1. Art and Diseño

Hyderabad, 29th & 30th January 2015
On
“Sustainable Solid Waste
Management in India”
Workshop Information
Bulletin
CSIR- IICT Auditorium,
Hyderabad,
29th & 30th January 2015
Established under Memorandum of Understanding between CSIR- NEERI & EEC, Columbia University
WTERT IndiaWorkshop Informaiton Bulleten
2
Contents
1. About WTERT India......................................................................................... 4
2. Objectives ........................................................................................................ 5
3. WTERT India Founder Members..................................................................... 6
4. Advisory Board for 3rd International Workshop ............................................... 7
5. Selected Publications –Related to SWM ......................................................... 8
WTERT IndiaWorkshop Informaiton Bulleten
3
1. About WTERT India
Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council – India (WTERT–India) is cofounded by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and the
Earth Engineering Center (EEC) of Columbia University.
WTERT-India was founded to address the rising interest, increasing investments, and the
dire necessity of sustainable solid waste management in India. It aims to create a niche
for the budding solid waste management sector in India. It intends to act as a swiveling
point to funnel important decisions related to solid waste management in India in the right
direction. WTERT, India will be the latest addition to the Global WTERT Council (GWC)
which is already operating in the U.S., Canada, Greece, China, Germany, Japan, Brazil,
France, U.K., Italy, and Mexico. At GWC, WTERT-India it will function as India’s window
to the world on the entire spectrum of solid waste management issues.
For nearly two decades, the Earth Engineering Center (EEC) of Columbia University has
conducted research on the generation and disposition of used materials and products in
the U.S. and globally. This research has engaged many researchers on all aspects of
waste management. Since 2000, EEC has produced thirty M.S. and Ph.D. theses and
published nearly one hundred technical papers. In 2002, EEC co-founded, with the U.S.
Energy Recovery Council (ERC; www.wte.org), the Waste-to-Energy Research and
Technology Council (WTERT), which is by now the foremost research organization on
the recovery of energy and metals from solid wastes in the U.S.
The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) headquartered at
Nagpur and with five other branches in Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai
is one of the prime research institutes in India. It is a forerunner in research on solid waste
management with dedicated researchers. Research conducted by NEERI in 2005 on
MSWM in fifty nine cities is one of the comprehensive studies on this issue. The other
important studies on SWM include India’s Initial National Communication to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The work related to Landfill Gas use
as LNG in transport sector as well as new LFG model development is under progress
with Texas Transportation Institute, US. The researchers engaged in solid waste
management at NEERI are recognized internationally.
WTERT IndiaWorkshop Informaiton Bulleten
4
2. Objectives
The mission of WTERT-India is to identify the best available technologies for the
treatment of various waste materials, conduct additional academic research as required,
and disseminate this information by means of publications, the WTERT-India web page,
and periodic meetings. In particular, WTERT-India strives to reduce the public health
impacts due to improper solid waste management in India, and to increase the recovery
of materials and energy from used solids, by means of recycling, composting, waste-toenergy, and, sanitary landfilling with landfill gas utilization.
The guiding principle of WTERT-India is that responsible management of wastes must
be based on science and best available technology at a particular location and not on
ideology and economics that exclude environmental costs and seem to be inexpensive
now but can be very costly in the future. WTERT-India is set-up with the understanding
that solutions vary from region to region and is committed to researching locally available
technologies.
Major objectives of WTERT-India are to

Create a niche for the budding solid waste management sector in India

Bring together the industry, government, academia and citizen activist groups to solve
the current solid waste management crisis in India

Act as a swiveling point to funnel important decisions related to solid waste
management in India in the right direction

Disseminate the latest information by means of its web page, and periodic meetings
WTERT IndiaWorkshop Informaiton Bulleten
5
3. WTERT India Founder Members
1) Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Chief Scientist and Head, CSIR-NEERI, Mumbai Zonal Laboratory
2) Dr. A. D. Sawant, Former Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Mumbai University
3) Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, ESH & CSR, Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Company Ltd
4) Dr. Sunil Kumar, Senior Scientist, CSIR-NEERI, Nagpur
5) Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, Head of Business Development (India & Subcontinent), Hitachi
Zosen India Private Limited, Hyderabad
6) Mr. Dilip M. Shrotriya, Former Principal Advisor , MMRDA- SWM Cell
7) Dr. Atul Vaidya, Sr. Principal Scientist, CSIR-NEERI, Nagpur
WTERT IndiaWorkshop Informaiton Bulleten
6
4. Advisory Board for 3rd International Workshop
Dr. A. B. Akolkar, Member Secretary,
Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi,
India
Dr. S. R. Wate, Director, NEERI, Nagpur,
India
Mr. A. K. Dhussa, Director, MNRE, India
Prof. Patrick Hettiaratchi, Professor,
University of Calgary, Canada
Prof. C. Visvanathan, Professor, AIT
Bankok, Thailand
Dr. Raj Kumar Singh, Dy GM, HUDCO,
New Delhi
Dr. S Jyoti Kumar, Director & Head, CIIAPTDC, Hyderabad
Dr. S. Devotta, Former Director, NEERI,
Nagpur, India
Prof. Jonathan Wong, Professor, Hong
Kong Baptist University, Hongkong
Prof. Somnath Mukherjee, Professor,
Jadavpur Univ, Kolkata, India
Dr. R. N. Singh, Former Director, NEERI
Dr. G Poyyamoli, Associate Professor,
Pondicherry University, India
Prof. Nickolas Themelis, Director, EEC,
Colombia University, USA
Dr. Chart Chiemchaisri, Associate
Professor, Kasetsart University, Thailand
Prof. V. Srinivasa Chary, Director, Centre
for Energy, Environment, Urban
Governance, and Infrastructure
Development, Administrative Staff College of
India
Mr. Ajay Saxena, PPP Expert,
Asian Development Bank
Dr. Dieter Mutz, Director, Indo-German
Environment Partnership, New Delhi
WTERT IndiaWorkshop Informaiton Bulleten
7
5. Selected Publications –Related to SWM
1) Composition of Municipal Solid Waste- Need for Thermal Treatment in the present
Indian context by DBSSR Sastry, Ramky Energy & Environment Ltd
2) ASME paper on Waste-to-Energy: A Renewable Energy Source from Municipal
Solid Waste
3) Publication of Energy Recovery Council on Waste to Energy (ERC, NY)
4) A paper on Update of Dioxin Emission Factors for Forest Fires, Grassland and
Moor Fires, Open Burning of Agricultural Residues, Open Burning of Domestic
Waste, Landfills and Dump Fires by Pat Costner International POPs Elimination
Network
5) The 2014 ERC directory of Waste-to-Energy facilities in USA
6) Directive 2000/76/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 4
December 2000 on the incineration of waste
7) Energy from waste and incineration by Oliver Bennett, Policy Analyst
8) Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion
efficiency and NOx control, by M.H. Waldner, R. Halter, A. Sigg, B. Brosch, H.J.
Gehrmann, M. Keunecke
9) Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed
Municipal Solid Waste – ASTM - Designation: D 5231 – 92 (Reapproved 2003)
WTERT IndiaWorkshop Informaiton Bulleten
8
Composition of Municipal Solid Waste- Need for Thermal Treatment in the present
Indian context
Background
The Municipal Wastes generated from residential, commercial, institutional segments
get mixed up with traces of other wastes from hospital, industrial and municipal
services including construction & demolition wastes. This mix up is declining with
stricter enforcement of legislation.
The rate of waste generation is an index of socio-economic development and
economic prosperity of the region. Increasing industrialization and raising incomes
lead to greater use of resources and waste composition is influenced by factors such
as extent of urbanization, standard of living and climate. Thus, waste quantities as
well as composition are inextricably linked to the vibrancy of economic activity and
resource consumption pattern of the society which generates the waste.
This paper aims presenting a well postulated technical concept of estimating heat
value of municipal wastes, from the view point of assessing the waste’s amenability
for thermal treatment in the Indian context at the present juncture. The paper also
seeks to reason out to forward ahead despite the purported failures of the past.
Change in waste composition as an index of economic development
As countries develop and become more urbanized, the waste composition undergoes
a change – the notable feature of which is the increase in the paper, paper
packaging, plastics, multi material packing items and ‘consumer products.’ Yet many
researchers, policy makers, developers and municipal authorities in India are wary of
considering “thermal treatment” for the Indian waste, citing its inherent ‘Low heat
value and high moisture content’. The divergence of the heat values considered for
design and ‘actual’ for the erstwhile Timarpur Incineration Plant of 1987 is cited even
today, despite the fact that over two and a half decades have passed since then.
Hence the need for deliberating on the way forward. The significant strides of
economic progress achieved in the last two decades and resultant changing life
styles reflecting on composition of waste today, is sought to be reviewed. The heat
values of the municipal wastes of the cities of Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad are
reviewed and the need for considering thermal treatment of municipal waste as
technology option.
Statutory framework
Municipal Waste Management in India is regulated by “MSW Management &
Handling Rules 2000”1. These rules stipulate that all urban local bodies are
responsible for proper collection, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of
the municipal wastes. Only the residual inerts after due processing of waste are to be
disposed off into a sanitary landfill in accordance with these rules. The rules
advocate the use of composting, Biomethanation, pelletization with or without energy
recovery and other thermal processes for adoption as processing techniques for
municipal wastes.
However, there is an ‘Institutional anathema‘ towards thermal treatment process, in
particular the ‘incineration process’ which is perceived as a polluting and
environmentally not desirable option on one hand and argument that Indian waste
being not ‘suitable’ on account of an eternally inherent low heating value on the
other.
Current status of Solid Waste Management
The MSW Rules came into being in year 2000, a reasonable time has since then
passed allowing for the percolation of these rules, through the administrative
hierarchy for implementation. However, the level of compliance for mandatory
processing has been dismal. The level of compliance is put around 9% on the
mandatory processing front in India17. None of the major metros have any projects of
significant scale of Solid Waste processing into operation. Capacity built up in the
compost processing sector is on rise but the problems on account of seasonal nature
of business, applicability to large capacities in view of geographical limitations on
marketing front persist.
Thus, it is not surprising that dumping of wastes and open burning continues at
places like Hyderabad, Pimpri and elsewhere. The dump sites are an eyesore,
inviting public indignation with open burning and leachate overflowing.
Most of the Indian cities including major metros as well as metros in making, are at
cross roads in tackling the increasing urban wastes problem. In this regard, waste to
energy could play a major role in the strategic options of Solid waste management.
Incinerators & Combustors
The waste was burned without recovering energy in the past and the units for burning
waste were known as “incinerators”- a name no longer relevant and used to denote
the sorry state of affairs of poor design, inadequate engineering and inept operation,
with little control equipment in place for pollution abatement 2. Modern combustors
combine solid waste combustion with energy recovery using a moving grate which
provides for ‘turbulence’ for thorough combustion 3. The traditional term ‘incineration
‘has acquired a wrong connotation in the mind of public because of poor operation of
the ‘old’ incinerators in the past. Therefore the term ‘waste to energy’ is used widely
in its place 2.
Thermal Treatment Methods for waste
Thermal treatment of wastes can be accomplished by following major processes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Incineration ( RDF/Mass burn)
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis /Gasification
Plasma Arc gasification
Incineration is widely used in Europe and Japan without any known adverse health
impacts. Switzerland – a country with high environmental standards- incinerates
about 75% of waste and Japan over 50% of the total waste.
One of the most effective means of dealing with wastes is to reduce their harmful
potential and often convert them to energy form is Incineration 2. The terms ‘waste to
energy’ and ‘incineration’ used in this paper are referred to this modern practice of
combustors. The thrust of paper is also limited to the thermal treatment of municipal
waste through combustion of wastes on a pusher grate and does not refer the other
thermal forms of treatment or energy recovery.
Over view of the Macroeconomic aggregates of Indian economy 4 :
The Indian economy has registered a robust growth pursuant to the liberalization
policies unveiled in 1991. The growth of Gross Domestic Product for every decade
since 1950 is given in table 1.
Table 1- Decade wise statistics of growth of GDP in India since 1950
Year
1950-51
1960-61
1970-71
1980-81
1990-91
2000-01
2007-08
GDP in Rs Crores
9719
16512
42981
132520
515032
1925017
4303654
Source : Hand Book of Statistics on the Indian economy by RBI 2007-08
India has maintained its position in the list of ten fastest growing medium-large
countries in the world during the last two decades. India is the sixth largest growing
economy continuously for over two decades in the world 5 as given in the table 2.
Table 2 : Growth trends for Medium – Large countries ;
Country
China
Korea Rep.
Thailand
Singapore
Ireland
India
Vietnam
Chile
Indonesia
Hong Kong
GDP
Gr. Trend
10.1
7.7
7.1
6.9
5.3
6.0
6.2
5.6
5.7
5.3
Rank
1
2
3
4
10
6
5
9
8
11
Per Capita GDP
Gr. Trend
Rank
8.8
1
6.6
2
5.7
3
5.1
4
4.9
5
4.1
6
4.1
7
4.0
8
3.9
9
3.7
10
Source: Discussion paper ‘Macro economic management of the Indian economy’
Arvind Virmani (Planning commission) Nov 2007 5. It is to be noted that only Chile
and Ireland a r e countries outside Asia in the above table.
It is an established fact that the Indian economy has registered a tremendous growth
and that there is significant overall economic progress and growth of GDP in India.
The GDP growth rate and the trend curve are shown since 1951 in the Figure 15.
Fig 1:
Correlation of Composition of Heat content with Economic rise/income levels
It will be relevant to examine the experience of USA , where the non biogenic
component of the municipal waste is significantly increased over the biogenic
component as per the data provided by the US Energy Department 6. The increase in
the non-biogenic component is an indication of the growing heat value of the waste.
The Fig 2 depicts the steady increase in the heat content of waste since 1989 in USA
as documented by the Department of Energy in USA.
Fig 2:
Source: Methodology for allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non
Biogenic energy by Energy Information Department, US Dept of Energy in May 2007
Thermal treatment of Municipal waste for Energy recovery is a widely practiced
technology option in Europe where constraint for land for disposal is acute, when
compared to USA. Combustion of waste leads to a reduction of 90% by volume and
75% by weight, thus requiring lesser area of land for disposal. The Indian urban
situation is to some extent akin to the European situation with acute paucity of land
for Solid waste management. Planning waste to energy facilities is highly imperative
for the Indian metros and major cities in order to minimize the increasing hauling
costs of waste. Besides it will also conserve the limited land area available for the
solid waste management.
Compositional changes of Waste in India
Many reports, papers and data bank in India do not give estimation of what waste
composition/quality had been in the past, present and what would be in future, other
than projecting the huge and daunting increase in sheer quantities. Rag picking is
one activity that is feared to be causing a steep decrease in the heat value of the
waste because of implied recycling activity.
What is business for scrap and recycling today may not be worth in the course of
time and in the cause of economic growth and not bound to maintain its efficiency if
at all it is now.
Rag Picking activity at a waste dump
site
Segregated waste through informal
segregation
It is worth examining the changes in the composition of waste in India in the last two
decades. The table 3 7 gives the changing composition of Municipal Waste over the
last two decades and is attributed to the changing life styles and increasing
consumerism.
Table 3 7 Physico-chemical characteristics of MSW in India :
Component
Paper
Plastics
Metals
Glass
Rags
Ash and fine
Total Compostable Matter
Cal. Value Kcal/kg
CN Ratio
% of Wet Weight
1971-73
(40 cities)
4.14
0.69
0.50
0.40
3.83
49.20
41.24
800-1100
20-30
1995
(23 cities)
5.78
3.90
1.90
2.10
3.50
40.30
41.80
<1500
25-40
Wastes to energy projects have a life time of 25 to 30 years and hence the due
factoring of quality of waste with passage of time and growth is required.
Contemporary studies on WTE potential in India
It is attempted to review the heat value of municipal waste in three major cities of
India from different studies, literature values & methods and estimate the same in the
context of studying the relevance of thermal treatment for municipal waste as an
option for disposal.
( a ) The Mumbai City
Mumbai, the commercial and financial capital of India is spread over an area of
around 437.71 sq km and houses more than 12 million people. Financial and
commercial institutions as well as the industrial houses in Mumbai provide
considerable employment opportunities. The consequent large scale migration has
resulted in very high densities of population and corresponding demand on its
infrastructure16.
Mumbai generates approximately 6,000 tons per day (TPD) of MSW at a per capital
rate of 0.475 kilograms . Final disposal of the MSW in Mumbai since last many years
is by open dumping method without any waste treatment16.
The recyclable fraction mainly contains plastic, paper, cartons, thermocol, glass,
rubber leather, metals, etc. Some of these constituents fall under combustible
fraction. After separation of recyclables at source and at secondary storage, the
remaining fraction is to the tune of 18.6%. Compared to other cities in India, this
fraction is relatively high mainly due to the commercial and trading activities of
Mumbai16.
Arguing in favour of ‘waste to energy’ in India in her paper 8 , Ms. Perinaz Bhada
suggests that Waste to energy in India can provide the single solution for mitigating
the twin problems of overflowing garbage in urban areas and the lack of land as well
as to provide sufficient energy in cities to meet peak demand. The composition of
Municipal waste in Mumbai was determined in two different studies, one by CPCB &
NEERI in 2005-06 and other by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM)
around same time 8.
Table 4 8: Characterization of Mumbai waste by two studies of CPCB-NEERI and
MCGM
Source
Compostable% Recyclable% Moisture%
C/N Ratio
Heat Value
(KJ/Kg)
CPCB62.44
16.66
54
39.04
7,477*
NEERI
MCGM
54
18.6
68
25.94
3,898
* High Heating Value
The heating value of waste given in these two studies, show significant variance as
given in Table 4 9. The study by Ms. Perinaz Bhada 9 puts the heat value of Mumbai
municipal waste as 9022 KJ/Kg based on the value of energy content given in
Tchobanglous (1993). The table 5 depicts the heat value as determined based on the
very composition of Municipal waste given in the report of ILFS16, though the report of
IL&FS puts the heat value as 3,898 KJ/kg.
Calculation of heat value of Mumbai MSW – Table 5
Component
Fraction of
component %
Energy Content
KJ/kg
Kitchen waste
Fruit waste
Flower Waste
Green grass
39.24
8.33
0.14
0.62
4180
3970
6050
6050
Heating Value of
component fraction
KJ/Kg
1640
331
8
38
Dry Grass/tree
Other organic
material
Cotton waste
Wood
chips/Furniture
Plastic
Paper
Thermocol
Glass
Rubber
Leather
Metals
Inerts
TOTAL
9.58
3.79
15445
4180
1480
158
2.48
0.95
15445
15445
383
147
10.14
7.52
0.19
0.71
0.52
0.67
0.19
14.93
100
32799
15814
38191
195
25330
17445
-
3326
1189
73
1
132
117
9022
The heat value of Mumbai waste translates to 2158 Kcal/Kg which can support
combustion on a sustainable basis without any supplementary fuel requirement.
(b) The Delhi City
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is among the largest municipal bodies in
the world providing civic services to an estimated population of 13.7 Million citizens in
the capital city of India covering an estimated area of 1,400 Sq km, some of which is
most densely populated in the world. It is estimated that about 6500 Tons of waste is
generated presently and the waste generation is poised to touch 18,000 TPD by
2021.
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) has contracted COWI of
Denmark with Kadam Environmental consultants, India as local partner for
implementing a project study and master plan for waste treatment and disposal for
Delhi state under Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode.
The objective of the study is to converge on an optimal, economical and
environmentally sustainable waste treatment and disposal plan for state of Delhi.
Volume 6 15 of the report pertains to MSW characterization and the report gives the
composition of the waste at the landfill site as briefed in the following table.
Table 6 : Composition of waste reaching the landfill site 15
Parameter
Biodegradables
Recyclables
Inerts
Others
Ash
Moisture
LCV ( Kcal/Kg)
HHV ( Kcal/Kg)
Average %
73.7
9.2
10.8
6.3
15.3
47%
1777
3927
Range
20.9-94.6
2.8-16.3
0.0-72.2
0.3-16.2
3.4-61.9
8-82
191-4495
2042-5315
It should be noted that the waste reaching the landfill, after completion of much rag
picking activity, is characterized to have the LCV of 1777 Kcal /Kg (7427 KJ/Kg). This
heat value can support combustion on a sustainable basis without any requirement of
supplementary fuel.
