MAINE
LORING AFB - TYPE II
60
50
40
»
1 30
m
20
10
10
20
»
8 30
-
_
•
-
-
28.1 tpd 29.3 tpd 32.4 tpd 88 tpd
Facility Facility Facility County
and Other Fed. and City
|
5C
£
: : ;
1
R^S
>0<
m
1
MFil
*^^V
§
i
m
ra
:': :
Ov On-site Operating Costs
j| III jjl I ] Transfer and Haulage Costs
1 1
o
Fuel Value Credit
40 -
Disposal Cost Credit
50 ~
]'••'•.'•] Net Benefits
60 L
-------
STATE: MASSACHUSETTS
FACILITY Otis AFB
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
I
at 50% firing 25
from facility
from other fed. fac.
from city (Falmouth)
from county (Barns table
II
41.5
31.1
1.8
8.5
216.5
6 mi)
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton
on-site
685191 17.59
fac.
t &
III
77 tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
fired)
h total
17.59
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
1144127
1149390
1151360
1174537
on-site
23.94
23.07
20.57
20.00
t & h
5.00
5.75
3.50
total
23.94
28.07
?fi.1?
23.50
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
610339
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
fuel
14.00
firing
2.155
total
35.55
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
OTISAFB
.0
a
ou
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
Type 1
25 tpd
Facility
—
-
_
-
•I
~
V ,
-
-
1
1
Type II
34.1 tpd 32.9 tpd 39.6 tpd 41 .5 tpd
Facility Facility Facility County
and Other Fed. and City
IX XI ft J * A
|
^7^
1
YS
1
l
^f ~
^
Y/////A
\
ILLJ
Vs
&*
IMJ
^^ KXl
^\*| On-site Operating Costs Pyj Disposal Cost Credit
31'flil Transfer and Haulage Costs ••"• '•
Net Benefits
1 1 Fuel Value Credit
—
ZZ3<
-------
STATE: MICHIGAN
FACILITY Dpt-rrftf Tanfc Plant-
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
I II
at 50% firing 48 80
from facility 3.8
from other fed. fac. 17.7
from city (Detroit) 3584
from county
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton
on-site t &
763123 97.83
fap. 814878 22.44 4.05
892364 13.50 3.30
III
51.5 tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
fired)
h total
97. fn
9fi.£Q
16.80
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
1204223
1255978
1427032
on-site
151.26
31.64
12.87
t & h
4.05
3.05
total
151 26
35.69
15.92
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
821898
Op. Cost ($/ton fifed)
fnol
14.00
firing
15.56
total
28.56
-------
MICHIGAN
DETROIT TANK PLANT - TYPE II
100
80
£ 60
"S
c
0>
CO
40
20
i
20
40
60
I »
100
120
140
iRn
3.8 tpd 2 1.5 tpd 80 tpd
Facility Facility Facility
and Other Fed and City
—
_
-
-
-
1
|
^
$8
>8
KY
'"•"'
!:••'::
>^X
^p^ f\x~>
^
V [^ s^s
^L U' ItlH
1
•il if] x On-eito Onpratinn Pnetc
^^^^^ y X_ ^'l 1 >llc ^/fJclallliy OUala
11 111 Transfer and Haulage Costs
1 Fuel Value Credit
5O Disposal Cost Credit
'•'•::'•' Net Benefits
225<
-------
STATE: MICHIGAN
FACILITY Kincheloe AFB
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE III
at 50% firing
from facility
from other fed.
from city
from county
Cap . Inv .
885078
fac. 888002
916073
Cap . Inv .
1326178
fac. 1329102
1463313
Cap. Inv.
913443
I II III
59 98 63 tp
25.7 tod
fac. 1 tpd
tpd
72.6 tpd
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
20.83 9n RI
14.04 fi.9"i 20 29
11.41 4.75 16.16
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
28.03 28.03
27.19 6.25 33.44
13.49 3.75 16.24
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
. fnpl firing total
14.00 13.03 27. m
-------
MICHIGAN
KINCHELOE AFB
I
60
50
40
OI
5 30
CO
20
10
10
&
30
40
50
60
25.7 tpd
Facility
1
26.7 tpd
Facility
and Other Fed.
72.6 tpd
County
1
m
On-site Operating Costs
Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Benefits
-------
STATE: MICHIGAN
FACILITY K I Sawver AT?B
Maximum refuse rate at 50%
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
firing
from facility
from other fed.
from city
from county
Cap . Inv .