(c ) City of Hyderabad
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is one of the largest civic bodies in
India and presides over capital of the state of Andhra Pradesh. GHMC covering
an area of 638 sq.km, generating about 3800 T P D of solid waste has engaged
SENES Consultants for preparation of a “Detailed Project Report” (DPR) for
Integrated Solid Waste Management for the Greater Hyderabad region. The task
includes quantification and characterization study of MSW generated in GHMC.
Chapter IV of the DPR 14 (February 2009) give the average composition as given in
table 7.
Table 7 – Average waste composition in Hyderabad14
Component
Food Waste
Paper
Plastics
Rags/cloths/cotton
Green waste , Coconuts
Rubber & synthetics
Leather
Metals, Glass & Ceramic
Stone, debris, boulders, silt , earth
Others
Average % Fraction
48.22
7.26
8.61
5.70
3.06
1.82
1.29
2.18
21.42
0.53
Heat Value of Municipal Waste of Hyderabad
Determining the heat value of Municipal waste can be carried out by using the data in
Table 8 3. Primarily, the wastes shall be inspected and sorted to determine the
component fraction in accordance with procedure prescribed in CPHEEO10 manual.
The heat value of the waste can be obtained by multiplying the respective heat value
of that component with the corresponding dry weight fraction of the component in the
waste. Typical moisture values are given in table 8 for each component.
Table 8 3:Typical heat values for Municipal waste components
Component
Food Wastes
Paper
Plastics
Textiles
Rubber
Leather
Wood
Garden
Trimmings
Moisture Percent
Range
Typical
50-80
70
4-10
6
1-4
2
6-15
10
1-4
2
8-12
10
15-40
20
30-80
60
Heat Value Btu/lb
Range
Typical
1500-3000
2000
5000-8000
7200
12000-16000
14000
6500-8000
7500
9000-12000
10000
6500-8500
7500
7500-8500
8000
1000-8000
2800
Estimation of Heat value of the Municipal Waste for Hyderabad
The heat value of the MSW in Hyderabad is estimated as below with the help of
literature values of Table 8.
Table 9 : Estimated Heat Value for Hyderabad
Component
Food Waste
Paper
Plastics
Rags/cloths/cotton
Green waste , Coconuts
Rubber & synthetics
Leather
TOTAL Heat Value
Dry weight
14.6
6.82
8.43
5.13
1.224
1.78
1.61
Heat Value(Kcal)
16074
27299
65632
23176
1904
7432
4837
144558 Kcal
The heat value is, thus 1445 Kcal/Kg for the Hyderabad waste and is amenable for
combustion on a sustained basis without requiring supplementary fuel. The World
Bank’s guide on ‘Incineration of Municipal Waste’ recommends that a min. Heat
value (LCV) of 6000 KJ/Kg (1435 Kcal/Kg) during all the seasons for sustained
combustion for adopting the Thermal treatment process13.
It can be noted that the cities of Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad have recorded
phenomenal growth in the last two decades as also other cities of India. Thus, the
increase in Solid Waste can not be only quantitative, but also has also to be
qualitative as per the trends, convention and literature study and in correlation to the
increased economic activity of the societies.
Timarpur Plant
The case study of plant for incineration at Timarpur is often cited against option of
waste to energy. The Annexure 15.1 of CPHEEO manual10 contains a case study of
the plant and describes the same as a pilot /R&D plant for thermal treatment of 300
TPD of waste with 3.75 MW of envisaged power generation. The plant was on trial
run and was operated for a few months, subsequently closed down in 1990 due to a
mismatch of the quality of incoming refuse with the plant design of 1460 Kcal/Kg of
NCV.
The Plant was based on the technology supplied on Turn key basis by M/s Volund of
Denmark.
A well developed and controlled waste management system is considered a pre
requisite for a waste incineration project to be successful and effective. Waste to
energy projects are complex than conventional fossil fuel based plants and require
skilled personnel. The MSW rules have come into being only in year 2000, almost
more than a decade after the closure of the Timarpur plant. The reasons for the
‘failure’ are reportedly not entirely on account of low heat value but also on short
comings of the solid waste management systems in vogue at that time.
It is also pertinent to note that incineration of waste has celebrated the centenary in
September 2003 with Municipality of Fredericksburg celebrating its centenary for
having supplied the district heating to its citizens in 1903. The history of incineration
has thus celebrated its centenary in year 2003 in Denmark13.
The economic progress achieved by India has to be correlated with the quality of
garbage for due consideration of thermal processing with or without pre-processing
as a technology option. It is more than two decades since the closure of the Timarpur
plant and opposing incineration based on the experience of twenty five years of old
history is not justified.
Needless to say that technologies mature over a period of time and even failures of
space science programs have not deterred the Indian scientific community.
Conclusion
Composition of waste is established to be changing in quality with increasing heat
value, changes in life styles set in. The change is evident in Mumbai , the commercial
capital of India and Delhi, the capital city. Towards south, the city of Hyderabad has
registered a strong growth. It is attempted to highlight the compositional changes that
are taking place in these cities though the other cities of India like Bangalore,
Chennai and Ahmedabad do not lag behind.
There is a strong need to study the qualitative changes of municipal wastes rather
than recording and predicting the mere quantitative growth only. There is need for
revisiting the methodologies for estimation of the heat value. A conservative
approach for design of heat value may still be adopted while considering new
facilities to start with and the experience of first generation waste processing as well
as waste to energy plants of Andhra Pradesh should be kept in mind while planning
for new facilities such as incorporation of a moving grate in place of a traveling grate
and ram based fuel feeding systems.
The RDF based plant at Vijayawada has all the technical ingredients of a good
incineration system, but for the fuel feeding and moving grate.
Schematic View of Pusher Grate
Schematic View of Traveling Grate
Summary
•
1.2 Million tones of MSW is generated by about 28% of Indian urban
population with 7 cities having 4 Million + population and 35 cities having
more than 1 Million+ population.
•
Growing urbanization is pressuring the local governments on making the land
available for SWM.
•
Thermal processing through combustion is an effective answer for restricting
the quantity of residue to be disposed to SLF.
•
The community’s overall preparedness for sharing the cost of SWM disposal
is central to the growth of the WTE industry.
•
Opportunity exists for capacity building in Wt E sector with proper
environmental safeguards.
One of the Key Conclusions & recommendations from the report12 of the ‘Expert
committee for inspection and evaluation of the project for energy recovery from MSW
at Lucknow’ set up by Ministry of New & Renewable Energy in pursuance of the
orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is….
“The operational problems of one plant should not form the basis to judge the
efficacy of a particular technology option or for rejecting a technology as a whole.”
(The views expressed by the author are his personal and need not necessarily be
construed as that the company he is employed with.)
References
Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) rules, 2000, Ministry of
Environment & Forests, Government of India. These are applicable for every
Municipal Authority.
2. Solid Waste Engineering by Vesiland, Worrel and Reinhart.
3. Hand book of Solid Waste Management by Tehobanoglous and Frank Kreith
4. Hand book of Statistics on the Indian Economy, By Reserve Bank of India (20072008)
5. Discursion paper ’Macro Economic Management of the Indian Economy ‘ by
Arvind Virmani for planning Commission of India dated November 2007
accessed on web.
6. Methodology for allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non Biogenic
Energy (May 2007). By Energy Information Dept, US Dept of Energy.
7. Paper titled “India Environment 2025 by Shaheen Singhal accessed from website
of planning commission of India.
8. Paper titled “Capacity of Act in India’s Solid Waste Management and Waste to
Energy Industries by Ms. Perinaz Bhada (Dec 2005).
9. Paper titled “Potential for the First WTE facility in Mumbai (Bombay) India (May
2008) by Ms. Perinaz Bhada and Nickolas J. Themelis as part of proceedings of
16th Annual North American Waste to Energy conference.
10. Manual on Municipal Solid Waste management Published by Central Public
Health & Environmental Engineering organization ( CPHEEO), Government of
India.
11. Publication titled ‘100 Years of Waste Incineration in Denmark” by Heron Klieis
(Babcox & Wilcox Volund) and Soren Dalager, Ramboll
12. Report of the Expert Committee for Inspection and Evaluation of the project for
Energy Recovery from MSW at Lucknow complied through MNRE in pursuance
of the directive of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
13. Technical Guidance report of World bank on “ Municipal Solid Waste incineration”
( 1999)
14. Detailed Project Report for Integrated Solid Waste management for Hyderabad
( Feb 2009) by SENES consultants for GHMC
15. Feasibility study and master plan for optimal waste treatment and disposal for the
entire state of Delhi on PPP solution – Volume 6- April 2004 by COWI with
Kadam Environmental Consultants under aegis of UNOPS for Municipal
Corporation of Delhi
16. Report on selection of waste processing technology and scientific management
of landfills for MCGM by IL&FS ( Jan 2006)
17. Presentation on ‘ Enabling policies for MSWM’ at FICCI Environment Conclave,
July 2009 by Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of
India.
1.
Abbreviations :
MCGM
IL& FS
CPCB
NEERI
MSW
CPHEEO
:
:
:
:
:
:
MoUD
MNRE
:
:
RBI
EIA
GDP
GHMC
MCD
SLF
SWM
HHV
LHV
RDF
WTE
LCV
DPR
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, India
Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd , India
Central Pollution Control Board , India
National Environment Engineering & Research Institute, India
Municipal Solid Waste
Central Public Health And Environmental Engineering
Organization, Government of India
Ministry of Urban Development
Ministry of New & Renewable Energy ( formerly Ministry of Non
Conventional Energy Sources) , Government of India
Reserve Bank of India
Energy Information Department, Department of Energy, USA
Gross Domestic Product
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Sanitary Landfill
Solid Waste Management
Higher Heating Value
Lower Heating Value
Refuse Derived Fuel
Waste to Energy
Lower Calorific Value
Detailed Project Report
Name of the Author:
Address
Mr. D.B.S.S.R. Sastry
:
General Manager
Ramky Energy & Environment Ltd
Somajiguda, Rajbhavan Road
HYDERABAD – 500 082
Phone : 040-23308996
Fax
: 040-2331 2749
Mobile : 09963102111
Email : [email protected], [email protected]
Title of the Paper :
Composition of Municipal Solid Waste- need for thermal treatment in present
Indian context
1828 L Street, N.W.
Suite 906
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel 202.785.3756
Fax 202.429.9417
www.asme.org
Waste-to-Energy:
A Renewable Energy Source from Municipal Solid Waste
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASME SWPD Supports WTE - The Solid Waste Processing Division (SWPD) of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) supports national policies that encourage the recovery of
energy from the controlled combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW), also called Waste to Energy
(WTE).
Proven Technology - WTE is a proven, environmentally sound process that provides reliable electricity
generation and sustainable disposal of post-recycling MSW. WTE technology is used extensively in
Europe and other developed nations in Asia such as Russia, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan.
WTE Reduces Greenhouse Gases - New policies to encourage WTE can have a sizable effect on
reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.(1) In fact, nation-wide use of the WTE technology can
become one of the big contributors to America’s planned reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
WTE Reduces Dependence on Fossil Fuel - New policies to encourage WTE can also have a
meaningful impact in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and increasing production of renewable
energy. MSW is currently comprised of 56% biogenic and 44% non-biogenic materials (2). Combusting
the biogenic fraction of WTE is considered renewable by the DOE (1). Currently, there are 86 WTE
facilities in the U.S. that process 29 million tons of MSW per year (1). The nation currently landfills
about 248 million tons of waste per year so there is significant potential to increase energy production
from WTE. Every ton of MSW processed in a WTE facility avoids the mining of one third ton of coal
or the importation of one barrel of oil. If all waste were processed in modern WTE facilities it could
satisfy 3 to 4 percent of the country’s electricity demand.
Additional Environmental Benefits of WTE •
•
•
Complements recycling and reduces landfilling
Reduces truck traffic and associated emissions
Recovers and recycles metals thus reducing mining operations
WTE Provides Clean Energy – WTE technology has significantly advanced with the implementation
of the Clean Air Act (3), dramatically reducing all emissions. The EPA concluded WTE now produces
electricity with less environmental impact than almost any other source (Letter of EPA Administration
to Integrated Waste Services Association, Feb. 14. 2003).
Reliable Electricity – WTE operates 24/7 to reduce base load fossil fuel generation and is desirably
located in proximity to urban areas where the power is needed the most.
1
ASME SWPD Recommendations to Congress and the Administration:
•
•
•
Include WTE in the federal Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Consider the reduction in greenhouse gases benefits of WTE in climate change policy.
Direct the EPA to consider “life cycle analysis” of waste disposal options and also to
consider Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) type regulations on all
emission sources, as have been applied to WTE facilities.
Introduction
ASME represents 127,000 engineers who are engaged in every aspect of energy generation and
utilization. The Solid Waste Processing Division (SWPD) of ASME is dedicated to the recovery of
energy and materials from the solids discarded by society and the environmental quality of technologies
used in all aspects of waste management.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is an unavoidable by product of human activities. Waste management is
a particularly serious issue in the US because we consume an estimated 20 to 25 percent of the world’s
energy and materials and generate twice as much MSW per capita as developed nations in the European
Union and Japan. Therefore, there exists a great need for waste reduction and recycling of materials.
However, international and US experience has shown that after recycling there remains a large fraction
of MSW to be disposed of.
The two proven means for disposal are burying MSW in landfills or combusting it in specially designed
chambers at high temperatures, thereby reducing it to one tenth of its original volume. The heat
generated by combustion is transferred to steam that can flow through a turbine to generate electricity.
This process is called waste-to-energy (WTE). It converts the energy from combustion of MSW to
electricity and recovers and recycles the metals contained in the MSW while the remaining ash is either
used in landfills for daily cover and landfill roads or cleaned up and used off site for other construction
purposes (as is done now in the EU and Japan).
The US WTE industry has existed for over thirty years and its technology has continuously been
improved. For example, MSW combustion facilities of all types were once considered a significant
source of mercury and dioxin emissions. However, during the 1990's, the WTE industry implemented
new EPA regulations on Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and WTE power plants
have become one of the cleanest sources of electricity and heat energy.
Currently there are 86 WTE facilities in the U.S. processing 29 million tons of MSW annually and
generating 2.3 GW of electricity. Every ton of MSW processed in a WTE facility avoids the mining of
one third ton of coal (9.6 million tons per year) or the importation of one barrel of oil (29 million barrels
per year). As our nation begins to focus on conservation and renewables, WTE has already proved to be
a reliable technology.
Unfortunately, there have been some setbacks. For instance, the Supreme Court Carbone ruling on
“Flow Control” in 1994 (C & A Carbone v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, 511 U.S. 383 (1994)(4)
forced many major urban areas in the U.S. to opt for long distance transport of their solid wastes to
newly built giant landfills and stopped the growth of this useful energy producing technology in the US.
Consequently, from 1995 through 2006, there were no new WTE plants built in the nation. A more
recent Supreme Court decision on Flow Control has restored the ability of communities to control the
flow of wastes to WTE facilities.
2
In contrast to what was happening in the U.S., from 1995 through 2006, hundreds of new WTE facilities
were built in the European Union, Japan, China, and over thirty other nations where landfilling is
regarded as environmentally undesirable and energy- and land-wasteful. In fact, in the years 2000-2007,
the global WTE capacity grew at the rate of about four million tons each year. The growth of WTE in
the European Union is partly due to a directive of the European Community that mandates that wastes
containing over 2 percent combustible material shall not be landfilled in order to reduce landfill
emissions of methane, the second most important greenhouse gas, and preserve land for future
generations.(5)
In the U.S., as major urban areas have run out of nearby landfill space, post-recycled MSW is
increasingly being transported long distances to other states for burial.(6) This has substantially
increased the cost to landfill this MSW, and has also increased the associated environmental impacts
because of the emissions from transport vehicles to and from the landfills. It has also increased the
environmental advantages of WTE versus landfilling. As a result, some WTE facilities have recently
begun to expand their capacity by adding new processing lines to their existing operations. These
facilities are basing their requests for financing and permitting on their successful records of operation
and environmental compliance.
The Conventional WTE Process
The conventional WTE combustion process is similar to the stoker burners in many coal- and woodfired boilers. Waste is continuously fed onto a moving grate in a furnace where high temperatures are
maintained. Air is added to the combustion chamber to ensure turbulence and the complete combustion
of the components to their stable and natural molecular forms of carbon dioxide and water vapor.
The hot combustion gases released during the WTE process are directed through boilers to generate
superheated steam that can drive turbine generators that produce electricity. Exhausted steam can also
be used efficiently for district heating and for industrial processing if those choices are available.
It is interesting to note that, according to the EPA and IPCC protocols, combusting the biogenic fraction
of MSW (about 56 percent of the carbon in MSW) results in a GHG reduction because these waste
materials decompose into nearly equal portions of carbon dioxide and methane gas if they are landfilled.
Methane is 21 times more potent as a GHG than carbon dioxide.
Energy Benefits of WTE
MSW, depending upon the moisture and energy content of the waste materials, is a good fuel source.
The thermal treatment of MSW results in the generation of 500-600 kWh of electricity per ton of MSW
combusted. European WTE facilities often recover another 600 kWh in the form of steam or hot water
that is used for district heating. This additional energy recovery is not generally achieved in the US due
to the absence of district heating systems. The corresponding savings in fossil fuel use range from one
to two barrels of oil per ton of MSW.
Renewable Energy Source
WTE is designated as renewable by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, by the US Department of Energy
(DOE), and by twenty-three state governments. Excluding hydroelectric power, only 2 percent of the
US electricity is generated from renewable energy sources. A third of this renewable energy is due to
WTE which at this time processes about 8 percent of the US MSW, while nearly 64 percent is landfilled
(2004 BioCycle/Columbia national survey; www.wtert.org/sofos/SOG2006.pdf). As of July, 2008,
energy recovered from WTE plants in the US is greater than all wind and solar energy combined.
3
Environmental Benefits
In addition to its energy benefits, WTE avoids the conversion of greenfields to landfills. The 2,500-acre
Freshkills landfill of New York City filled up in about 50 years. Under current regulations (daily cover,
etc.), it would have filled in 20-25 years. Although the US is blessed with abundant land, the continuous
use of land for landfilling is not sustainable, especially in the coastal areas that are experiencing the
highest population growth.
Since WTE facilities are a point source of emissions, they have been subjected to very stringent
environmental regulations. This is not possible for landfills which are dispersed sources extending over
hundreds of acres. For example, EPA assumes that 75 percent of the landfill gas (LFG) is captured in
landfills that are equipped for such capture. Other studies estimate the actual LFG capture to be much
lower since, under current EPA regulations, landfills are not required to capture LFG during the first five
years of operation of a cell.
Landfill gas contains about 50 percent methane which is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide.(7) Comparative studies of WTE and landfilling have shown that for each ton of MSW
combusted, rather than landfilled, the overall carbon dioxide reduction can be as high as 1.3 tons of CO2
per ton of MSW when both the avoided landfill emissions and the avoided use of fossil fuel are taken
into account.
WTE processing of MSW has the additional benefit of reducing the transport of MSW to distant
landfills and the attendant emissions and fuel consumption. It also reduces interstate truck traffic.
According to U.S. Department of Transportation traffic statistics, an average of 7 deaths and over 40
serious injuries occur per year, based on the number of trucks required to transport New Jersey’s two
million tons per year of excess MSW to landfills in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio.(6)
Diesel fuel consumption of trucking to and from landfills and by equipment used in the burial of MSW
in landfills generates air emissions and has other negative environmental impacts. All this energy
consumption and diesel exhaust can be avoided by WTE facilities that use MSW as the fuel for
generating electricity and steam energy at plants located near urban centers.
Material Recovery
Another beneficial effect of modern MSW combustion with energy recovery is material recovery.
Using magnetic separators, the U.S. WTE industry recovers and recycles over 770,000 tons of ferrous
scrap metal annually from the combustion ash residue.(8) At some facilities, non-ferrous metals are also
removed through the use of “eddy current separators” that cause these materials to literally jump out of
the remaining ash and into a recovery area. Metal processors sort this mixed metal into brass,
aluminum, copper and other base metals.(9) The remaining ash can be used in the construction and
maintenance of landfills and as an aggregate in construction.(10, 11)
Existing Obstacles for WTE Technology
The progress of WTE in the US has thus far been stifled by three factors that can be addressed through
federal legislation and collective local efforts:
-
Inconsistent environmental regulations for various energy sources.
Failure to consider all environmental factors when local community environmental decisions are
made.