421798
I II III
14.5 24 16.5 tpd
25 tpd
fac. 0.8 tpd
tpd
tpd
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
18.38 1R •*«
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
890676
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
27.56
27.56
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
382946
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
fiiol
firing
total
14.00
21.24
3*5.26
-------
STATE: MICHIGAN
FACILITY K I Sawver AFR
Maximum refuse rate at
Available refuse
I
50% firing 14.5
from facility
from other fed. fac.
from city
from county
II
24
25
0.8
III
16.5
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
421798
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
18.38
IS. 1ft
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
890676
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
27.56
27.56
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
382946
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
firing
total
14.00
21.24
T5.24
-------
STATE: NORTH CAROLINA
FACILITY Camp T.g»ipuno
Mix i mum refuse1 rote
Aval] able refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE III
at 50% fir inR
from facility
from other fed.
from city
from county
Cap. Inv.
918164
fac.
Cap. Inv.
1451517
fac. 1454191
1454191
Cap . Inv .
1496249
I II III
106 177 114 t[i
175 tpd
fac. 3.1 tpd
50.4 tpd
tpd
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
8.90 R.Qn
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
7.02 7.0?
6.98 5.50 12.48
6.9R S SO 1-7 4«
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
fnol f irine total
14.00 11.05 22.05
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
60 r-
CAMP LEJEUNE
50 -
Type I
Type II
40
a
V
| 30
20
10
10
20
£
3 30
40
60
106 tpd 175 tpd 177 tpd
Facility Facility Facility
and Other Fed.
-
^i n r
^ t^ S
llfl • r^
JX^vj Or
I'i jj Tr
Fi
[Q^J Di
i':':': Me
On-site Operating Costs
Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
-------
STATE: OHIO
FACILITY Defense Electric Supply Center
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
at 50% firing
from facility
I II III
30 50 32
3.5 tod
tp
from other fed. fac. 24.6 tod
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE III
from city (Dayton)
from county
Cap. Inv.
655272
fac. 7272024
732758
Cap. Inv.
1096372
fac. 1168302
1232338
Cap. Inv.
987936
545 tpd
tpd
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h
91.57
16.88 4.00
16.20 4.00
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h
isn sn
25.33 4.00
17.50 3.70
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
final firine
14.00 28.92
total
Ql _S7
,n RR
20.20
total
ISO SO
29. -n
21.20
total
42.92
-------
OHIO
DEFENSE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CENTER - TYPE II
100,-
80
60
»
*£
0)
™ 40
20
1
20
40
60
V
a so
100
120
140
160
3.5
Fac
-
y///////////////////////////,
tpd
lity
|
••'!••'
18.1 tpd 50 tpd
Facility Facility
and Other Fed. and City
5C?
2> 52
^ ^ ^
V ^
\\ SEE
m
[^\\ On-site Operating Costs
llllHI Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
^^ Disposal Cost Credit
{"'••:] Net Benefits
-------
STATE: OHIO
FACILITY Rickenbacker AFB
Maximum refuse rate at
Available refuse
I
50% firing 58
from facility
from other fed. fac.
from city
from county
II
97
90.2
11.7
1208
III
62.5
tod
tpd
tpd
tpd
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
976419
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
tpd
on-site
t & h
total
12. 6Q
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
1511672
1531555
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
11.94
11.94
11.49
4.25
15.74
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
908877
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
Firing
total
14.00
13.08
27.08
-------
OHIO
60 r-
50 -
40 -
RICKENBACKERAFB
1 A) -
Type
Type II
« 4
20
10
10
20
1 3°
40
50
60
^ — • — -~-
58 tpd 902 tpd
Facility Facility
i
££
<^
S §
- I §
h^l "-21
^
•*- ^^
97 tpd
Facility
nd Other Fed
5$
\N :»::;
^ S
Si
D
On-site Operating Costs
Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
"--:| Net Benefits
235<
-------
STATE: OHIO
FACILITY Wright-Patterson AFB
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
I II
at 50% firing 86.5 144
from facility 151
from other fed. fac. 24.6
from city (Dayton) 54.5
from county
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton
on-site t &
1201248 11.32
fac.
Ill
92.5 Cpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
fired)
h total
1 1 T9
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
1964950
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
9.74
9.74
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
1164838
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
JLirine
total
14.00
11.03
25.03
-------
OHIO
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
01
CO
40
30
20
10
I-
10
30
40
Type I
144 tpd
Facility
Type II
144tpd
Facility
On-site Operating Costs
Disposal Cost Credit
| I Fuel Value Credit
Net Benefits
Type III
92.5tpd
§
-------
STATE: OREGON
FACILITY Kingsley Field
Maximum refuse rate at 50%
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
I II III
firing 7 12 8 tpcj
from facility 6.9 tpd
from other fed. fac. °-8 tod
from city (Klaraath Falls) 37 tpcj
from county tpd
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
524605 40.12 40.12
524897 39.60 7.50 47.10
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
965705
968044
980617
on-site
83.40
76.81
54.44
t & h
7.50
6.RO
total
81.40
84.11
fil ?A
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
447121
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
14.00
firing
56.58
total
70.58
-------
OREGON
KINGSLEY FIELD
60
50
40
S
03
20
10
Type I
6.9 tpd 7 tpd
Facility Facility
and Other Fed.