4
-
Uneven support by local officials and federal agencies.
Flow Control
Flow control is the authority needed by a municipality to direct the “flow” of its generated solid wastes
into a disposal process chosen by the community, e.g., the local WTE facility. Normally, a community
must issue bonds for construction of a large WTE facility and employ flow control to have firm waste
delivery contracts in place during the term of the bond issue.(12)
When the US Supreme Court appeared to rule in the 1994 “Carbone” case that all existing attempts at
such control were illegal under the Constitution because they restrained “commerce”, they eliminated
the ability of a community to finance WTE facilities. However, in the 2007 "United Haulers" decision,
the Supreme Court has clarified the ability of local communities to finance long term revenue bond
issues and control the flow of waste to these facilities. Moreover, the court recognized that Congress
has, in RCRA, carved out a vital role for local government in the management of the nation's solid
waste.
Implementation of Regulations
Environmental impact statements for any waste management facility (recycling, composting, WTE,
waste hauling, and landfilling) should include a life-cycle analysis of all associated environmental and
energy impacts that will result from each option. Even recycling, though laudatory, has negative, as
well as positive, environmental effects. The impacts of the failure to make any community
“improvement” should also be weighed in the evaluation of choices.
U.S. WTE facilities have complied with very stringent EPA regulations, known as Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT), at an estimated cost of over one billion dollars. By law, the
Clean Air Act requires that every five years a review of these stringent emissions limits is conducted in
order to determine whether lower limits are achievable.(13) Air quality regulations for all forms of
combustion processes should have consistent health-based emissions limits for all facilities. If an
emission is dangerous from one type of facility, then it is likely to be equally dangerous from another.
Disposal of solid waste from major urban areas in landfills frequently involves long haul trucking
resulting in diesel exhaust pollution and the need for multiple waste transfer stations. Additionally, the
landfilling process also results in diesel exhaust emissions and the long term generation of gaseous
pollutants from the decomposition of trash in a landfill.
Public decision makers should carefully consider all environmental factors before adopting a solution to
an environmental problem such as disposal of MSW. In addition, the public should be educated to know
the benefits and burdens associated with each potential solution before making a final decision.
Recommended Actions by US Environmental Protection Agency
The US Environmental Protection Agency needs to fulfill its obligation to the public by advocating for
the best solutions to environmental problems, including the disposal of MSW. Sound science should be
the basis for decision-making. EPA must lead by educating the public as to the pros and cons that go
with any solution and, thus, help overcome misconceptions about proven technological solutions. By
means of public education, USEPA must lead in the application of the best environmental solutions.
In recent years, the EPA has taken a more active role in educating the public, by distinguishing in its
annual reports between tonnages of MSW going to WTE and to landfilling, instead of lumping them
5
together as “disposal”. Also, some EPA regions have taken a pro-active role in educating the public in
the benefits of WTE. For example, EPA Region 2 organized a one-day seminar in Puerto Rico at which
they educated the general public on the benefits of WTE vs. landfilling, especially for an island where
land is very scarce and precious. EPA has also re-instituted the hierarchy of integrated solid waste
management, which places waste-to-energy above landfill disposal. We applaud these efforts
undertaken by the EPA and feel that now is the time to build upon them.
It is given that no one wants a new public facility of any sort near their homes, whether it is an airport,
highway, water treatment plant or a waste disposal facility. We feel that it is paramount that
environmental regulators coordinate with local officials to hold public hearings where new facilities and
technologies and the “do-nothing” consequences can be discussed. Additionally, we feel that the EPA
should actively promote WTE as a mutually beneficial endeavor for both local communities and the
nation.
Recommended Actions by Congress
The following actions are recommended by the ASME Solid Waste Processing Division to advance the
use of WTE technology in the US and reap the energy benefits of a homegrown, renewable energy
source and of reduced local, regional, and global emissions:
-
Congress should re-examine and reconsider the level of regulatory limits required for all new
sources of energy. MACT regulations have worked well for waste-to-energy facilities and they
are equally able to control emissions from all other sources of combustion based energy
production.
-
Congress, in an effort to expand WTE, should consider enacting legislation that would make
renewable energy credits available for WTE under the definitions of green or renewable energy.
-
Congress should direct EPA to study and post notice regarding the effects of the "whole picture"
for all available waste management options.
The ASME Solid Waste Processing Division believes that these policy recommendations, if fully
adopted, could successfully take advantage of a unique opportunity to develop a renewable, clean energy
source at a critical time for our nation. The country will also be well served by recovery of reusable
materials, reduced truck traffic and highway congestion, less dependence on landfill for solid waste
disposal, and less dependence on foreign sources of energy.
References:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
“National Energy Strategy,” USDOE, 1991/1992, pages 181, 182.
LaRiviere, Marie, April 2007, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Trends in Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) Composition, Department of Energy
USEPA, Dec. 1995, Preamble: Proposed Rules and Notice, Federal Register, Pg. 65413.
C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, 511 U.S. 383 (1994).
Directive 99/31/EC, “Landfill of Waste, EEC policy.
J. Norton, Sept 1990, “Don’t Keep on Truckin,” Public Works and New Jersey State Magazine,
also presented on behalf of the ASME in Congressional RCRA Subcommittee Testimony, June,
1990.
6
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
H. Taylor, Jan. 1990: “Municipal Waste to Energy Facilities Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions”, Proceeds of the 4th Annual Symposium on Municipal Solid Waste Disposal and
Energy Production.
C. Wiles and P. Shephard, April 1999 USDOE, 126 Pg. Booklet #BK-570-25841 “Beneficial
Use and Recycling of Municipal Combustion Residues – A Comprehensive Resource
Document” by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
G. Arcaini, May 2000 NAWTECi “Ash Recycling in Nashville, /TN”, Proceedings of the 8th
North American Waste to Energy Conference.
S. Lucido, May 2000: “The Use of Municipal Waste Combustor Ash as a Partial Replacement of
Aggregate in Bituminous Paving Material”, Proceedings of the 8th North American Waste to
Energy Conference.
F. Roethel and V. Breslin, 1995: “Municipal Solid Waste Combustion Ash Demonstration
Program ‘The Boathouse’”, USEPA/600/R-95/129, Cincinnati, Ohio.
J. Martin, May 1998: “Demystifying Ratings: How Flow Control Shocks Credit Quality”,
Proceedings of the 6th North American Waste to Energy Conference, Miami Beach, FL.
USEPA, Dec. 1995, Preamble: Proposed Rules and Notice, Federal Register, Pg. 65409 – 65413.
Other References:
J. Kiser and M Zannes, May 1999 Integrated Solid Waste Management Association: “Waste to
Energy in the USA – 1999 Update, Proceedings of the 7th Annual North American Waste to
Energy Conference, Tampa, FL.
Floyd Hasselriis, May 1998 ASME, “How Far Have We Come”, Proceedings of the 6th Annual
North American Waste to Energy Conference, Miami Beach, FL.
A. Licata and D. Minott, April 1996 ASME: “Comparison of Air Emissions from Waste
Management Facilities”, Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Waste Processing Conference, Atlantic
City, NJ.
ASME-SWPD, USEPA Waste Policy Center 1992, and USDOE.
Bruce Ames, Ph.D., Professor of Biochemistry And Molecular Biology and Director of the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center at the University of California,
Berkeley, July 1997.
E. Tanenbaum, April 1997: “Planning and Implementing the New York / New Jersey Ash Paving
Demonstration”, Proceedings of the 5th North American Waste to Energy Conference.
Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT); Earth Engineering Center,
Columbia University 500 West 120th St., New York, NY, July 2008 http://www.wtert.org
###
This position statement represents the views of the Solid Waste Processing Division and Energy Committee of
ASME’s Technical Communities of Knowledge and Community and is not necessarily a position of
ASME as a whole.
7
Energy Recovery Council
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Suite 700,
Washington, DC 20036 │ 202-467-6240
In determining the sources to include under a greenhouse gas emissions cap, policymakers should evaluate the complete
lifecycle of the source. Sources that reduce greenhouse gases over their lifecycle should be encouraged rather than regulated. Applying a lifecycle analysis to waste-to-energy facilities demonstrates that they are net reducers of greenhouse gases
and should be treated accordingly under any policy to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Crafting a climate policy that
recognizes the benefits of waste-to-energy will have the desired effect of providing incentives to renewable energy sources
that minimize greenhouse gases and promote energy independence and fuel diversity. Waste-to-energy facilities should
qualify as sources of offsets in any climate change program and be excluded as a source regulated under a cap.
Waste-to-Energy Basics
Waste-to-energy facilities generate electricity and steam using municipal solid waste as the primary fuel source. The facilities burn waste in specially designed boilers to ensure complete combustion and employ modern pollution control equipment to scrub emissions.
The result is clean, renewable energy. Nationwide, 85 waste-to-energy plants supply about 2,500 megawatts of generating
capacity to the grid. These plants divert approximately 90,000 tons of waste each day from landfills, generating nearly 15
billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year. This is enough to meet the electricity needs of almost 1.5 million homes and .
To put this in context, it would take 7.8 million tons of coal to produce the same amount of electricity from a coal-fired
power plant. Additionally, waste-to-energy plants generally operate in or near metropolitan areas, increasing transmission
efficiency and improving distribution bottlenecks.
Currently, waste-to-energy facilities process only 7 percent of the municipal solid waste produced in the U.S. each year.
This largely untapped resource of readily-available biomass does not require large-scale conversion of arable land or diversion of compostable materials.
Waste-to-Energy Reduces Greenhouse Gases and Should be Encouraged
Although waste-to-energy facilities emit CO2 as part of their process, they achieve a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over their lifecycle and should not be covered under an emissions cap.
Waste-to-energy emits two types of CO2: biogenic and anthropogenic. Most of the emissions (63%) are biogenic. These
emissions result from the combustion of biomass, which is already part of the Earth's natural carbon cycle – the plants and
trees that make up the paper, food, and other biogenic waste remove CO2 from the air while they are growing, which is
returned to the air when this material is burned at a waste-to-energy facility. Because they are part of the natural carbon
cycle, greenhouse gas policies should not seek to regulate these emissions.
The remaining CO2 emissions are anthropogenic. They come from man-made substances in the waste that is combusted,
such as unrecyclable plastics and synthetic rubbers. Despite these emissions, waste-to-energy facilities more than offset
these emissions through three separate mechanisms.
Energy Recovery Council
1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
202-467-6240
www.energyrecoverycouncil.org
Energy Recovery Council
Waste-to-energy facilities reduce greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following ways:
by generating electrical power or steam, waste-to-energy avoids CO2 emissions from
fossil fuel-based electrical generation;
♦ the waste-to-energy combustion process eliminates the methane emissions that would
have occurred if the waste was placed in a landfill; and
♦ the recovery of metals from municipal solid waste by waste-to-energy facilities is more
energy efficient than the production of metals from raw materials.
♦
As a result of these mechanisms, waste-to-energy produces electricity at a net emission rate of negative 3,636 lbs of CO2/
MWh. In other words, on a lifecycle basis, for every ton of trash burned at a waste-to-energy plant, approximately one ton
of CO2 equivalents is reduced.
Climate change policies that only look at the end of the stack may inadvertently include net reducers like waste-to-energy
facilities. This would unnecessarily penalize facilities that provide climate change benefits and would be inconsistent with
state and regional greenhouse gas programs like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which exclude waste-toenergy facilities from the definition of covered sources. It would also be inconsistent with international carbon regimes.
For example, the Clean Development Mechanism established under the Kyoto Protocol accords waste-to-energy projects
offset status for displacing fossil fuel-fired electricity generation and eliminating methane production from landfills. Any
federal climate change program should similarly recognize waste-to-energy as an important tool to meet greenhouse gas
reduction goals and should treat waste-to-energy as a renewable energy source and an eligible offset project category.
Renewable Energy Policies Should Promote Waste-to-Energy Facilities
Federal, state, and local governments have enacted a variety of laws that recognize waste-to-energy as a renewable energy
source. At the federal level, waste-to-energy has been recognized as an important source of renewable energy since the
inception of the industry over 30 years ago. The Federal Power Act, the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA),
the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act, the
Internal Revenue Code, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, Executive
Order 13123, and Federal Energy Regulatory
States Defining Waste-to-Energy as Renewable in State Law
Commission regulations all recognize waste(as of 4/15/13)
to-energy as a renewable source of energy.
Most recently, the American Taxpayer Relief
Alabama
Maine
Ohio
Act recognized waste-to-energy as a renewaArizona
Maryland
Oklahoma
ble energy source when it allowed waste-toArkansas
Massachusetts
Oregon
energy facilities and other renewable sources
to be eligible for the production tax credit
California
Michigan
Pennsylvania
when the facility has begun construction.
Colorado
Minnesota
Puerto Rico
Policies aiming to increase renewable energy
Connecticut
Missouri
South Carolina
production (production tax credit or renewaFlorida
Montana
South Dakota
ble/clean energy standard) and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (cap-and-trade) should
Hawaii
Nevada
Utah
rely on waste-to-energy to assist in these efforts. Increased use of waste-to-energy will
Iowa
New Jersey
Virginia
help promote energy independence, reduce
Indiana
New York
Washington
dependence on fossil fuels, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In conclusion, it is esLouisiana
N. Marianna Islands
Wisconsin
sential that any future climate and renewable
policies continue to encourage the development and operation of waste-to-energy facilities.
Energy Recovery Council
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036 │ 202-467-6240
www.energyrecoverycouncil.org
Update of Dioxin Emission Factors for Forest Fires, Grassland and Moor
Fires, Open Burning of Agricultural Residues, Open Burning of Domestic
Waste, Landfills and Dump Fires
By Pat Costner
International POPs Elimination Network
15 November 2006
Introduction
This briefing paper presents dioxin emission factors that have appeared in the scientific
literature since the release in 2005 of the IPEN report, “Estimating Releases and
Prioritizing Sources in the Context of the Stockholm Convention: Dioxin Emission
Factors for Forest Fires, Grassland and Moor Fires, Open Burning of Agricultural
Residues, Open Burning of Domestic Waste, Landfills and Dump Fires.” 1
These new studies are briefly described below and, where appropriate, their emission
factors are shown alongside those previously presented in the 2005 IPEN report,
including emission factors proffered in the UNEP Dioxin Toolkit.
1.0 Forest Fires, Grassland and Moor Fires
1.1
French Study
In France, Collet and Fiani (2006) collected four sets of samples of litter, moss, heather,
brackens, conifer needles, pine cones, shrubs, bark, and small diameter pine and oak
branches from forest sites in the southwest, 10 and 50 kilometers from the coast, and in
the southeast, near to and 50 kilometers from the coast. These four samples were
burned in a large, circular metal bowl inside a combustion chamber. A fifth test burn was
carried out on samples from the southeast, 50 kilometers from the coast, after they had
been sprayed with salt water and then dried.
For the five test burns, concentrations of dioxins in air ranged from 2.76 to 68.2 pg ITEQ/m3 , with an average of 29.4 pg I-TEQ/m3 . Four field blanks showed dioxin
concentrations ranging from 4.79 to 147.9 pg I-TEQ/m3, with an average of 45.7 pg ITEQ/m3. The authors of this study derived emission factors ranging from 1.02 to 25.9 ng
I-TEQ/kg, with an average of 10.5 ng I-TEQ/kg. 2 However, since the average dioxin
concentration of the field blanks was higher than that for the test burns, it is necessary to
extend and/or repeat this work in order to derive useful emission factors.
1.2
Open Burning of Domestic Waste
Domestic waste is burned in open piles, barrels, fireplaces, household stoves, and
primitive incinerators, even in the wealthiest, most technologically-advanced countries.
1.1 Belgian Study
1
Wevers et al. (2004) burned household waste and yard waste (trimmings and fallen
leaves) in a galvanized steel drum, an oil barrel and open piles. The household waste
consisted of the “combustible fraction, a mixture of plastics, beverage cartons, paper and
cardboard“ sorted from the waste collected by 15 families during one month. The
composition of this waste was “considered to be representative for backyard waste
burning but lower in water, organic and inert material than municipal waste.” Based on
their experiments, Wevers et al. (2004) reported the following air emission factors: 3
• 4.7 – 20 ng TEQ/kg for garden waste in galvanized drums;
• 4.4 ng TEQ/kg for garden waste in an open pile; and
• 35 ng TEQ/kg for household waste in a steel oil barrel.
The higher air emission factor, 20 ng TEQ/kg, for garden waste burned in a galvanized
drum was attributed to poorer combustion due to restricted air flow into the drum. The
dioxin content of the ashes was not determined for any of the experiments.
Using wood stoves for household heating, Wevers et al. (2003) reported mean air
emission factors of 24.4 ng TEQ/kg and 350 ng TEQ/kg when burning the combustible
portion of household waste with untreated and treated wood, respectively. 4
1.2 Japanese Studies
Ikeguchi and Tanaka (2000) burned various household waste components in small metal
“home incinerators” that appear to be no more complex than barrels with air vents and a
large chimney. Among the air emission factors that were derived are the following: 5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5-140 ng TEQ/kg for garden waste;
400-420 ng TEQ/kg for newspaper;
6-420 ng TEQ/kg for corrugated paper;
1,670-11,500 ng TEQ/kg for corrugated paper plus 5 percent PVC;
4,000-17,000 ng TEQ/kg for corrugated paper plus 10 percent PVC;
6,100-28,000 ng TEQ/kg for corrugated paper plus 20 percent PVC;
40 ng TEQ/kg for corrugated paper plus 5 percent polystyrene;
3-30 ng TEQ/kg for corrugated paper plus 10 percent polystyrene;
10 ng TEQ/kg for corrugated paper plus 10 percent polyethylene; and
3-40 ng TEQ/kg for corrugated paper plus 20 percent polyethylene.
In this study, chlorine was added to the materials burned in the form of PVC and as
sodium chloride. Air emissions of dioxins were found to increase with higher chlorine
levels in the materials combusted.
Nakao et al. (2005) burned a variety of materials – paper, leaves, natural wood, building
materials, fiber, non-chlorine-containing plastics, chlorine-containing plastics, and copper
electric wire – in a small, uncontrolled metal incinerator. No emission factors were
derived. However, they found that including non-chlorine-containing plastics had no
impact on dioxin releases but the addition of chlorine-containing plastics increased
dioxin concentrations in flue gas and residual ash by some 60-fold, expressed as TEQ.
With the further inclusion of copper wire, dioxin flue gas concentrations increased 570fold and residual ash concentrations, more than 2,000-fold. 6
2
1.3 Korean Study
In an open-burning simulation facility, Moon et al. (2006) burned household waste in a
steel barrel. The waste was comprised of 85 percent paper, 10 percent plastics and 5
percent other materials (wood, rubber, garbage, etc.). Emission factors for releases to
air of dioxins ranged from 5.89 to 8.56 ng W-TEQ/kg, with an average of 7.34 ng WTEQ/kg, for the three experimental test burns. Emission factors for releases in residues
were not reported. 7
1.4 Swedish Study
Hedman et al. (2005) burned garden waste and refuse derived fuel in open steel barrels
and on a steel plate. The refuse derived fuel was described as “municipal waste where
the combustible fractions (e.g. paper, textile and soft plastics) had been mechanically
sorted out from noncombustible waste and decomposable material at a waste sorting
plant.” Their findings suggest that “general [air] emission factors for PCDF and PCB may
be in the range …) of 4-72 ng/kg, with a median value of 20 ng/kg (WHO-TEQ).”
They also found that dioxin levels in ash “were usually less than 5% of the total” dioxin
releases. More specifically, these researchers reported dioxin emission factors of 16-18
ng W-TEQ/kg for releases to air and 0.3 ng W-TEQ/kg for releases to residues when
burning a mixture of refuse derived fuel and garden waste. 8 The refuse derived fuel had
a chlorine content ranging from 0.13 to 0.52 percent, with almost 75 percent of the
chlorine attributed to the plastic fraction of the waste, which was known to contain PVC.9
1.5 U.S. Studies
In the first of a series of experiments, Lemieux (1997) burned simulated household
waste a in steel barrels in an enclosed testing facility. The average air emission factors
derived for waste with PVC content of 0.2 and 4.5 percent were 140 ng TEQ/kg and
2,654 ng TEQ/kg, respectively. 10 Based on the data from this study, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency used an air emission factor of 140 ng TEQ/kg in the
U.S. dioxin inventory in 1998. 11
In a follow-on study at the same facility, Gullett et al. (1999; 2001) derived the following
air emission factors when burning simulated household waste in a steel barrel: 12, 13
•
•
•
•
•
14 ng TEQ/kg with no PVC;
79 ng TEQ/kg with 0.2 percent PVC;
201 ng TEQ/kg with 1 percent PVC;
4,916 ng TEQ/kg with 7.5 percent PVC; and
734 ng TEQ/kg with no PVC but with the addition of chlorine, as calcium chloride, in a
quantity equivalent to that present with 7.5 percent PVC.
a
The wastes are described as “a reasonable representation of a waste stream … according to
the typical percentages of various materials characterized and quantified for New York State
residents.” It consisted of various kinds of paper products, plastic resins, food waste,
textile/leather, wood, glass/ceramics, iron and aluminum cans, as well as wire, copper pipe and
batteries (see Lemieux, 1997). This same general composition was used in all of the U.S. studies
described here.
3
Drawing on the results of earlier experiments at this facility and with additional variables
including copper content, moisture levels and further combustion conditions, Gullett et al.
(2000) reported air emission factors ranging from 1.7 to 6,433 ng TEQ/kg. They also
found lower dioxin releases in one experiment in which wastes were burned in an open
pile rather than a steel barrel. 14
In a related study, Lemieux et al. (2000) burned simulated household waste containing
0.2 percent PVC and 4.5 percent PVC in a steel barrel in the enclosed testing facility and
reported air emission factors of, respectively, 759 to 903 ng TEQ/kg and 1,230 to 5,400
ng TEQ/kg. 15 However, these values were apparently erroneously reported, given the
wide disparities between these and air emission factors presented in closely related
studies, including a later review paper by the same author.
In the most recent description of these and additional results from this series of
experiments, Lemieux et al. (2003) reported an average air emission factor of 76.8 ng
W-TEQ/kg for household waste containing 0.2 percent PVC. 23 This air emission factor
is used in the most recent U.S. dioxin inventory. 16 Lemieux et al. (2003) also reported a
somewhat lower air emission factor, 61 ng TEQ/kg, when household waste was burned
in an open pile on a steel grate rather than in a steel barrel. In addition, they concluded,
“At moderate levels of [chlorine], a statistically significant effect of waste [chlorine]
concentration is not observed, because other more important variables have a much
greater influence on the emissions of [dioxins].” 23 However, in a detailed reanalysis of
these same data, Neurath (2004) found that chlorine content and, especially PVC
content, are the most important predictors of dioxin emissions from the open burning of
domestic waste. 17
1.6 UNEP Dioxin Toolkit
All three versions of the Toolkit give an air emission factor of 300 ng TEQ/kg for
uncontrolled burning of domestic waste – burning such wastes in open piles, in barrels,
and in home fires – “where a wide range of wastes including items such as household
hazardous wastes and chemicals may be burned.” 18, 19, 20 The studies cited as the basis
for this emission factor are described in Section 1.5 above: two studies by scientists
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Lemieux (1997) 21 and Gullett et al.
(1999) 22 – as well as a review by Lemieux et al. (2003) .23
The Toolkit’s emission factor for releases to residues, 600 ng TEQ/kg, is attributed to the
study by Lemieux et al. (1997).
1.7 Summary -- Burning Domestic Waste in Steel Barrels, Metal Bowls and Open
Piles
As shown below in Figure 1, the Toolkit’s emission factor for dioxin releases to air during
open burning of domestic waste is markedly higher than the emission factors reported
for ordinary domestic waste in other published studies, including those cited as its basis.
As shown in Figure 2, the Toolkit emission factor for releases to residues during open
burning of ordinary domestic waste is also higher than that reported in the study to which
it is attributed, Lemieux et al. (1997). Further it is far higher than the emission factor
4
reported by Hedman et al. (2005) when the combustible portion of Swedish domestic
waste was burned. 24
350
300
300
ng TEQ/kg
250
200
140
150
100
79
61
50
35
4.4
7.34
12.4
14
17
0
UNEP
Dioxin
Toolkit
Wevers et Moon et Wevers et Gullett et Hedman et Wevers et Lemieux Gullett et Lemieux
al. (2004), al. (2006) al. (2004), al. (1999; al. (2005) al. (2004),
et al.
al. (1999;
(1997)
GW - OP HHW - MB GW - B
2001),
RDF & GW HHW - B
(2003)
2001)
HHW, 0.2%
HHW, 0%
-B
HHW, 0.2% HHW, 0.2% PVC - B
PVC - B
PVC - OP
PVC -B
Figure 1: Burning Domestic Waste in Steel Barrels and Open Piles – Emission Factors for
Releases to Air (GW = garden waste; HHW = household waste; RDF = refused derived fuel;
OP = open pile; B = barrel; MB = metal bowl)
5
700
600
600
ng TEQ/kg
500
400
343
300
200
100
0.3
0
UNEP Dioxin Toolkit
Hedman et al. (2005) RDF & GW - B Lemieux (1997) HHW, 0.2% PVC -B
Figure 2: Burning Domestic Waste in Steel Barrels and Open Piles – Emission Factors for
Releases to Residues (GW = garden waste; HHW = household waste; RDF = refuse
derived fuel; OP = open pile; B = barrel)
The composition of domestic waste and combustion conditions determine the extent of
dioxin formation. Because these determinants vary over broad ranges, there are no
universally applicable emission factors for dioxin releases to air, land or residues for
open burning of domestic waste.
To estimate dioxin releases from open burning of domestic waste, Parties must be
familiar with the waste compositions and combustion conditions that prevail in their
individual countries and choose emission factors that were derived with wastes and
conditions most similar to their own.
Table 1: Open Burning of Domestic Waste -- Dioxin emission factors for releases to air
according to combustion conditions, general waste composition, and PVC content
General waste
composition
Combustion
conditions
Unsorted
domestic
waste,
including glass,
cans, food, etc.
Open pile
Combustible
portion of
Metal
container
(steel barrel,
etc.)
PVC content
0%
0.2 %
or less
1%
4.5%
7.5%
201 31,
2,654
4,916
34
35, 36
Not
given
6125
14 26,27
79-140
28,29, 30
32, 33
Open pile
6
domestic waste
Combustible
portion of
domestic waste
and garden
waste
Garden waste
Metal
container
(steel barrel,
etc.)
35 37 b
7.3 38
Open pile
Metal
container
(steel barrel,
etc.)
17 39 c
Open pile
4.4 40
Metal
container
(steel barrel,
etc.)
12.4 41
As made apparent by the scarcity of data in Table 1, there is great need for more study
of open burning of domestic waste. Nonetheless, Table 1 provides insight into the
selection of the most appropriate emission factors for a given circumstance. For
example, is domestic waste most commonly burned in barrels or in open piles? Is the
waste sorted or unsorted? Is it burned together with yard or garden waste?
• Open pile or metal container (steel barrel, etc.): In two studies, emission factors were
higher when waste was burned in barrels rather than open piles. This is not surprising
since iron, the primary constituent in steel barrels and most other metal containers
that might be used for waste burning, was found to be “a strong promoter for
PCDD/F [dioxin] formation” by Halonen et al. (1997). 42 Iron in the metal grates and
plates used as combustion platforms in open burning experiments may be promoting
dioxin formation.
• Domestic waste – sorted or unsorted: Unsorted waste burned in the U.S. studies
included not only combustibles but also glass/ceramic materials, food wastes, steel
and aluminum cans. As noted in the Belgian and Swedish studies, burning such
waste is not a common practice in those countries, or, in all likelihood, in most
countries. Consequently, the emission factors from the U.S. studies may be more
useful as indicators of the effects of variables, such as PVC content, than as factors
for general use in estimating releases.
• Domestic waste or a mixture of domestic and yard waste: The combustible portion of
domestic waste is commonly burned together with garden and yard waste. Reduced
dioxin formation through such “co-firing” is supported by the findings of 1) relatively
low emission factors in the Belgian and Swedish studies in which domestic and yard
wastes were burned together and 2) considerably higher emission factors in the U.S.
studies in which only unsorted domestic waste was burned.
b
“The household waste was collected by 15 families during one month. Mainly the combustible
fraction, a mixture of plastics, beverage cartons, paper and cardboard was used. This
composition is considered to be representative for backyard waste burning but lower in water,
organic and inert material than municipal waste.”
c
“The refuse-derived fuel (RDF) consisted of municipal waste where the combustible fractions
(e.g. paper, textile and soft plastics) had been mechanically sorted out from noncombustible
waste and decomposable material at a waste sorting plant.”
7
At present, the emission factors from the Korean study – 7.3 ng TEQ/kg for air releases
– and the Swedish study – 17 ng TEQ/kg for air releases and 0.3 ng TEQ/kg for releases
to residues -- appear to be the most appropriate when, as is the common practice, the
combustible portion of domestic waste is burned.
2.0 Landfill and Dump Fires
Fires at landfills and dumps are common occurrences, even in the wealthiest regions of
the world. For example, the most recent European Dioxin Inventory notes as follows: 43
“It is well known that in some European countries still illegal and uncontrolled
dump sites for municipal solid waste exist. Such dumping sites frequently are set
to fire either by autoignition or intentionally in order to increase their capacity.”
•
2.2 Asian Studies
Minh et al. (2003) examined soils from open dumps in the Philippines, Cambodia, India,
and Vietnam, where open burning was observed, and found dioxin levels in soils that
were, in some cases, hundreds of times higher than soils from control sites. 44 In a
related study at some of these sites, Hirai et al. (2003) determined that the emission
factor for total releases (air and land) must be greater than 400 ng TEQ/kg to explain
dioxin levels in soil samples at the Indian dump and greater than 4,000 ng TEQ/kg at the
Cambodian dump. 45
2.3 French Study
Collet and Fiani (2006) burned two samples taken from landfills in a metal bowl filled
with soil or sand and placed within an enclosed chamber. They derived an emission
factor for release to air of 242 ng I-TEQ/kg with the sample composed of 70.5 percent
non-hazardous industrial waste and 29.5 percent municipal solid waste and an air
emission factor of 233 ng I-TEQ/kg with the other sample which consisted of 33.5
percent non-hazardous industrial waste and 66.5 percent municipal solid waste. 46
2.4 Japanese Study
In a landfill fire simulation, Hirai et al. (2005) burned refuse derived fuel (RDF) in a steel
bowl filled with soil. The RDF was comprised of paper and textiles, 51.8 percent;
plastics and leather, 32 percent; wood and grass, 5.3 percent; garbage, 9.5 percent;
non-combustibles, 0.4 percent; and others, 1 percent. They reported emission factors for
releases to air of 23-46 ng TEQ/kg and for releases to residues, 120-170 ng TEQ/kg,
with 70-90 percent of the dioxins partitioned to the residues. 47
2.5 Swiss Study
In the discussion of landfill fires in the European Dioxin Inventory, Quass et al. (2000)
described a study in Switzerland that reported an air emission factor of 450 ng TEQ/kg
for landfill fires based on a dioxin concentration of 15 µg TEQ/kg in the filter dust of a
municipal solid waste incinerator and a dust release rate of 30 kg dust/t waste. 48
8
2.6 UNEP Dioxin Toolkit
All versions of the Toolkit present an air emission factor of 1,000 ng TEQ/kg for landfill
and dump fires. This value is said to be based on Swedish work as reported by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 49, 50, 51 Although the original Swedish study by
Persson and Bergstrom (1991) 52 was not readily available, the results of this study have
been described as follows:
• According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the study reported an
average emission rate of 1,000 ng Nordic TEQ/kg of waste burned. 53
• According to the European Dioxin Inventory, the Swedish researchers carried out
simulation experiments in which dioxin concentrations in the combustion gas ranged
from 66 to 518 ng N-TEQ/m³. At a specific flue gas volume of 1700 m³/t, an air
emission factor of about 100 – 900 ng TEQ/kg can be derived. 54
• According to the landfill review by Bates (2004), the Swedish study estimated dioxin
releases of 0.07 g TEQ per surface fire and 0.35 g TEQ per deep fire.55
2.7 Summary -- Landfill and Dump Fires
Emission factors for fires at landfills and open dumps cover very broad ranges which
depend on many, highly variable factors. As with open burning of domestic wastes,
there are no universally applicable emission factors. However, the recent study by Hirai
et al. (2005) presents what appears to be the most rigorous derivation of emission
factors: 23-46 ng TEQ/kg for releases to air and 120-170 ng TEQ/kg for releases to
residues. 56
3.0 Findings and Recommendations
Based on the studies considered in this report, the emission factors shown below in
Table 2 appear currently to have the strongest scientific support and, as such, are most
appropriate for preparing release estimates in dioxin inventories.
Emission factors for forest fires, grassland and moor fires and for open burning of
agricultural residues have relatively low values and narrow ranges. For forest fires,
grassland and moor fires, the most appropriate emission factors are those based on
measurements taken during actual fires, 0.5 ng TEQ/kg for releases to air and 0.05 ng
TEQ/kg for releases to land. Similarly, the appropriate factors for open burning of
agricultural residues are 0.8 ng TEQ/kg for releases to air and 0.05 ng TEQ/kg for
releases to land.
Emission factors for open burning of domestic waste vary by more than a thousand-fold,
as shown in Table 2. For this source category, 17 ng TEQ/kg for releases to air and 0.3
ng TEQ/kg for releases to land are, at present, the most appropriate emission factors for
open burning of domestic waste when the common practice is to burn the combustible
portion of domestic waste with an ordinary PVC content (~0.2 percent) together with
yard and garden waste.
Studies that have derived emission factors for landfill/open dump fires are very limited.
However, where the composition of the waste burned is similar to that studied by Hirai et
9
al. (2005), 57 the means of the emission factors derived in their study can be regarded as
appropriate – 34.5 ng TEQ/kg for releases to air and 145 ng TEQ/kg for releases to land.
Table 2: Dioxin Emission Factors with Strongest Scientific Support to Date
Emission factor
Emission factor for
Emission factor for
for releases to air releases to land
releases to residues
ng TEQ/kg
0.125-0.5
0.02-0.05
Forest fires,
grassland and
moor fires
0.5-0.8
0.02-0.05
Agricultural
residues, open
burning
Domestic waste,
open burning
No PVC
4.4-14
0.3
content, 0%
Moderate PVC
17-79
0.3-343
content, 0.2%
or less
High PVC
200-5,000
343-892
content, 1.0 7.5%
23-46
120-170
Landfill/open
dump fires
1
Costner, P., 2005. Estimating Releases and Prioritizing Sources in the Context of the
Stockholm Convention: Dioxin Emission Factors for Forest Fires, Grassland and Moor Fires,
Open Burning of Agricultural Residues, Open Burning of Domestic Waste, Landfills and Dump
Fires. International POPs Elimination Network, Mexico, December 2005.
2
Collet, S., Fiani, E., 2006. PAH, PCB and PCDD/F emissions from simulated forest and landfill
fires. Presented at Dioxin 2006, 21-25 August 2006, Oslo, Norway.
3
Wevers, M., De Fre, R., Desmedt, M., 2004. Effect of backyard burning on dioxin deposition
and air concentrations. Chemosphere 54: 1351-1356.
4
Wevers, M., De Fre, R., Vanermen, G., 2003. PCDD/F and PAH emissions from domestic
heating appliances with solid fuel. Organohalogen Cpds. 63: 21-24.
5
Ikeguchi,T., Tanaka, M., 2000. Dioxins emission from an open-burning-like waste incineration:
Small incinerators for household use. Organohalogen Cpds. 46: 298-301.
6
Nakao, T., Aozasa, O., Ohta, S., Miyata, H., 2005. Formation of toxic chemicals including
dioxin-related compounds by combustion from a small home waste incinerator. Chemosphere.
In Press.
7
Moon, D., Hwang, T., Park, K., Jung, E., Jang, T., Oh, J., Yoon, S., Joo, C., Kim, Y., 2006.
Estimation of emission factors for PCDD/Fs and co-PCBs emitted from uncontrolled incineration
of waste wood (construction/demolition) and domestic waste. Presented at Dioxin 2006, 21-25
August 2006, Oslo, Norway.
8
Hedman, B., Naslund, M., Nilsson, C., Marklund, S., 2005. Emissions of polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans and polychlorinated biphenyls from uncontrolled burning of
garden and domestic waste (backyard burning). Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:790-8796..
10
9
Hedman, B., 2005. Dioxin Emissions from Small-Scale Combustion of Bio-Fuel and Household
Waste. Department of Chemistry, Environmental Chemistry, Umea University, Umea Sweden.
10
Lemieux, P., 1997. Evaluation of emissions from the open burning of household waste in
barrels. ResearchTriangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. EPA-600/R-97-134a.
11
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. The Inventory of Sources of Dioxin in the United
States. Review Draft. EPA/600/P-98/002Aa. Washington, D.C.
12
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D.,1999. PCDD/F emissions from
uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Organohalogen Compounds 41:27-30.
13
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D., 2001. Emissions of PCDD/F
from uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Chemosphere 43: 721-725.
14
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D., 2000. PCDD/F emissions from
uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Presented at Dioxin ’00, 20th International Symposium on
Halogenated and Environmental Organic Pollutants & POPs, held Aug 13-17 at Monterey, CA.
Corrected revision of short paper in Organohalogen Compounds 46:193-196.
15
Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Abbot, J., Aldous, K., 2000. Emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans from the open burning of household wastes in barrels.
Environ.Sci. Technol. 34: 377-384.
16
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. The Inventory of Sources and Environmental
Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States. The Year 2000 Update. EPA/600/P03/002A. External Review Draft, Washington, D.C.
17
Neurath, C., 2004. PVC’s role in dioxin emissions from open burning: New analysis of US
EPA data. Organohalogen Cpds. 66: 1146-1152.
18
UNEP Chemicals, 2001. Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin
and Furan Releases. Draft. January 2001, Geneva.
19
UNEP Chemicals, 2003. Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin
and Furan Releases. First Edition. May 2003, Geneva.
20
UNEP Chemicals, 2005. Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin
and Furan Releases. Second Edition. February 2005, Geneva.
21
Lemieux, P., 1997. Evaluation of emissions from the open burning of household waste in
barrels. ResearchTriangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. EPA-600/R-97-134a.
22
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D.,1999. PCDD/F emissions from
uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Organohalogen Compounds 41:27-30.
23
Lemieux, P., Gullett, B., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D., 2003. Variables affecting
emissions of PCDD/Fs from uncontrolled combustion of household waste in barrels. J. Air &
Waste Manage. Assoc. 53: 523-531.
24
Hedman, B., Naslund, M., Nilsson, C., Marklund, S., 2005. Emissions of polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans and polychlorinated biphenyls from uncontrolled burning of
garden and domestic waste (backyard burning). Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:790-8796..
25
Lemieux, P., Gullett, B., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D., 2003. Variables affecting
emissions of PCDD/Fs from uncontrolled combustion of household waste in barrels. J. Air &
Waste Manage. Assoc. 53: 523-531.
26
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D.,1999. PCDD/F emissions from
uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Organohalogen Compounds 41:27-30.
27
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D., 2001. Emissions of PCDD/F
from uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Chemosphere 43: 721-725.
28
Lemieux, P., 1997. Evaluation of emissions from the open burning of household waste in
barrels. ResearchTriangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. EPA-600/R-97-134a.
29
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D.,1999. PCDD/F emissions from
uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Organohalogen Compounds 41:27-30.
30
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D., 2001. Emissions of PCDD/F
from uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Chemosphere 43: 721-725.
11
31
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D.,1999. PCDD/F emissions from
uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Organohalogen Compounds 41:27-30.
32
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D., 2001. Emissions of PCDD/F
from uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Chemosphere 43: 721-725.
33
Lemieux, P., 1997. Evaluation of emissions from the open burning of household waste in
barrels. ResearchTriangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. EPA-600/R-97-134a.
34
Lemieux, P., 1997. Evaluation of emissions from the open burning of household waste in
barrels. ResearchTriangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. EPA-600/R-97-134a.
35
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D.,1999. PCDD/F emissions from
uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Organohalogen Compounds 41:27-30.
36
Gullett, B., Lemieux, P., Lutes, C., Winterrowd, C., Winters, D., 2001. Emissions of PCDD/F
from uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Chemosphere 43: 721-725.
37
Wevers, M., De Fre, R., Desmedt, M., 2004. Effect of backyard burning on dioxin deposition
and air concentrations. Chemosphere 54: 1351-1356.