6.9 tpd
Facility
Type II
7.7 tpd
Facility
and Other Fed.
12 tpd
Facility
and City
S
s
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
On-site Operating Costs
Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Benetits
I
-------
STATE: PENNSYLVANIA
FACILITY Tobyhanna Army Depot
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
I II III
at 50% firing 32 53 34 tpd
from facility 40 tpd
from other fed. fac. 3.6 tpj
from city (Tobyhanna) 2 tpd
from county tpd
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
936822 18.44 18.44
fac.
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
1401314
1411840
1406162
on-site
22.08
20.85
21.37
t & h
1.00
1.00
total
22.08
21.85
22.37
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
861970
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
14.00
firing
23.72
total
32.72
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
60 ,_
50 -
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT
40 -
a
£ 30 ~
0)
00
Type I
32 tpd
Facility
40 tpd
Facility
Type II
43.6 tpd
Facility
and Other Fed.
40 tpd
Facility
and City
I
20
10
10
20
I 30
40
50
60
^
^
sN
" ^
£
_
-
^™
g
§
•N
^
s^
So
^ xl
^
1 §
LJ x
^
s>
^o
§
' S: ^
sN
^
s\
\N
&
'••'.'.-
j^1 On-site Operating Costs
|i|l i: 1
|i|i !' } Transfer and Haulage Costs
| 1 Fuel Value Credit
^ Disposal Cost Credit
;.':;;:| Net Benefits
-------
STATE: SOUTH CAROLINA
FACILITY Savannah River
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
1 II III
at 50% firing 657 1095 704 tpci
from facility 1.3 tpd
from other fed. fac. 0.4 tpd
from city tpd
from county (Aiken) 204 tpd
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
396944 35.58 « 53
fac. 398114 28.68 s 7n 34 53
898774 8.'98 3.50 12.48
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
824301
825471
on-site
295.99
227.22
t & h
5.70
total
295.99
232.92
1477986
5.57
2.70
8.27
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
1768648
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
. fiipl
14.00
firing
1.63
total
15.63
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
60
5
CO
40
20
20
40
c 60
o
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
ERDA-SAVANNAH RIVER - TYPE II
1.3tpd 1.7tpd 204 tpd
Facility Facility County
and Other Fed.
On-site Operating Costs
Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Benefits
-------
STATE: TENNESSEE
FACILITY Holston AAP
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE III
1 II III
at 50% firing 255 425.5 273.5 tpd
from facility 1.8 tpd
from other fed. fac. 0.5 tpd
from city 76 tpd
from county tpd
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
1052743 275.38 jm «;o
fac. 1054205 216.87 1.00 317 e?
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
1580776 408. 7n /nfl ?n
fac. 1582238 T>n.7ft i nn •>->-, -,„
1803000 11 ™ i nn 14.33
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
fiipl firdne total
1848301 14.00 5.73 19.21
-------
TENNESSEE
200 ,_
160 -
HOLSTON ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT - TYPE II
£ 120 ~
c
01
m
80 -
1.8tpd 2.3 tpd 77.8 tpd
Facility Facility Facility
and Other Fed. and City
o
40
80
120
160
200
£
&
240
280
320
360
400
440
-
-
1
i
:"
I
i
^*^-
ru
Y/\ On-site Operating Costs
li'i'llJ Transfer and Haulage Costs
1 j Fuel Value Credit
5^| Disposal Cost Credit
[:';!:j Net Benefits
245<
-------
STATE: TENNESSEE
FACILITY Oakridge National Lab.
Maximum refuse race
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
I II III
at 50% firing 515 858 552 tpd
from facility 14 tpd
from other fed. fac. 1.4 tpd
from city 63.5 tpd
from county tpd
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
2480353 86.75 86. 7S
fac. 2484447 79.43 4.50 81. 01
2573190 14.54 3.20 17.74
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
2921453
2925547
3107127
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
98. an
90.1ft
?n on
t & h
i.sn
total
24.10
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
3625441
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
14.00
firing
5.31
total
19. *n
-------
TENNESSEE
ERDA - OAKRIDGE NATIONAL LAB - TYPE II
I
60 r-
50
40
c 30
0>
m
20
10
10
30
40
I 50
60
70
80
90
100
14 tpd 15.4 tpd 77.5 tpd
Facility Facility Facility
and Other Fed. and City
1
1
1
|
^
On-site Operating Csots
Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Benefits
-------
STATE: VIRGINIA
FACILITY Marine Corp Dev. and Ed. Comm.