38
Moon, D., Hwang, T., Park, K., Jung, E., Jang, T., Oh, J., Yoon, S., Joo, C., Kim, Y., 2006.
Estimation of emission factors for PCDD/Fs and co-PCBs emitted from uncontrolled incineration
of waste wood (construction/demolition) and domestic waste. Presented at Dioxin 2006, 21-25
August 2006, Oslo, Norway.
39
Hedman, B., Naslund, M., Nilsson, C., Marklund, S., 2005. Emissions of polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans and polychlorinated biphenyls from uncontrolled burning of
garden and domestic waste (backyard burning). Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:790-8796..
40
Wevers, M., De Fre, R., Desmedt, M., 2004. Effect of backyard burning on dioxin deposition
and air concentrations. Chemosphere 54: 1351-1356.
41
Wevers, M., De Fre, R., Desmedt, M., 2004. Effect of backyard burning on dioxin deposition
and air concentrations. Chemosphere 54: 1351-1356.
42
Halonen, I., Tupperainen, K., Ruuskanen, J., 1997. Formation of aromatic chlorinated
compounds catalyzed by copper and iron. Chemosphere 34: 2649-2662.
43
Wenborn, M., King, K., Buckley-Golder, D., Gascon, J., 1999. Release of Dioxins and Furans
to Land and Water in Europe. Final Report. Report produced for Landesumwaltamt NordrheinWestfalen, Germany, on behalf of European Commission DG Environment, September 1999.
44
Minh, N., Minh, T., Watanabe, M., Kunisue, T., Monirith, I., Tanabe, S., Sakai, S.,
Subramanian, K., Viet, P., Tuyen, B., Tana, T., Prudente, M., 2003. Open dumping site in Asian
developing countries: A potential source of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37: 1493-1502.
45
Hirai, Y., Sakai, S., Kunisue, T., Tanabe, S., 2003. Emission factors for uncontrolled burning
and simulation of PCDD/F contamination in open dumping sites. Organohalogen Cpds. 63: 114117.
46
Collet, S., Fiani, E., 2006. PAH, PCB and PCDD/F emissions from simulated forest and landfill
fires. Presented at Dioxin 2006, 21-25 August 2006, Oslo, Norway.
47
Hirai, Y., Kida, A., Sakai, S., 2005. Emission factors of PCDD/DF and PBDE by landfill fire
simulation. Presented at the 25th International Symposium on Halogenated Environmental
Organic Pollutants and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Toronto, Canada, 21-26 August
2005. CD ID 1037.
48
Quass, U., Fermann, M., Broker, G., 2000. The European Dioxin Emission Inventory, Stage II.
Vol. 3: Assessment of dioxin emissions until 2005. Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany:
Landesumweltamt NRW. December 2000.
49
UNEP Chemicals, 2001. Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin
and Furan Releases. Draft. January 2001, Geneva.
50
UNEP Chemicals, 2003. Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin
and Furan Releases. First Edition. May 2003, Geneva.
51
UNEP Chemicals, 2005. Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin
and Furan Releases. Second Edition. February 2005, Geneva.
12
52
Persson, P., Bergström, J., 1991. Emission of chlorinated dioxins from landfill fires.
Proceedings Sardinia 91: Third International Landfill Symposium. pp. 1635-1641.
53
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. The Inventory of Sources and Environmental
Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States. The Year 2000 Update. EPA/600/P03/002A. External Review Draft, Washington, D.C.
54
Quass, U., Fermann, M., Broker, G., 2000. The European Dioxin Emission Inventory, Stage II.
Vol. 3: Assessment of dioxin emissions until 2005. Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany:
Landesumweltamt NRW. December 2000.
55
Bates, M., 2004. Managing Landfill Site Fires in Northamptonshire. SITA - Sustainable Wastes
Management Centre, University College Northampton, Northamptonshire, UK.
56
Hirai, Y., Kida, A., Sakai, S., 2005. Emission factors of PCDD/DF and PBDE by landfill fire
simulation. Presented at the 25th International Symposium on Halogenated Environmental
Organic Pollutants and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Toronto, Canada, 21-26 August
2005. CD ID 1037.
57
Hirai, Y., Kida, A., Sakai, S., 2005. Emission factors of PCDD/DF and PBDE by landfill fire
simulation. Presented at the 25th International Symposium on Halogenated Environmental
Organic Pollutants and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Toronto, Canada, 21-26 August
2005. CD ID 1037.
13
THE 2014 ERC DIRECTORY OF
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES
THE ENERGY RECOVERY COUNCIL IS
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTING COMPANIES,
ORGANIZATIONS, AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ENGAGED IN THE
WASTE-TO-ENERGY SECTOR IN THE
UNITED STATES.
advanced
renewable
WTE
sustainable
innovation
green
energy recovery
electricity
BY TED MICHAELS
jobs
power
clean energy
resource recovery
MSW waste-to-energy
thermal technology
baseload EfW
CHP
avoid GHG
conversion
fuels
W
aste-to-energy is a proven technology used globally to
generate clean, renewable energy from the sustainable
management of municipal solid waste (MSW). Progressive communities around the world employ strategies to reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover energy from waste. With approximately 29
percent of America’s waste being recycled, 7.6 percent processed at
waste-to-energy facilities and 63.5 percent landfilled, MSW is an
abundant, valuable, and underutilized source of domestic energy. By
processing this material, waste-to-energy facilities:





Produce renewable, baseload energy
Reduce greenhouse gases
Create good-paying, green jobs
Operate with superior environmental performance
Complement and enhance recycling goals
Eighty-four waste-to-energy facilities in 23 states have the capacity
to process more than 96,000 tons of waste per day with a baseload
electric capacity of 2,769 megawatt hours. Due to superior operational reliability, the nation’s waste-to-energy facilities process in
excess of 30 million tons of trash per year, sell more than 14.5 million megawatt hours to the grid, and recover more than 730,000 tons
of ferrous metals for recycling. In addition, many facilities sell
steam directly to end users offsetting the use of fossil fuels to make
that energy.
renewable energy from waste
1 Table of Contents
Articles
Facility Quick List
Waste-to-Energy Capacity
Waste-to-Energy Production
Waste-to-Energy Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Waste-to-Energy is a Renewable Resource
Nationwide Economic Benefits of the WTE Sector
EPA Memo Regarding WTE MACT Compliance
Update of Findings from Public Health and Environmental
Studies of WTE Technologies
WTE, an Essential part of Sustainable Materials Management
A Compatibility Study: Recycling and WTE Work in Concert
The Global WTERT Council
WTE in Corporate Sustainability Efforts
Workplace Health & Safety—A WTE Priority
ERC Membership
WTE Directory: Key Terms
Page
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
Facilities (by State)
Alabama
California
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Page
27
28
30
33
38
39
40
41
43
45
48
50
54
55
57
61
62
63
64
67
68
70
71
Maps
WTE Plants in the United States
States Defining WTE as Renewable
Waste Feedstocks Track Population Density
Page
6
6
20
Charts/Graphs
WTE Capacity
WTE Production
Lifecycle Assessment of WTE GHG Reductions
Disposition of MSW in U.S. States
Disposition of MSW in Various Countries
Materials and Energy Recovery vs. Landfilling
Facility Owners
Facility Operators
Facility Technology Type
Facility Offtake
12
14
16
18
22
24
25
26
Page
4
5
7
19
21
23
60
60
60
60
Discussions
Page
Renewable Energy Generation in the United States
27
EfW Can Help Curb GHG Emissions
(Center for American Progress)
29
EIA Electric Generating Capacity Outlook
29
Waste is a Valuable Domestic Energy Resource (infographic) 32
World Economic Forum—Green Investing
32
American Chemistry Council’s Chemistry to Energy
Campaign
37
Recent Capacity Additions
37
Growth in Canada—Durham York Energy Center
38
Confederation of Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP)
39
International Solid Waste Association (ISWA)
40
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
40
North American Waste-to-Energy Conference (NAWTEC)
42
Waste Conversion Technologies
42
U.S. Congress Relies on WTE
44
Maryland Recognizes WTE as a Tier 1 Renewable
44
WTE Carbon Offsets
47
Energy Recovery Council Membership
47
ASME Facility Recognition Awards
49
WTE as CHP Delivers Green Steam
49
QRO—Qualification for WTE Operators
53
Ramsey/Washington Resource Recovery Facility
53
European WTE Markets
61
Prescription for Safety Program (Rx4Safety)
62
Metal Recovery and Recycling
65
WTE By the Numbers
66
Democratic Governors’ Association Report on Opportunities
to Increase and Diversify Domestic Energy Resources
67
The Four R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover)
70
2 Quick List of WTE Facilities
(by state)
Alabama
1) Huntsville Waste-to-Energy Facility (Huntsville)
46)
47)
48)
49)
California
2) Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility (Commerce)
3) Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (Long Beach)
4) Stanislaus County Resource Recovery Facility (Crows Landing)
Pope/Douglas Waste-to-Energy Facility (Alexandria)
Red Wing Resource Recovery Facility (Red Wing)
Xcel Energy - Red Wing Steam Plant (Red Wing)
Xcel Energy-Wilmarth Plant (Mankato)
New Hampshire
50) Wheelabrator Claremont Company, L.P. (Claremont)
51) Wheelabrator Concord Company, L.P. (Concord)
Connecticut
5) Bristol Resource Recovery Facility (Bristol)
6) CRRA Hartford Trash-to-Energy Plant (Hartford)
7) Southeastern Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility (Preston)
8) Wallingford Resource Recovery Facility (Wallingford)
9) Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. (Bridgeport)
10) Wheelabrator Lisbon Inc. (Lisbon)
New Jersey
52) Covanta Camden Energy Recovery Center (Camden)
53) Covanta Warren Energy Resource Company Facility (Oxford)
54) Essex County Resource Recovery Facility (Newark)
55) Union County Resource Recovery Facility (Rahway)
56) Wheelabrator Gloucester Company, L.P. (Westville)
New York
57) Babylon Resource Recovery Facility (West Babylon)
58) Covanta Hempstead (Westbury)
59) Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility (Poughkeepsie)
60) Huntington Resource Recovery Facility (East Northport)
61) MacArthur Waste-to-Energy Facility (Ronkonkoma)
62) Niagara Resource Recovery Facility (Niagara Falls)
63) Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility (Jamesville)
64) Oswego County Energy Recovery Facility (Fulton)
65) Wheelabrator Hudson Falls L.L.C. (Hudson Falls)
66) Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P. (Peekskill)
Florida
11) Bay County Waste-to-Energy Facility (Panama City)
12) Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Facility (Tampa)
13) Lake County Resource Recovery Facility (Okahumpka)
14) Lee County Resource Recovery Facility (Ft. Myers)
15) McKay Bay Refuse-to-Energy Facility (Tampa)
16) Miami-Dade County Resource Recovery Facility (Miami)
17) Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility #1 (West Palm Beach)
18) Pasco County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility (Spring
Hill)
19) Pinellas County Resource Recovery Facility (St. Petersburg)
20) Wheelabrator North Broward Inc. (Pompano Beach)
21) Wheelabrator South Broward Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale)
North Carolina
67) New Hanover County-WASTEC (Wilmington)
Hawaii
22) Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture—HPOWER (Kapolei)
Oklahoma
68) Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility (Tulsa)
Indiana
23) Indianapolis Resource Recovery Facility (Indianapolis)
Oregon
69) Marion County Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility (Brooks)
Iowa
24) Arnold O. Chantland Resource Recovery Plant (Ames)
Pennsylvania
70) Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy (Conshohocken)
71) Delaware Valley Resource Recovery Facility (Chester)
72) Lancaster County Resource Recovery Facility (Bainbridge)
73) Susquehanna Resource Management Complex (Harrisburg)
74) Wheelabrator Falls Inc. (Morrisville)
75) York County Resource Recovery Center (York)
Maine
25) ecomaine (Portland)
26) Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation (Auburn)
27) Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (Orrington)
Maryland
28) Harford Waste-to-Energy Facility (Joppa)
29) Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility (Dickerson
30) Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P. (Baltimore)
Utah
76) Davis Energy Recovery Facility (Layton)
Virginia
77) Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Facility (Alexandria)
78) Hampton-NASA Steam Plant (Hampton)
79) Harrisonburg Resource Recovery Facility (Harrisonburg)
80) I-95 Energy/Resource Recovery Facility (Lorton)
81) Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc. (Portsmouth)
Massachusetts
31) Haverhill Resource Recovery Facility (Haverhill)
32) Pioneer Valley Resource Recovery Facility (Agawam)
33) Pittsfield Resource Recovery Facility (Pittsfield)
34) SEMASS Resource Recovery Facility (West Wareham)
35) Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. (Millbury)
36) Wheelabrator North Andover Inc. (North Andover)
37) Wheelabrator Saugus Inc. (Saugus)
Washington
82) Wheelabrator Spokane Inc. (Spokane)
Wisconsin
83) Barron County Waste-to-Energy & Recycling Facility (Almena)
84) Xcel Energy French Island Generating Station (LaCrosse)
Michigan
38) Detroit Renewable Power (Detroit)
39) Jackson County Resource Recovery Facility (Jackson)
40) Kent County Waste-to-Energy Facility (Grand Rapids)
Italicized facilities represent inactive capacity. These facilities are not
currently operating.
Minnesota
41) Great River Energy - Elk River Station (Elk River)
42) Hennepin Energy Resource Center (Minneapolis)
43) Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility (Rochester)
44) Perham Resource Recovery Facility (Perham)
45) Polk County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility (Fosston)
3 Waste-to-Energy Capacity
Status of WTE Facilities in the U.S.
W
aste-to-energy facilities produce clean, renewable energy through
the thermal conversion of municipal solid waste. The most common energy products produced at these facilities are steam and
electricity. There are 84 total facilities in the United States today, including
80 that are currently operating, and 4 that are currently inactive but may return to active service at a future date. One additional facility is under construction and will be placed in service in 2015. Many others are in various
stages of development.
Sixty-four facilities (76.2%) employ mass burn technology which allows
MSW to be combusted without pre-processing. Thirteen facilities (15.5%)
utilize refuse derived fuel (RDF) which is pre-processed municipal solid
waste. Seven facilities (8.3%) utilize modular combustion units which are
similar to mass burn, but are typically smaller and pre-fabricated.
The 84 facilities produce a combination of energy products. Sixty-two facilities (73.8%) produce electricity for sale to the grid as the only energy
product. Four facilities (4.8%) export steam without any electric generation. Eighteen facilities (21.4%) are cogeneration—or combined heat and
power—facilities, which export steam to end users and also have the ability
to generate power.
The daily throughput capacity of the nation’s waste-to-energy facilities in
2014 is 96,249 tons of MSW per day. The gross electric generating capacity of these facilities is 2,554 megawatts. When the energy value of the exported steam is factored in and expressed in megawatts, the nation’s 84
facilities have a equivalent generating capacity of 2,769 megawatts.
4 Operating Facilities
80
Inactive Facilities
4
Total Facilities in the U.S.
84
Facilities Under Construction
1
WTE Facilities in the U.S. (by Technology)
Mass Burn
64
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
13
Modular
7
WTE Facilities in the U.S. (by Energy)
Electricity Generation
62
Steam Export
4
Combined Heat & Power
18
WTE Capacity
Daily Throughput (tpd)
96,249
Gross Electric Capacity (MW)
2,554
Equivalent CHP Capacity (MW)
2,769
Waste-to-Energy Production
C
apacity represents potential and production is that potential realized. Waste-to-energy operators are extremely proud of their ability to process waste and generated energy 24 hours per day, seven days per week,
all year long. Their technological and operational expertise allow facilities to achieve high availability so
they may provide baseload electricity to the grid and steam to their customers. While the primary purpose of a
waste-to-energy facility is to manage municipal solid waste, energy production is a valuable part of the equation in
order to maximize energy efficiency, environmental benefits, greenhouse gas mitigation, and economic revenue.
The graph below illustrates that waste-to-energy facilities are extremely stable and reliable. In 2012, the waste-to-energy sector processed
WTE Production
more than 30.2 million tons of waste and generated over 14.5 million 2012 MSW Throughput (tons)
30,211,120
megawatt hours (or 14.5 billion kilowatt hours) of net electrical gener2012 Net Elec. Generation (MWh) 14,565,467
ation. This is the amount of electricity sold to the grid and does not
include electricity that was used internally to operate the facility. In
addition to the amount of net electrical generation, 22 facilities export
steam to local users. This energy is used for heating and cooling or
for use in industrial processes and displaces the use of fossil fuels to
make that energy.
These incredibly reliable facilities have operated in this capacity for
decades. This is a testament to maturity and reliability of the technology. While some units eventually close, and some new units have
been added, waste-to-energy facilities have a proven track record of
operational availability, reliability. Challenging market conditions in
the energy and waste markets have served as an impediment to constructing more facilities and recovering energy from more of the 250
million tons of post-recycled waste that is sent to landfills each year.
(data in 000s)
5 6 Waste-to-Energy Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A
ccording to U.S. EPA, life cycle emission analysis show that waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities actually
reduce the amount of greenhouse gases expressed as CO2 equivalents (GHGs or CO2e) in the atmosphere by approximately 1 ton for every ton of municipal solid waste (MSW) combusted. (http://
www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/wte/airem.htm#7)
U.S. EPA scientists, in a prominent peer reviewed paper, concluded WTE facilities reduce GHG emissions relative to even those landfills equipped with energy recovery systems. In addition, many other governmental
and nongovernmental organizations have formally recognized WTE for its role in reducing world-wide GHG
emissions including the:







Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) called WTE a “key GHG mitigation
technology”,
World Economic Forum (WEF) which identified WTE as one of eight renewable energy sources
expected to make a significant contribution to a future low carbon energy system,
European Union, ,
U.S. Conference of Mayors, which adopted a resolution in 2005 endorsing the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement, which identifies WTE as a clean, alternative energy source which
can help reduce GHG emissions. As of January 1, 2014, 1,060 mayors have signed the agreement.
Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol,
Voluntary carbon markets, and
Center for American Progress.
Lifecycle Assessment of WTE GHG Reductions
WTE GHG reductions are quantified using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach that includes GHG reductions from avoided methane emissions from landfills, WTE electrical generation that offsets or displaces fossil
-fuel based electrical generation, and the recovery of metals for recycling. The GHG reductions associated
with these three factors more than offset WTE fossil-based CO2 emissions from combustion of plastics and
other fossil fuel based MSW components. Using national averages as inputs, a LCA results in an approximate
one ton reduction in GHG emissions for every ton of MSW combusted as was estimated by the U.S. EPA.
7 Waste-to-Energy is a Renewable Resource
W
aste-to-energy (WTE) meets the two basic criteria for establishing what a renewable energy resource
is—its fuel source (trash) is sustainable and indigenous. Waste-to-energy facilities recover valuable
energy from trash after efforts to “reduce, reuse, and recycle” have been implemented by households
and local governments. Waste-to-energy facilities generate clean renewable energy and deserve the same
treatment as anyother renewable energy resource.
Federal Statutes and Policies Establishing WTE
as Renewable (as of 12/31/13)
 Trash Would Otherwise go to a Landfill. Wasteto-energy facilities use no fuel sources other than
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 the waste that would otherwise be sent to landfills.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009  State Renewable Statutes Already Include WTE.
31 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories have defined waste-to-energy as renewable
energy in various state statutes and regulations,
including renewable portfolio standards.
Emergency Economic Stabiliza on Act of 2008 Tax Relief and Healthcare Act of 2006 Energy Policy Act of 2005 American Jobs Crea on Act of 2004  Communities with WTE Have Higher Recycling Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 Rates. Studies have demonstrated that average
recycling rate of communities served by waste-to- Public U lity Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 energy is higher than the national average.
Federal Power Act  WTE Emissions Comply with EPA’s Most Stringent Standards. All waste-to-energy facilities
comply with EPA’s Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. After analyzing the inventory of waste-to-energy emissions,
EPA concluded that waste-to-energy facilities produce electricity “with less environmental impact
than almost any other source of electricity.”
Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conserva on Act Internal Revenue Code (Sec on 45) Execu ve Orders 13123, 13423, and 13514 Presiden al Memorandum on Federal Leadership on Energy Management (12/5/13) Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions Regula ons (18 CFR.Ch. I, 4/96 Edi on, Sec. 292.204)  WTE Has a Long History as Renewable. Wasteto-energy has been recognized as renewable by
the federal government for nearly thirty years under a variety of statutes, regulations, and policies.
Many state have recognized as renewable under
state statutes as well. The renewable status has
enabled waste-to-energy plants to sell credits in
renewable energy trading markets, as well as to
the federal government through competitive bidding processes.
States Defining Waste‐to‐Energy as Renewable
in State Law (as of 12/31/13)
 Renewable Designations Benefit Many Local
Governments and Residents. The sale of renewable energy credits creates revenue for local governments that own waste-to-energy facilities,
helping to reduce a community’s cost of processing waste. The U.S. Conference of Mayors
has adopted several resolutions supporting wasteto-energy as a renewable resource.
8 Alabama Maine Oklahoma Arizona Maryland Oregon Arkansas Massachuse s Pennsylvania California Michigan Puerto Rico Colorado Minnesota South Carolina Connec cut Missouri South Dakota Dist. of Columbia Montana Utah Florida Nevada Virginia Hawaii New Jersey Washington Indiana New York Wisconsin Iowa N. Mariana Islands Louisiana Ohio Nationwide Economic Benefits of the Waste-to-Energy Sector
By Eileen Brettler Berenyi, PhD, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc.
Summary
The WTE sector creates $5.6 billion of gross economic sales output, encompassing nearly 14,000 jobs and
nearly $890 million of total labor compensation.
 5,350 employees servicing 85 plants in the United
States earning $459 million in wages, salaries and
benefits
 8,557 additional full time equivalent jobs created
in the U.S. sector outside the WTE sector, earning
an additional $429 million in wages, salaries and
benefits
the several regional and national firms that own and
operate waste-to-energy facilities and local government personnel dedicated to plant oversight and
maintenance. The WTE sector also creates an additional 8,600 jobs outside of the sector.
Employees at waste-to-energy plants are technically
skilled and are compensated at a relatively high average wage. For the purposes of this study a national
average salary of $85,700 (inclusive of fringe benefits) was used. Employees in the waste-to-energy industry receive about $460 million in annual salary
and benefits. The effect of this direct spending on
employee compensation generated another $429 million of compensation for workers across various associated industries.
T
he WTE sector serves three main functions: 1)
managing post-recycled waste; 2) recycling
post-consumer metals; and 3) producing energy. The revenues,
employment, and
labor earnings derived from these
activities are the
direct economic
benefits of waste-to
-energy. In addition, these activities
generate indirect
impacts as well as
induced impacts. These impacts were calculated using multipliers from the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis RIMS II Handbook.
Conclusion
The waste-to-energy sector provides significant economic value in the communities in which these facilities operate. In addition to the revenues generated
by the sector, waste-to-energy facilities provide stable, long-term, well-paying jobs, while simultaneously pumping dollars into local economies through the
purchase of local goods and services and the payment of fees and taxes. In addition to the opportunities to provide baseload renewable electric generation, recover metals for recycling, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, these facilities significantly
contribute to the green economy in the communities
in which they operate.
Total Gross Sales Output
Total gross sales numbers were used to approximate
the economic output of the sector. Gross sales of the
industry encompass revenues generated from: 1) tip
fees—amounts paid to the WTE plant to dispose of
refuse; 2) energy sales revenues; 3) recycling sales
revenues. Total output (sales revenues) was $3.2 billion. The total national economic impact of these revenues is $5.6 billion, including the initial $3.2 billion
produced by the waste-to-energy sector directly. Every dollar of revenue generated by the waste-to-energy
industry puts a total of 1.77 dollars into the economy
through intermediate purchases of goods and services
and payments to employees.
Employment and Wage Earnings
The waste-to-energy industry employs about 5,350
people nationwide. This number includes all workers
at 85 specific sites, as well as off-site employees of
9 Placeholder for
Walt Stevenson
Emissions memo
10 11 Update of Findings from Public Health and Environmental
Studies of Waste-to-Energy Technologies
A
By
Sarah Foster
and
Paul Chrostowski,
Ph.D.
CPF Associates, Inc.
large amount of information
about the potential public
health and environmental impacts of waste-to-energy (WTE) plants
has become available since 2000,
when the U.S. National Research
Council (NRC) published its seminal
report, Waste Incineration & Public
Health. This information includes four
different types of studies that can be
used to evaluate WTE plants: risk assessments, epidemiological studies,
environmental monitoring studies, and
biomonitoring studies. Together, the
current database of these studies supports the conclusions of the NRC that
modern WTE facilities, designed and
operated in accordance with current
regulations in North America and the
EU, do not adversely impact human
health or the environment.
In the U.S., human health risk assessments (HHRAs) are highly standardized and widely-accepted procedures
for evaluating the probability and nature of health effects associated with
existing or proposed emissions. The
results of these studies, which address
both cancer and non-cancer health effects, are usually compared to benchmark levels developed by regulatory
agencies to be protective of public
health. Ten HHRAs have been conducted in the past decade for North
12 American WTE facilities. These studies show that emissions from modern
WTE plants can meet health-based
benchmarks and that adverse public
health impacts are not anticipated from
exposure to emissions from these facilities.
Environmental monitoring studies rely
on measurements of chemicals potentially associated with WTE in the surrounding natural environment to assess
potential impacts. The most recent
comprehensive review of environmental monitoring studies was conducted
in 2009 as part of the Durham/York
WTE project. This review evaluated
50 environmental monitoring studies
published from 1991 – 2008 and concluded that modern WTE plants are
unlikely to impact the surrounding environment, although some old plants
with high emissions and poor air pollution controls may have impacted the
environment immediately surrounding
the facility. The Durham/York study
also concluded that environmental
monitoring in the vicinity of a modern
WTE plant is not justified based on the
negligible potential for environmental
impacts and because continuous and
periodic emissions monitoring required
under current regulations can ensure
protection against health and environmental impacts. An extensive environ-
Update of Findings from Public Health and Environmental
Studies of Waste-to-Energy Technologies (con’t)
“Modern WTE facilities, designed
and operated in
accordance with
current regulations in North
America and the
EU, do not adversely impact
human health or
the environment.”
mental monitoring program conducted for a WTE
plant, at the Montgomery County, Maryland facility,
confirms these conclusions. This 14-year environmental monitoring program involved collection of
samples from a wide variety of environmental media
before and many times after the plant began operating in 1995. The data provide no indication that facility operation has measurably impacted the environment.
In general, these studies fail to present conclusive
evidence of a link between WTE emissions and human illness.
Biomonitoring studies analyze human tissues or excreta for evidence of exposure to chemical substances. These studies can measure internal exposure to
compounds, but they do not necessarily indicate
whether there may be a health effect. They also reflect total exposure to a person, so do not provide
information about the possible sources of exposure.
The 2009 study conducted as part of the Durham/
York project evaluated 25 biomonitoring studies
from 1998 – 2008 and found no correlation between
WTE emissions and those measured in biomonitoring studies. A more recent study of a new WTE
plant built in 2005 in Spain shows no increase in
dioxin-like compounds or heavy metals among people living near the plant.
Epidemiologic studies investigate how health problems are distributed in groups of people and what
factors contribute to these health problems. Essentially, these studies try to determine if there is a difference in disease between people potentially exposed to WTE emissions compared to the general
population or those not exposed. These studies must
in all cases be evaluated cautiously – they can indicate whether there is a statistical association between exposure and disease, but they cannot indicate whether a specific facility is the cause of reported results. Many factors must be considered before
one can leap from association to causation. Numerous epidemiologic studies have been conducted for
combustion facilities over the past two decades but
most of these have examined old facilities, plants
accepting mixtures of different types of waste, or
mixtures of WTE plants plus other types of sources.
In summary, available studies show that modern
WTE facilities, designed and operated in accordance
with North American or EU regulations, do not adversely impact human health or the environment. A
weight of evidence approach can be used to evaluate
WTE using different types of studies, but the usefulness of each study type can vary depending on the
project needs.
13 Waste-to-Energy, an Essential Part of Sustainable Materials Management
C
By
Rick Brandes
and
Eileen Brettler
Berenyi, Ph.D
ritics of the use of waste-toenergy (WTE) as an integral
component of municipal solid
waste (MSW) management in the U.S.,
the European Union, and Asia often
focus on its impact on recycling rates,
its cost, and its effect on other renewable energy sources. The problem with
these arguments is that they are predicated on the belief that the municipal
solid waste stream can be handled by
recycling alone. History shows this is
not a practical solution. A waste management strategy that combines all
tools available to manage this waste is
needed. Proponents take
the position
that WTE provides an essential service to
municipalities
that must constantly manage
those materials
that are not, or
cannot, be recycled or recovered.
WTE's primary
purpose, therefore, is to capture from materials value
that would otherwise be lost if buried.
Pitting recycling against energy recovery draws public focus away from the
real issue: what to do with the more
than 260 million tons of waste this
country sends to landfills each and
every year.
WTE as Part of Sustainable Materials
Management
Integrated materials management following the reduce, reuse, recycle, compost and energy recovery hierarchy is
proven to work and is embraced by
most developed countries. Energy recovery from waste is a key component
to achieve MSW diversion and carbon
reduction goals. The hierarchy is gen14 erally meant to convey preferred waste
management priorities, with source
reduction and direct reuse as the most
desired actions by communities, and
land disposal without treatment as the
least desired. Overall, the hierarchy
recognizes the degree of positive environmental and social benefit of the
available waste management options
and helps communities integrate them
in a cohesive strategy that meets the
needs of the communities themselves.
MSW is a valuable energy resource
Under any practical definition, energy
recovered from
MSW is renewable energy and should
be legally defined as such
by policymakers seeking to
establish and
maintain renewable energy portfolios.
In a fundamental and realistic
sense, MSW is
constantly
available and continuously replenished
the very definition of the basic concept
of "renewable energy."
Post-consumer, post-recycled municipal waste is, and will be in the foreseeable future, generated in huge volumes. Post-recycled waste will not go
away by idealistically visualizing a
society where no waste is created.
Forty years of intense focus on recycling and source reduction have succeeded in raising recycling rates but
those efforts have not eliminated the
generation of MSW. With the waste
that is left over after efforts to reduce,
reuse, and recycling, sustainable and
valuable opportunities to manage this
material must be found. WTE facilities can create that value by extracting
Waste-to-Energy, an Essential Part of Sustainable Materials Management (con’t)
extracting 500 to 700 kilowatt hours of power for
each ton of waste they process. By contrast, landfills
can only capture about 100 kilowatt hours per ton by
burning the methane captured. Additionally, WTE
facilities provide continuously available baseload
power at the local level, augmenting intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.
various materials flowing through a consumer society, each to be managed in such a way as to recover
the highest value possible. In this paradigm, waste-to
-energy has a central role to play along with recycling. Consistent with the waste management hierarchy, this approach embodies the core principles of
sustainable materials management and should be incentivized in renewable and clean energy standards,
greenhouse gas programs, and other progressive policies.
Recovering energy from MSW has a very desirable
carbon emissions impact because the positive carbon
balance of WTE is significant. EPA's models for calculating GHG emissions reductions from the various
MSW management techniques show that on average
one ton of carbon equivalents can be avoided per ton
of MSW processed by WTE facilities. The carbon
emissions savings accrue from a combination of energy offsets from the displacement of fossil electricity, GHG benefits of metals recovery from waste-toenergy ash, and avoiding methane generation from
landfills.
Rick Brandes is former chief of the Energy Recovery
and Waste Disposal Branch, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Eileen Berenyi, Ph.D is President of Governmental Advisory Associates.
Conclusion
Waste management in the United States is evolving
from a focus solely on the disposal of waste inexpensively to a focus on solid waste as a composite of
15 A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy Work in Concert, 2014 Update
By Eileen Brettler Berenyi, Ph.D
Executive Summary
Key Findings:
This study updates similar analyses conducted in 2008 •
and 2009. Their purpose was to answer the question:
Does a community’s use of a waste-to-energy plant to
dispose of its waste impact the level of recycling in
that community. The 2008 study answered that question with a resounding no. The means of disposal had
no impact on the level of recycling; in fact, many
communities which sent their waste to a waste-toenergy plant had higher levels of recycling than averages that prevailed across their state. This current pa- •
per, updates the study, using 2012 data as much as
possible. In an examination of recycling rates of 700
communities in twenty-one states, which rely on waste
-to-energy for their waste disposal, it was again
demonstrated that this means of disposal had no impact on recycling. In fact, overall communities using
waste-to-energy had a slightly higher level of recycling than that observed across their states and across
the nation.
16 The study covers 80 waste-to-energy facilities in
21 states serving about 30% of the population of
those states. Recycling data was obtained from
700 local governments, including 601 cities, towns
and villages and 98 counties, authorities or districts
In addition, statewide data was obtained for each
of the 21 states. The population of these states
comprises about 56% of the U.S. population.
As reported by the U.S. EPA the national recycling
rate as of 2011 was 34.7%. The recycling rate for
communities, using WTE plants is at 35.4%. Interestingly, the average recycling rate for the 21
states surveyed is 34.9%. Figure ES-1 below
shows these rates graphically. Only tenths of a percent separate the three averages, indicating that
waste-to-energy as a disposal method has no impact on the level of recycling in a community or a
state.
A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy Work in Concert, 2014 Update
By Eileen Brettler Berenyi, Ph.D


All communities using waste-toenergy provide their residents an
opportunity to recycle and most
have curbside collection of recyclables. In fact, some of these
communities are leaders in the
adoption of innovative recycling
programs, such as single stream
collection and food waste collection and composting. The
coincident nature of recycling
programs and waste-to-energy
in each community is evidence
that these two waste management strategies easily exist side
by side. They often complement
each other, in that a waste-toenergy plant is often the largest
recycler of post-consumer metal
in the state.
In most cases, recycling rates in
waste-to-energy
communities
closely track the statewide recycling rate in the state where they
are located as shown in Figure
ES-2. State solid waste policies
and programs, not whether a
community relies on waste-to-
energy as a disposal option, are
a key influence on local recycling behaviors and rates.

In conjunction with the graph
above, Table ES-1 below indicates how individual community
recycling rates mirror the overall state rate. In 16 of the 21
states which rely on waste-toenergy facilities, individual
communities using these facilities have a slightly higher recycling rate than the overall state
average. In total, rates have risen since 2009, with additional
communities adopting single
stream curbside recycling and
more communities moving to
curbside organics collection.
The author is the president of Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc.
in Westport, CT. The 2014 Update
of this report builds upon reports
she published on this topic in 2008
and 2009.
17 WTE Supports High Quality Jobs
The waste-to-energy sector
provides significant economic
value in the communities in
which these facilities operate.
In addition to the revenues
generated by the sector, wasteto-energy facilities provide
stable, long-term, well-paying
jobs, while simultaneously
pumping dollars into local
economies through the purchase of local goods and services and the payment of fees
and taxes. In addition to the
opportunities to provide baseload renewable electric generation, recover metals for recycling, and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, these facilities
significantly contribute to the
green economy in the communities in which they operate.
The Global Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (www.wtert.org)
By Prof. Nickolas J. Themelis, Director of Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University (EEC)
S
tarting in 1995, the Earth Engineering Center (EEC) of
Columbia University has researched various aspects of
existing and novel technologies for the recovery of materials and energy from “wastes" and disseminated the results of
these studies by means of publications, presentations and the
web. The guiding principle of EEC research is that “wastes”
are resources and must be managed on the basis of science and
best available technology and not on ideology or economics
that exclude environmental costs. The general principles of
sustainable waste management are illustrated in the EEC Hierarchy of Waste Management (Figure 1). The EEC resources
are its Research Associates and the graduate students who pursue degrees on sustainable waste management.
One of the EEC activities is the periodic Survey of Waste Management in the U.S. The 2013 Survey was just completed and
showed (see Table below) that landfilling remains at about
64% (247 million short tons) of the total U.S. MSW. In contrast, several nations, including Austria, Denmark, Germany,
Japan, Netherlands, and Singapore have practically eliminated
landfilling by a combination of recycling/composting and
waste-to-energy (WTE). It is interesting to note that some U.S.
states, e.g. Connecticut, are much more advanced with regard
to managing their MSW. The main reason that the U.S. lags
behind other developed nations is that there is no government
policy on integrated waste management.
In recognition of the fact that there was not enough academic
research and training on sustainable waste management, in
2003 EEC co-founded, with the Energy Recovery Council of
the U.S., the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council. WTERT brings together scientists, engineers, and managers concerned with advancing sustainable waste management
in the U.S. and worldwide. During the first ten years of its existence, WTERT has sponsored many academic research studies and published over one hundred papers on all means of
waste management, including waste reduction, recycling, aerobic and anaerobic composting, waste-to-energy, and landfill
gas recovery. By now WTERT has sister organizations in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the U.K. All these
organizations are part of the Global WTERT Council (GWC).
Disposition of U.S. MSW in 2011
(2013 EEC National Survey)
Percent
Recycled
Percent
Composted
Percent
Combusted
Percent
Landfilled
22.6
6.3
7.6
63.5
18 Information to the Public on
Sustainable Waste Management
Each year, WTERT-U.S. and its sister
organizations receive many requests for
information on WTE and waste management practice, in general. The principal
means of communication between
WTERT and the general public are the
various national web pages that, worldwide, continue to be the premier source
of up-to-date information on advances
in managing “wastes”. Also, in 20122013, GWC contributed chapters to
three books and half a volume to the
Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science
and Technology (Springer). In 2013,
EEC published the WTE Guidebook for
Latin America and the Caribbean, under
the sponsorship of the InterAmerican
Development Bank.
Figure 1. The EEC hierarchy of waste management Disposition of MSW in U.S. States (EEC study, 2013)
19 20 Waste is everywhere. With almost 250 million tons of waste landfilled
each year, opportunities to recover valuable energy and materials from
waste abound. The average American generates nearly 7 pounds of
waste per day. Therefore, population density is an excellent indicator of
where waste feedstocks are concentrated.
Waste Feedstocks Track Population Density
Disposition of MSW in various countries (EEC study, 2013)
21 WTE in Corporate Sustainability Efforts
C
ompanies in the United States and around the world have identified zero waste practices as a sound management practice in pursuit of sustainability, environmental achievement, and economic efficiency.
Companies that have pledged to eliminate waste from landfills rely on waste-to-energy facilities for
waste that cannot be recycled. Homogenous waste streams in industrial settings yield higher recycling rates than
can be achieved on the residential curbside, but residual waste remains which must be managed in a waste-toenergy facility. The electricity that can be generated by a waste-to-energy facility is a feedstock in most industrial manufacturing settings, which allows the energy from the residual waste to be fed right back into the industrial process.
“We are proud of our role as stewards of the environment and of our progress in eliminating waste from our operations,” said Terence O’Day, Senior Vice President of Global Operations at The Hershey Company in 2013 as
two more facilities achieved zero waste to landfill status. “We achieved zero waste to landfill at these facilities
through a rigorous process of eliminating waste, recycling and converting waste to energy. Our employees understand the importance of sustainability across our company and are working together to reach our reduction
goals.”
General Motors The Hershey Company Proctor & Gamble GM is commi ed to waste reduc on throughout its opera ons. Currently, more than half of GM’s manufacturing facili es are landfill‐free, bringing the total count to 85. On average, 97% of the waste gen‐
erated from everyday manufacturing op‐
era ons at these plants is recycled or re‐
used, and 3% is converted to energy at waste‐to‐energy facili es. The Hershey Company has six U.S. plants that no longer dispose rou ne waste into landfills. To achieve zero waste to landfill status, Hershey’s manufacturing facili es have both reduced their overall waste streams and increased recycling rates to approximately 90 percent. All remaining waste is sent to nearby waste‐to‐energy plants, which also reduces overall reliance on fossil fuels. Procter & Gamble announced in 2013 that 45 of their facili es have achieved zero manufacturing waste to landfill. Through quality assurance, packaging reduc on, compac on and recycling efforts, the company now ensures that 99% of all ma‐
terials entering P&G plants leaves as fin‐
ished product or is recycled, reused or converted to energy at waste‐to‐energy facili es. Subaru Toyota The Subaru of Indiana Automo ve (SIA) manufacturing plant in Lafaye e, Indiana, became the first auto manufacturing plant to achieve a zero landfill status. All of the plant’s manufacturing waste goes is recy‐
cled and reused or sent to waste‐to‐
energy. Toyota’s target is to achieve near‐zero waste to landfill (measured annually as a 95% or greater reduc on in waste to land‐
fill, averaged across our North American plants). Their zero landfill metric is driven by the Toyota Produc on System, where the elimina on of waste in all aspects of business is a main objec ve. For example, SIA recycles 99.3 percent of its of excess to avoid sending nonhazardous waste to a steel, plas c, wood, paper, glass and other landfill, waste from our design centers in materials. The remaining 0.7 percent is Michigan is sent to a waste‐to‐energy fa‐
shipped to the Indianapolis waste‐to‐
cility. energy facility where it is converted to energy for the downtown steam loop. 22 Unilever In 2013, Unilever United States and Cana‐
da announced that all 26 of its manufac‐
turing and non‐manufacturing headquar‐
ter facili es are now zero waste to landfill (ZLF). The key driver for this achievement in both North America manufacturing and non‐manufacturing headquarter facili es is the elimina on of waste. Where reduc‐
on of waste is not sufficient, the compa‐
ny’s facili es reuse, recycle, or recover energy from waste to reach zero waste to landfill. Materials and Energy Recovery (EEC study, 2013)
23 Workplace Health & Safety — A Waste-to-Energy Priority
T
he Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) sets
standards for America’s workers to ensure employees are safe
and their health is protected. Waste-to-energy facilities, like
all other workplaces, must meet these tough standards. However,
waste-to-energy facilities takes tremendous pride in their health and
safety programs, which often goes beyond what is required by law.