Maximum refuse rate at 50% firing
Available refuse from facility
from other fed. fac.
from city (Quantic)
from county
I II III
52 87 56
(10-100)
2.2
tpd
tpd
_tpd
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap . Inv .
1017006
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
13.95
13.95
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
1560446
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
total
16.12
16.12
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
948002
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
firing
total
14.00
15.38
29.38
-------
MARINE CORP DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION COMMAND
Type I
Type II
40
30
1 20
0)
CO
10
10
| 20
30
40
-
-
5
Ff
^
2 tp.
cilit
d 87
y Fa
1
tpd
cility
S5
l\\
D
§
^^^^"1
On-site Operating Costs
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
::••! Net Benefits
249<
-------
STATE: VIRGINIA
FACILITY Radford AAP
Maximum refuse rate at 50%
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE III
I II III
firing 247 412 265
from facility 2 tod
from other fed. fac. 0.15 tpd
from city (Radford) 22.5 tpd
from county tpd
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h
385248 94.25
385687 88.11 1.00
451038 13.43 1.00
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h
826348 193.90
826787 180.72 1.00
892138 19.49 1.00
Cap. Inv. Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
,_ fuel firine
1116205 14.00 2.86
tp
total
94.25
8Q.11
14.43
total
193.90
181.72
20.49
total B
16.86
-------
VIRGINIA
RADFORD ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT - TYPE II
1UU
80
in
| 60
V
CO
40
20
20
40
60
80
S 100
8
120
140
160
130
200
2
Fa
-
tpd 2.15tpd 24.5 tpd
cility Facility Facility
and Other Fed. and City
1
:":::
Y///////////////////////////////A
1
:il
S5
1
|y\j On-site Operating Costs
r IT i
J:| 1 Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
^>C Disposal Cost Credit
••".'• Net Benefits
-------
STATE: Virginia
FACILITY Virginia Heating and Refrigeration Plant
Maximum refuse rate
Available refuse
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed.
Fac. and city
County
at 50% firing
from facility
from other fed.
from city
from SMSA
Cap. Inv.
945303
fac. 1191796
Cap. Inv.
1768292
fac. 1957210
I II III
85 142 91
tpd
.7 tpd
fac. 188'6 tod
1814 tpd
6410 tpd
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
629.55 629.55
11.38 3.05 14.43
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
1171.66 1171.66
7.15 2.55 9.70
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
1128640
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
Jiirine
total
14.00
7.98
21.98
-------
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA HEATING AND REFRIGERATION PLANT
40
30
2
* 20
I
10
10
20
30
40
Type I
85 tpd
Federal
Facilities
Type II
142 tpd
Federal
Facilities
Type III
91 tpd
V> On-site Firing Cost
Transfer and Haul Cost
Disposal Credit
Net Cost or Benefit
Fuel Value Credit
253<
-------
STATE: WASHINGTON
FACILITY Richland, Wash.-ERDA
Maximum refuse rate at
Available refuse
I
82
50% firing
from facility
from other fed. fac.
from city (Richland)
from county
II
136.5
9
0.4
59
III
88
tod
tpd
tpd
tpd
tpd
TYPE I
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
1471717
1472887
1557975
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site
t & h
80.49
77.33
13.35
4.50
5.00
total
80.49
81.83
22.35
TYPE II
Facility
Fac. and other fed. fac.
Fac. and city
County
Cap. Inv.
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
on-site t & h total
1912817
1Q11Q87
208^333
101. 8S 101.
97.71 4. SO 102.
1 A 97 t 9C1 17
85
21
A7
TYPE III
Cap. Inv.
1622013
Op. Cost ($/ton fired)
_f±rine
total
14.00
16.45
30.45
254 <
-------
WASHINGTON
ERDA-RICHLAND. WASHINGTON -TYPE II
60
50
40
J3
'H 30
0)
m
20
10
§ 10
v>
20
30
40
50
J2
s
60
70
80
90
100
r-
—
—
9 tpd 9.4 tpd 68 tpd
Facility Facility Facility
~ and Other Fed. and City
-
1
1
••::":
1
y
2
1
$
••::••
VS. ^V Or
]j]F
OH Tr
EZ1 FI
^ D
^\\ N(
On-site Operating Costs
Transfer and Haulage Costs
Fuel Value Credit
Disposal Cost Credit
Net Benefits
110
1297
------- |