Great importance is placed on developing and implementing successful programs that protect the people working in the plants.
OSHA has recognized the stellar accomplishments of 48 waste-toenergy facilities with the designation of STAR status under the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). VPP STAR status is the highest
honor given to worksites with comprehensive, successful safety and
health management systems. STAR sites are committed to effective
employee protection beyond the requirements of federal standards
and participants develop and implement systems to effectively identify, evaluate, prevent, and control occupational hazards to prevent
injuries and illnesses. The keys to health and safety success under
VPP are the employee engagement and ongoing involvement in onsite health and safety program development combined with longterm commitment and support from management. VPP-level recipients routinely incur injury and illness rates that are at or below the
state average for their specific industry.
Impressively, 48 of the 84 waste-to-energy facilities have earned
VPP STAR status. Less than 0.02 percent of all worksites in the
United States are enrolled in VPP, yet more than 57 percent of U.S.
waste-to-energy facilities are have achieved STAR status. This illustrates the commitment of this sector is superior attention to health
and safety.
24 SAFETY: DO IT FOR LIFE
Created under an ERC-OSHA Alliance
Agreement, ERC and its members have
celebrated “Hauler Safety Day” at their
facilities to educate public and private
waste haulers, municipal and private
owners and operators, and facility employees about best health & safety practices to ensure a safe and healthy workplace. ERC member companies have
coordinated the event by developing
and utilizing a unified campaign with
posters, stickers and “12 Rule” cards to
get the message out regarding health
and safety on waste-to-energy tipping
floors. Our goal is to ensure that everyone who conducts business at or visits a
waste-to-energy facility will return
home safe and sound at the end of each
and every day.
ERC Membership
Waste-to-Energy Owners/Operators
Covanta
445 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07960
(862) 345-5000
www.covanta.com
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.
4 Liberty Lane West
Hampton, NH 03842
(800) 682-0026
www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Green Conversion Systems, LLC
411 Theodore Fremd Ave.
Suite 102
Rye, NY 10580
(914) 925-1077
www.gcsusa.com
ERC Municipal Members
ERC Associate Members
Bristol (CT) Resource Recovery Facility Operating Cmte.
City and County of Honolulu, HI
City of Alexandria/Arlington County (VA)
City of Ames (IA) Resource Recovery System
City of Long Beach, CA
City of Tampa, FL
Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, CA
Dade-Miami County, FL
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
ecomaine
Fairfax County, VA
Hennepin County (MN) Dept. of Environmental Services
Kent County Department of Public Works
Lancaster County (PA) Solid Waste Management Authority
Lee County (FL) Solid Waste Division
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
Olmsted County (MN)
Onondaga County (NY) Resource Recovery Agency
Pinellas County (FL) Utilities
Pope-Douglas (MN) Solid Waste Management
Prairie Lakes Municipal Solid Waste Authority (MN)
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (FL)
Southeastern CT Regional Resources Recovery Authority
Spokane (WA) Regional Solid Waste System
Town of Wallingford (CT)
Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority
Wasatch (UT) Integrated Waste Management District
York County (PA) Solid Waste Authority
C&I Boiler Repair, Inc.
Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers
Energy Answers International
Gershman, Brickner, and Bratton, Inc.
Great River Energy
Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLC
HDR, Inc.
Helfrich Brothers Boiler Works, Inc.
Hitachi Zosen Inova USA
INASHCO North America Inc.
Jansen Combustion & Boiler Technologies, Inc.
Martin GmbH
Minnesota Resource Recovery Association
Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP
New England Mechanical Overlay
PERC Holdings LLC
Plasma Power LLC
Plattco Corporation
Powerhouse Technology, Inc.
Ramboll
Renewable Resource Consultants LLC
Resource Recovery Technologies, LLC
RRT Design & Construction
Southern Recycling
Valmet Inc.
Zampell Refractories, Inc.
25 Waste-to-Energy Directory: Key Terms
City: The city in which the facility is physically located.
No. of Boilers: The number of boilers (or units) in use
at the facility.
County: The county in which the facility is physically
located.
Gross Electric Capacity (MW): Expressed in gross
megawatts, the nameplate capacity of the turbine generators located at the facility. This figure represents the
largest amount of gross electrical output that can be
achieved.
U.S. Congressional District: The U.S. congressional
district in which the facility is physically located in the
113th Congress (2013-2014).
Gross Steam Capacity (lbs/hr): The gross amount of
steam that can be generated. For combined heat and
power facilities, this amount represents the typical
amount of steam exported expressed in pounds per
hour, in addition to electric generation.
Owner: The current owner of the facility is listed.
Whether the owner is a private or public entity is noted
parenthetically.
Operator: The current operator of the facility is listed.
Whether the operator is a private or public entity is noted parenthetically.
Full-time Employees: The approximate number of fulltime employees that work at a facility. This number is
an estimate and fluctuates over time.
Project Startup: The actual year in which commercial
operation began.
Serves Waste Needs of (People): Indicates the number
of individuals that are served by the facility in the
“waste catchment area”.
Operating Status: Indicates whether the facility is operating, inactive, or under construction in 2014.
Certifications: Indicates whether the facility has
achieved STAR status under the U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Voluntary
Protection Program (VPP) or is ISO certified.
Technology: Indicates whether the facility is mass burn,
modular, or refuse derived fuel (RDF).
Throughput Capacity (TPD): Expressed in tons per day,
the throughput capacity is the aggregate trash capacity
for all units located at a facility.
State Based Information
Energy Produced by WTE in a State is enough to power (#) homes:
The figure is derived by expressing energy capacity (electric and
Total Waste Capacity: The aggregate trash capacity of all facilities
steam) in megawatts and dividing it by EIA’s estimate that each
located in that state.
household uses 1.24 kilowatts of capacity per hour (10,837 kwh
Total Electric Capacity: The aggregate gross electric capacity of all
per year).
facilities located in that state.
Recycling Rate of WTE Communities: The aggregate recycling rate
Total Steam Capacity: The aggregate gross steam capacity typicalof all WTE communities in the state, as reported by Eileen
ly exported (expressed in lbs/hr) of all facilities located in that
Berenyi’s 2014 Recycling compatibility report.
state.
Jobs at WTE Facilities: The aggregate FTE jobs at facilities in the
Population in 2010: The population of the state as reported in the
state listed in the directory.
2010 census by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Created by WTE: The
MSW Managed in 2011: The total amount of MSW processed at
total number of direct, indirect, and induced jobs created by WTE
all facilities in the state in 2011, as reported by the 2013 Columin the state, as reported by Eileen Berenyi in the 2013 National
bia University EEC Survey.
WTE Economic report.
WTE Facilities: The number of facilities located in that state.
% of MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: The percentage of the
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE: The
state’s waste processed by WTE in 2011, as reported by the 2013
total number of direct ,indirect and induced economic output
Columbia University EEC Survey.
created by WTE in the state, as reported by Eileen Berenyi in the
2013 National WTE Economic report.
WTE as % of Non-Hydro Renewable Elec. Generation in 2012:
WTE electricity, expressed as a percentage of all non-hydro reState Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Citation of a state law
newable electricity, generated in that state in 2012.
defining WTE as renewable. In some states, more than one reference to WTE as renewable may exist, but may not be listed here.
26 ALABAMA
WTE Facili es:
One
Total Waste Capacity: 690 tons per day
Total Steam Capacity:
178,620 Lbs/Hr
AL Popula on in 2010:
4,779,736
MSW Managed in AL in 2011:
5,395,280 tons
% of AL MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
3.3 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Alabama is
Enough to Power:
11,551 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in AL:
27.2 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in AL:
38 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in AL:
109 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Alabama:
$47,100,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
ALA §40‐18‐1 Huntsville Waste‐to‐Energy Facility
City: Huntsville, AL County: Madison US Congressional District: 5th Owner: City of Huntsville Solid Waste Disposal Authority (public) Operator: Covanta Huntsville, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1990 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 690 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 178,620 Full‐ me Employees: 38 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 277,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.swdahsv.org www.covanta.com Notes: The Huntsville facility sells steam to the U.S. Army’s Redstone Ar‐
senal, which for more than 50 years has been the Army’s cen‐
ter for rocket and missile pro‐
grams. Renewable Energy Generation in the United States
In 2012, U.S. power plants used renewable energy sources — water (hydroelectric),
wood, wind, waste-to-energy, geothermal, and sun — to generate about 12% of domestic electricity.
The availability of renewable resources can vary. Hydroelectric
generation increases in some years
and decreases in others, primarily
due to variation in the amounts of
rainfall and melting snowfall occurring in watersheds where major
hydroelectric dams are located. The
availability of biomass, waste, and
geothermal energy is generally consistent over the short term as is the
generation from these resources.
The availability of wind and solar
energy has daily and seasonal patterns, so resulting generation fluctuates widely.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) tracks electric
generation from all sources in detail. For updated information, see www.eia.gov.
27 CALIFORNIA
WTE Facili es:
Three
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
70.4 MW
CA Popula on in 2010:
37,253,956
2,540 tons per day
MSW Managed in CA in 2011:
66,299,346 tons
% of CA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
1.3 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in CA in 2012:
1.0 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in California is
Enough to Power:
56,907 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in CA:
50.5 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in CA:
146 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in CA:
503 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in California:
$139,800,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
CA Public U lity
Code §399.12 Commerce Refuse‐to‐Energy Facility
Commerce
City: Huntsville, AL | County: Madison | US Congressional District: 4th City:
Commerce, CA Owner: City of Huntsville Solid Waste Disposal Authority (public) County:
Los Angeles Operator: Covanta Huntsville, Inc. (private) US
Congressional District: 40th Owner: Commerce Refuse‐to‐Energy Authority (public) Project Startup:
1987 Operator: Sanita
on Districts of Los Angeles County (public) Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity
(TPD): 690 Project
Startup:
1987 No. of Boilers:
2 Opera
ng Status: Opera ng Electric Capacity
(MW): 45 Annual Throughput (tons):
101,547 (2010) Mass Burn Technology:
Net Elec.Capacity
Produced(TPD): (MWh): 450,000 (2010) 360 Design
Fe
Metal
Recovered
(tons):
14,000 (2010) 1 No. of Boilers:
Non‐Fe
Metal
Recov’d
(tons):
Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 300 (2010) 12 Full‐ me Employees: 52 Full‐ me Employees: 39 VPP STAR Cer fica ons:
Serves
Waste
Needs
of
(people):
1,115,000 Notes: The Huntsville facility sells steam to the U.S. Army’s Redstone Arsenal. Websites: www.covanta.com Websites:
www.lacsd.org/solidwaste www.swdahsv.org
Notes: The original goal of the Com‐
merce facility was to demon‐
strate that refuse‐to‐energy is a viable alterna ve method of solid waste management in the South Coast Air Basin, where air pollu on requirements are the toughest in the world. Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF)
City: Long Beach, CA County: Los Angeles US Congressional District: 47th Owner: Southeast Resource Recovery Facility Authority (public) Operator: Covanta Long Beach Renewable Energy Corp. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,380 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 36 Full‐ me Employees: 60 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 500,000 Websites: www.lacsd.org/solidwaste www.covanta.com Notes: As a public service, this facility began destroying narco cs in 1992. Since its incep on, the pro‐
gram has successfully destroyed an average of 17,000 pounds of narco cs each month. 28 Stanislaus County Resource Recovery Facility
City: Crows Landing, CA County: Stanislaus US Congressional District: 10th Owner: Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 800 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 22.4 Full‐ me Employees: 47 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 521,497 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com www.stancountywte.com Notes: The Stanislaus County Resource Recovery Facility won the Solid Waste Associa on of North America's (SWANA) 2007 Waste‐
to‐Energy Gold Excellence Award. Energy from Waste Can Help
Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions
By Matt Kasper
April 17, 2013
[Excerpt] The United States currently
generates 390 million tons of trash per
year, or 7 pounds per person per day. Although many states have the physical space
for trash, it is environmentally unsustainable to take garbage and bury it in the
ground at landfills, where it decomposes
and releases potent greenhouse-gas pollution. Though garbage is not something we
tend to actively think about on a daily basis, specifically as it relates to climate
change, the United States must begin developing policies to limit the environmental consequences that result from our generation of garbage.
EIA Electric Generating Capacity Outlook
EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 2013) states that investments in electricity
generation capacity have gone through boom-and-bust cycles. A construction boom
in the early 2000s saw capacity additions averaging 35 gigawatts a year from 2000 to
2005. Since then, average annual builds have dropped to 18 gigawatts per year from
2006 to 2011.
In the AEO 2013 Reference
case, capacity additions
from 2012 to 2040 total 340
gigawatts, including new
plants built not only in the
power sector but also by
end-use generators. Annual
additions in 2012 and 2013
remain relatively high, averaging 22 gigawatts per year.
Annual builds drop significantly after 2013 and remain
below 9 gigawatts per year
until 2023. Between 2025
and 2040, average annual
builds increase to 14 gigawatts per year, as excess
capacity is depleted and the
rate of total capacity growth
is more consistent with
electricity demand growth.
There is an alternative waste management
option that America has not significantly
utilized but that could help stem the flow
of waste, and thus pollution emissions, in
our country: energy-from-waste facilities.
According to the EPA, for every ton of
garbage processed at an energy-fromwaste facility, approximately one ton of
emitted carbon-dioxide equivalent in the
atmosphere is prevented.
Both energy from waste and recycling and
composting efforts are a win-win-win for
the United States. Energy-from-waste generates clean electricity, decreases greenhouse gases that would have been emitted
from landfills and fossil-fuel power plants,
and pairs well with increased recycling
rates in states. The United States must
begin developing national policies to deal
with the waste-management problem our
country faces every day. Doing so will
ultimately reduce emissions that cause
climate change.
To read the full article:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
green/report/2013/04/17/60712/energyfrom-waste-can-help-curb-greenhouse-gasemissions/
The Center for American Progress is a progressive
public policy research and advocacy organization.
29 CONNECTICUT
WTE Facili es:
Six
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
195.3 MW
CT Popula on in 2010:
3,574,097
7,359 tons per day
MSW Managed in CT in 2011:
3,208,768 tons
% of CT MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
67.1 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in CT in 2012:
100 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Connec cut is
Enough to Power:
157,869 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in CT:
25.9 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in CT:
360 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in CT:
1,052 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Connec cut:
$428,000,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
CT §16‐1(a)(27) Bristol Resource Recovery Facility
City: Bristol, CT County: Har ord US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Covanta Bristol, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Bristol, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 650 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 16.3 Full‐ me Employees: 40 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 373,150 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com www.brrfoc.org Notes: In 2010, Covanta Bristol received the "The Dis nguished Business of the Year Award" from the Central Connec cut Chambers of Commerce. CRRA Har ord Trash‐to‐Energy Plant
City: Har ord, CT County: Har ord US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Connec cut Resource Recovery Authority (public) Operator: NAES Corp. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 2,850 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 69 Full‐ me Employees: 133 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,208,813 Websites: www.crra.org www.naes.com Notes: The facility includes a state‐of‐the art odor control system for the waste processing facility to thermal‐
ly destroy the odors. The system has the capacity to exchange each day the amount of air that would fill 4 Louisiana Superdomes. 30 Southeastern Connec cut Resource
Recovery Facility
City: Preston, CT County: New London US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Covanta Company of South‐
eastern Connec cut (private) Operator: Covanta Company of South‐
eastern Connec cut (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status:
Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 689 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
17 Full‐ me Employees: 43 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 248,233 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com www.scrrra.org Notes: The SECONN facility received the State of Connec cut DEP Green Circle Award in 2010 for promo ng pollu on pre‐
ven on, waste reduc on, natural resources conserva‐
on and environmental awareness. The facility also received a U.S. Environmen‐
tal Protec on Agency New England Environmental Mer‐
it Special Recogni on for outstanding efforts in im‐
proving New England’s envi‐
ronment. Wallingford Resource Recovery Facility
City: Wallingford, CT County: New Haven US Congressional District: 3rd Owner: Covanta Projects of Wallingford, L.P. (private) Operator: Covanta Projects of Wallingford, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Modular Design Capacity (TPD): 420 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 11 Full‐ me Employees: 37 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 214,934 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: This facility began commercial opera on in May 1989 and is located between Har ord and New Haven. Its renewable ener‐
gy output is sold to Connec cut Light and Power Company. Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P.
City: Bridgeport, CT County: Fairfield US Congressional District: 4th Owner: Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 67 Full‐ me Employees: 74 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 815,807 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: In 2013, Wheelabrator Bridge‐
port marked its 25th year of ser‐
vice, during which me it has processed 18.5 million tons of waste, generated 13 million meg‐
awa hours of electricity, and recycled nearly 400,000 tons of ferrous metals. 31 Waste is a Valuable Domestic
Energy Resource and Waste-toEnergy is a Critical, yet
Underutilized Technology
389
million TONS
of trash generated
in the US every year
million
247 TONS
landfilled
million
112TONS
Wheelabrator Lisbon Inc.
City: Lisbon, CT County: New London US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Eastern Connec cut Resource Recovery Authority (public) Operator: Wheelabrator Lisbon Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1995 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 500 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 15 Full‐ me Employees: 33 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 225,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com www.ecrra.org Notes: The facility is ac vely engaged in the community, suppor ng the fire department, the local school system, and the local civic group that organizes the annual Lisbon Fall Fes val. recycled or
composted
Green Investing
Towards a Clean Energy Infrastructure
At 84 WTE plants:
energy recovery
from
million
30 TONS
Selling more than
14.5 billion kilowatt hours
of renewable electricity
Recovering and recycling
more than 730,000 tons of
ferrous and non-ferrous metals
In this report released in Davos, Switzerland in January
2009, the World Economic Forum highlighted eight
renewable energy technologies which look particularly
promising.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
GHGs—Avoiding more than
30 million tons of CO2e
carbon dioxide equivalents
WITH SO MANY BTUs BURIED,
THE NEED FOR WTE IS
IMMENSE
32 Onshore Wind
Offshore Wind
Solar Photovoltaic Power
Solar Thermal Electricity Generation
Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy (MSW)
Sugar Based Ethanol
Cellulosic and Next Generation Biofuels
Geothermal
FLORIDA
WTE Facili es:
Eleven
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
532 MW
FL Popula on in 2010:
18,801,310
19,364 tons per day
MSW Managed in FL in 2011:
27,040,919 tons
% of FL MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
21.4 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in FL in 2012:
49.7 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Florida is
Enough to Power:
430,038 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in FL:
32.7 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in FL:
885 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in FL:
2,371 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Florida:
$997,500,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
FL §366.91 Huntsville
Bay
CountyWaste‐to‐Energy
Waste‐to‐EnergyFacility
Facility
City: Panama City, FL Huntsville, AL County: Bay Madison US Congressional District: 2nd 5th Owner: Bay County (public) City of Huntsville Solid Waste Disposal Authority (public) Operator: Covanta Huntsville, Inc. (private) Operator: EnGen, LLC (private) Project Startup:
1990 1987 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 690 500 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Steam
Elec. Capacity
Capacity(MW):
(Lbs/Hr):
178,620 15 Full‐ me Employees: 38 36 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 277,000 169,560 Recycling
Cer fica ons:
% in Local Communi es:
35 ISO 14001; ISO 18001 Cer
fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.swdahsv.org www.engenllc.com www.covanta.com Notes: In 2009, Bay County offered a free The Huntsville facility sells steam to the U.S. Army’s Redstone Arse‐
program to properly dispose of nal. American flags that were no longer fit for use. The WTE facility was stopped, a private flag burning cer‐
emony was held, and the flags were placed directly in the combustor.
Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Facility
City: Tampa, FL County: Hillsborough US Congressional District: 14th Owner: Hillsborough County (public) Operator: Covanta Hillsborough, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1987 (Units 1‐3); 2009 (Unit 4) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,800 No. of Boilers:
4 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 46.5 Full‐ me Employees: 54 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,234,010 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The Hillsborough facility complet‐
ed an expansion in 2009 by add‐
ing a fourth boiler to process an addi onal 600 tons per day. The increased capacity generates carbon offsets cer fied by the Verified Carbon Standard. 33 Lake County Resource Recovery
Facility
City: Okahumpka, FL County: Lake US Congressional District: 10th Owner: Covanta Lake, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Lake, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 528 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
14.5 Full‐ me Employees: 36 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 288,379 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The Lake County Resource Recovery Facility was pre‐
sented with the William C. Schwartz Industry Innova‐
on Award in 2008. This Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission Award is presented annually to companies from the Or‐
lando region. Lee County Resource Recovery Facility
City: Ft. Myers, FL County: Lee US Congressional District: 19th Owner: Lee County (public) Operator: Covanta Lee, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1994 (Units 1&2); 2007 (Unit 3) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,836 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 57.3 Full‐ me Employees: 57 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 626,502 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.leegov.com/solidwaste www.covanta.com Notes: The Lee County facility is cer ‐
fied under the Verified Carbon Standard to sell carbon offsets. The facility has won numerous awards from many pres gious organiza ons since its incep on. McKay Bay Refuse‐to‐Energy Facility
City: Tampa, FL County: Hillsborough US Congressional District: 14th Owner: City of Tampa (public) Operator: Wheelabrator McKay Bay Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1985 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,000 No. of Boilers:
4 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 22 Full‐ me Employees: 43 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 336,823 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com h p://www.tampagov.net/
dept_Solid_Waste/
informa on_resources/
mcKay_bay/ Notes: The McKay Bay facility under‐
went a significant retrofit project between 1999‐2001. 34 Miami‐Dade County Resource Recovery Facility
City: Miami, FL County: Miami‐Dade US Congressional District: 25th Owner: Miami‐Dade County (public) Operator: Covanta Dade Renewable Energy (private) Project Startup:
1982 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 3,000 No. of Boilers:
4 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 77 Full‐ me Employees: 190 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 2,531,789 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR; ISO 14001 Websites: www.covanta.com www.miamidade.gov/
publicworks/resources‐
recovery.asp Notes: The Miami Dade facility won the ASME Large waste‐to‐energy facility award in 2002. Its RDF unit won the ASME Material Re‐
covery Facility award in 2003. Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility #1
City: West Palm Beach, FL County: Palm Beach US Congressional District: 18th Owner: Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (public) Operator: Palm Beach Resource Recovery Corp. (Babcock & Wilcox) (private) Project Startup:
1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 2,000 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 61 Full‐ me Employees: 221 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,270,000 Websites: www.swa.org www.babcock.com Notes: Palm Beach REF #1 underwent a major refurbishment/
moderniza on in 2011 to extend its service life by an addi onal 20 years. 35 Palm Beach Renewable Energy
Facility #2
City: West Palm Beach, FL County: Palm Beach US Congressional District: 18th Owner: Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (public) Operator: Babcock & Wilcox (private) Project Startup:
est. 2015 Opera ng Status: Under Construc on Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 3,000 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW): 96 Full‐ me Employees: TBD Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 1,270,000 Websites: www.swa.org www.babcock.com Notes: The Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility #2 is the first greenfield mass burn waste‐
to‐energy project construct‐
ed in the United States in over 15 years. Pasco County Solid Waste Resource
Recovery Facility
City: Spring Hill, FL County: Pasco US Congressional District: 12th Owner: Pasco County (public) Operator: Covanta Pasco, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,050 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
29.7 Full‐ me Employees: 40 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 439,702 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The Pasco County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility is one of four waste‐
to‐energy facili es serving the greater Tampa Bay area. The facility uses secondary sewer treatment effluent from a nearby wastewater treatment plant for part of its process water make‐up. In addi on, as part of the facility, there is a public drop
‐off center where local resi‐
dents can bring non‐
hazardous household items for disposal. Pinellas County Resource Recovery Facility
City: St. Petersburg, FL County: Pinellas US Congressional District: 13th Owner: Pinellas County (public) Operator: GCS Energy Recovery of Pinellas, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1983 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 3,150 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 75 Full‐ me Employees: 70 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,000,000 Websites:
Notes: www.pinellascounty.org/u li es/wte.htm www.gcsusa.com The Pinellas County Resource Recovery Facility is one of four waste‐to‐energy facili es serving the greater Tampa Bay area. It won the ASME Large Waste‐to‐
Energy Facility Award in 2004. Wheelabrator North Broward Inc.
City: Pompano Beach, FL County: Broward US Congressional District: 21st Owner: Wheelabrator North Broward Inc. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator North Broward Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 68 Full‐ me Employees: 66 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 850,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: Wheelabrator North Broward uses reclaimed water for cooling water purposes throughout the plant, saving an addi onal 50 million gallons of water per year that is currently pulled from the Florida Biscayne Aquifer. 36 American Chemistry Council’s
Chemistry to Energy Campaign
The American Chemistry Council's (ACC) is the trade association representing companies engaged in the business of chemistry, including the manufacturers of plastic resins. ACC has
launched a “Chemistry to Energy” campaign highlighting the role of chemistry
in shale gas, energy efficiency, and energy recovery.
Chemistry: Transforming Waste into a
Valuable Energy Resource
Although
recycling
rates for
many plastics
in the U.S.
are growing
and must
continue to
do so, tons
of non-recycled plastics are buried in landfills every day – wasting a valuable energy
source. Non-recycled plastics, however,
are being transformed right now into alternative energy through advanced energy
recovery technologies like waste-to-energy
and plastics-to-oil. Waste-to-energy facilities produce clean, renewable energy in the
form of electricity or heat from municipal
solid waste, while plastics-to-oil transforms non-recycled plastic into a valuable
commodity, creating a reliable source for
alternative energy from an abundant, nocost feedstock.
A 2011 study from Columbia University
found that if all of the non-recycled waste
produced in the United States each year
were recovered for energy, it could power
over 16 million American homes. If all of
our non-recycled plastics were converted
into alternative energy, rather than buried
in landfills, they could power at least 6
million cars each year. And if those same
non-recycled plastics were sent to waste-to
-energy plants to be converted into electricity, they could power over 5 million
American homes annually.
Our nation’s energy policy must harness
all of America’s viable energy sources,
including recovering energy from waste, to
continue creating the innovative products
and jobs our economy needs, strengthen
our economy, make our domestic energy
supplies go further than ever and improve
our energy security.
Wheelabrator South Broward Inc.
City: Ft. Lauderdale, FL County: Broward US Congressional District: 23rd Owner: Wheelabrator South Broward Inc. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator South Broward Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 66 Full‐ me Employees: 72 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 850,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: Wheelabrator South Broward is a long‐ me supporter of SOS Chil‐
dren’s Village in Florida, which opened in 1993. The Village allows for brothers and sisters, who are typically separated while in foster care, to reunite and maintain their family connec on. Recent Capacity Additions
Since 2007 — 6 Expansions of Existing WTE Facilities
Lee County, FL (2007); Hillsborough County, FL (2009);
Olmsted, MN (2010); Pope-Douglas, MN (2011), Honolulu,
HI (2012); Perham, MN (2014)
Aggregate Expansion Capacity Additions:
2,540 tons per day; 54 MW electric
Greenfield WTE Facility Under Construction
West Palm Beach, FL (2015)
Capacity Additions Under Construction:
3,000 tons per day, 96 MW electric
37 HAWAII
Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture—H‐Power
WTE Facili es:
One
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
90 MW
HI Popula on in 2010:
1,360,301
3,000 tons per day
MSW Managed in HI in 2011:
3,884,163 tons
% of HI MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
14.1 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in HI in 2012:
28.5 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Hawaii is
Enough to Power:
72,751 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in HI:
37.2 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in HI:
161 FTE
City: Kapolei, HI County: Honolulu US Congressional District: 1st Owner: City and County of Honolulu (public) Operator: Covanta Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture (private) Project Startup:
1990 (Units 1&2); 2012 (Unit 3) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
RDF (Units 1&2); Mass Burn (Unit 3) Design Capacity (TPD): 3,000 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 90 Full‐ me Employees: 161 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 907,574 VPP STAR Cer fica ons:
Websites: www.covanta.com www.opala.org Notes: The H‐Power facility completed an expansion in 2012 by adding a 900 tpd mass burn unit to complement the 2 RDF units. H‐
Power now provides nearly 8 percent of Oahu’s electricity. Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in HI:
324 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Hawaii:
$143,400,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
HI §269‐91 Growth in Canada
Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC)
Growth in the waste-to-energy sector is occurring in Canada with construction of the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) in Ontario and continuing
development of waste-to-energy in Vancouver.
Construction of the Durham York Energy Centre is more than halfway complete by the end of 2013, will begin some operations by spring 2014, and will
be up and running completely by fall 2014. According to statistics from Covanta, 7,887 cubic meters of concrete have been poured and 2,181 tonnes of
structural steel placed as of October, 2013. The facility will have 60,000 linear
feet of piping, not including the boiler tubes, when it is completed.
More than 300 construction workers are currently on site at peak times.
More than 40 full time permanent positions will be created to operate the
facility when complete.
When it is finished, the facility will have a
baseload capacity of 17.5 megawatts of
electricity, powered by 140,000 tonnes of
post-recycled waste annually from the Regions of Durham and York in Ontario.
One of the unique features is a 12’x 12’
“jumbotron” which will display real-time
emissions information to the public, who
can also access the data online.
38 INDIANA
WTE Facili es:
One
Total Waste Capacity: 2,362 tons per day
Total Steam Capacity:
558,000 Lbs/Hr Total Electric Capacity:
6.5 MW
IN Popula on in 2010:
6,483,802
MSW Managed in IN in 2011:
6,440,739 tons
% of IN MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
10.9 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in IN in 2012:
1.2 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Indiana is
Enough to Power:
41,339 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in IN:
13.8 percent
Indianapolis Resource Recovery Facility
City: Indianapolis, IN County: Marion US Congressional District: 7th Owner: Covanta Indianapolis, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Indianapolis, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,362 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 558,000 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 6.5 Full‐ me Employees: 74 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 808,466 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: Steam exported from the facility powers the downtown hea ng loop, supplying nearly all down‐
town businesses, as well as Indi‐
ana University, Purdue Universi‐
ty's Indianapolis campus, and Eli Lilly. Jobs at WTE Facili es in IN:
74 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in IN:
197 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Indiana:
$74,900,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
IN §8‐1‐37.4 Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants
www.cewep.eu
The Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP ) is the
umbrella association of the owners and operators of waste-to-energy plants
across Europe. They thermally treat household and similar waste that remains after waste prevention, reuse and recycling by generating energy from
it. They deliver this energy (heat and electricity) to citizens and industry, replacing fossil fuels, such as coal, oil or gas used by conventional power plants.
CEWEP aims to highlight that recycling and energy recovery are complementary options in order to divert waste from landfilling. Membership of
CEWEP underlines a Waste-to-Energy Plant’s commitment to ensuring high
environmental standards, achieving low emissions by operating Best Available
Techniques and maintaining state of the art energy production from otherwise un-reusable/recyclable materials.
CEWEP represents European Waste-to-Energy Plants at the EU level,
through thorough analysis of environmental legislation, on sustainable development and by providing information on the Waste-to-Energy sector to the
Commission, Council and European Parliament.
39 IOWA
WTE Facili es:
One
Total Waste Capacity: 175 tons per day
Total Electric Capacity:
4 MW
IA Popula on in 2010:
3,046,355
MSW Managed in IA in 2011:
3,930,863 tons
% of IA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
1.0 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in IA in 2012:
0.2 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Iowa is Enough
to Power:
3,233 homes Jobs at WTE Facili es in IA:
15 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in IA:
32 FTE
Arnold O. Chantland Resource Recovery Plant
City: Ames, IA County: Story US Congressional District: 4th Owner: City of Ames (public) Operator: City of Ames (public) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1975 Opera ng RDF 175 1 4 (RDF a ributed) 15 68,898 Websites: www.cityofames.org Notes: The Arnold O. Chantland Re‐
source Recovery Plant (RRP) was the first municipally operated waste‐to‐energy facility in the na on and was built in 1975. The RRP won the 2011 ASME waste‐to‐energy facility award. Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Iowa:
$7,300,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
IA §476.41 International Solid Waste Association
www.iswa.org
The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) is a global, independent
and non-profit making association, working
in the public interest to fulfill its declared mission: “To Promote and Develop Sustainable
and Professional Waste Management Worldwide”. ISWA’s vision is an Earth where no
waste exists. Waste should be reused and reduced to a minimum, then collected, recycled and treated properly.
Solid Waste Association of North America
www.swana.org
For more than 50 years, the Solid Waste Association of North America
(SWANA) has been the leading professional association in the solid waste field. SWANA serves over 8,000
members throughout North America, and thousands
more with conferences, certifications, publications, and
technical training courses. SWANA’s prominent and
nationally acclaimed technical conferences and training
programs cover all aspects of integrated municipal solid
waste management, and the Association is a major policy and technical representative of solid waste management practitioners, executives, companies and government organizations.
40 MAINE
ecomaine
WTE Facili es:
Three
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
44.7 MW
ME Popula on in 2010:
1,328,361
1,470 tons per day
MSW Managed in ME in 2011:
1,412,071 tons
% of ME MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
33.5 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in ME in 2012:
8.9 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Maine is
Enough to Power:
36,133 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in ME:
25.8 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in ME:
153 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in ME: 615 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Maine:
$146,600,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
ME 35‐A § 3210 City: Portland, ME County: Cumberland US Congressional District: 1st Owner: ecomaine (public) Operator: ecomaine (public) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 550 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 14.7 Full‐ me Employees: 50 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 250,000 Cer fica ons:
ISO 14001 Websites: www.ecomaine.org Notes: ecomaine won the 2006 the Sol‐
id Waste Associa on of North America’s (SWANA) WTE Silver Award and the 2009 ASME Small Combus on Facility of the Year Award. Mid‐Maine Waste Ac on Corpora on
City: Auburn, ME County: Androscoggin US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Mid‐Maine Waste Ac on Corpora on (public) Operator: Mid‐Maine Waste Ac on Corpora on (public) Project Startup:
1992 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 200 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 5 Full‐ me Employees: 28 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 65,000 Websites: www.midmainewaste.com Notes: MMWAC is located in Auburn and is owned by 12 municipali‐
es: Auburn, Bowdoin, Buckfield, Lovell, Minot, Monmouth, New Gloucester, Poland, Raymond, Sumner, Sweden, and Wales. 41 The North American Waste-toEnergy Conference (NAWTEC)
Co-sponsored by the Energy Recovery
Council (ERC) and the Solid Waste
Association of North America
(SWANA), in partnership the Wasteto-Energy Research and Technology
Council (WTERT) at Columbia University, the North American Waste-toEnergy Conference (NAWTEC) is
widely recognized as the premier conference and trade show focusing on
the municipal waste-to-energy sector.
NAWTEC celebrates its 22nd Annual
Meeting in 2014. Over the years, it
has showcased the latest business development, research, technology, innovations, and policies affecting the municipalities and companies involved in
waste-to-energy. The 22nd NAWTEC
will take place May 7-9, 2014 in
Reston, VA.
http://www.nawtec.org
1993 – Islip, NY
1994 – Boston, MA
1995 – Washington, DC
1996 – Atlantic City, NJ
1997 – Research Triangle Park, NC
1998 – Miami Beach, FL
1999 – Tampa, FL
2000 – Nashville, TN
2001 – Miami, FL
2002 – Philadelphia, PA
2003 – Tampa, FL
2004 – Savannah, GA
2005 – Orlando, FL
2006 – Tampa, FL
2007 – Miami, FL
2008 – Philadelphia, PA
2009 – Chantilly, VA
2010 – Orlando, FL
2011 – Lancaster, PA
2012 – Portland, ME
2013 – Ft. Myers, FL
2014 – Reston, VA
Penobscot Energy Recovery Company
City: Orrington, ME County: Penobscot US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: PERC Holdings LLC; communi es (private) Operator: ESOCO Orrington, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 720 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 25 Full‐ me Employees: 75 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 400,000 Websites: www.percwte.com www.mrcmaine.org Notes: PERC has a unique ownership structure, in which PERC Hold‐
ings LLC owns 73% of the facility and 78 local governments are limited partners that together own 23% of the facility. Waste Conversion Technologies
Energy recovery via gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW) is an emerging
conversion technology drawing increasing
interest across North America for its potential dual benefits of energy recovery
and landfill diversion. Gasification technology potentially offers feedstock flexibility and customization for generating a
range of desirable products. Gasification’s
main product is synthesis gas (syngas) that
is further processed into electricity, ethanol, diesel, or other chemicals.
Gasification occurs in the presence of limited amounts of air (or oxygen) that allows
partial combustion of the material and
leads to combustible syngas as a final
product. Gasification technologies have
Source: Gasification Technologies Council
been successful in processing coal, pet
coke, biomass, and homogeneous industrial waste products. Their application in the field of MSW processing is under development.
42 MARYLAND
WTE Facili es:
Three
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
124.6 MW
Total Steam Capacity:
242,340 Lbs/Hr
MD Popula on in 2010:
5,773,552
4,410 tons per day MSW Managed in MD in 2011:
2,352,939 tons
% of MD MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
22.6 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in MD in 2012:
52.0 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Maryland is
Enough to Power:
116,391 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in MD:
39.7 percent
Harford Waste‐to‐Energy Facility
City: Joppa, MD County: Harford US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (public) Operator: Energy Recovery Opera ons, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Modular Design Capacity (TPD): 360 No. of Boilers:
4 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 1.2 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 72,340 Full‐ me Employees: 43 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 242,514 Cer fica ons:
OSHA SHARP Websites: www.nmwda.org Notes: The Harford facility provides about 50% of the steam needs of the Edgewood Area of U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground, which has been used for the development and tes ng of chemical agent muni ons. Jobs at WTE Facili es in MD:
160 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in MD: 458 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Maryland:
$183,000,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
MD § 7‐701 Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility
City: Dickerson, MD County: Montgomery US Congressional District: 6th Owner: Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (public) Operator: Covanta Montgomery, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1995 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,800 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 63.4 Full‐ me Employees: 49 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 971,600 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.nmwda.org www.covanta.com Notes: The facility won the Solid Waste Associa on of North America Gold Excellence Award for Waste to Energy in 2005 and 2010. All waste is brought to the facility in intermodal containers via railcar thereby elimina ng truck traffic. 43 U.S. Congress Relies on WTE
In 2011, Congress began sending
approximately 90 percent of its
trash to a waste-to-energy facility in
Alexandria, VA. The Architect of
the Capitol reported that in the first
nine months, 3,700 tons of nonrecyclable solid waste from Congressional facilities has processed by
waste-to-energy. "Congress has
made huge strides to improve our
environmental sustainability," said
then-House Administration Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.).
The positive report is good news
for the House Administration and
Senate Rules and Administration
which is responsible for managing
the waste generated in the U.S.
Capitol and congressional office
buildings. In 2011, Rep. Jim Moran
(D-Va.), the ranking member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on
the Interior and Environment, has
praised the waste-to-energy program last October. "It's the appropriate thing to do, burning our
waste and getting energy from it,"
he said. "We do it in my district,
and it's something we studied carefully when I was the mayor of
Alexandria."
Wheelabrator Bal more, L.P.
City: Bal more, MD County: Bal more US Congressional District: 3rd Owner: Wheelabrator Bal more, L.P. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Bal more, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1985 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 60 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 170,000 Full‐ me Employees: 68 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,427,232 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: Wheelabrator opened the Aquacul‐
ture Center in 1986 to raise threat‐
ened fish species. The water used in the Aquaculture Center comes from the plant’s cooling water system. Each fall, approximately five thou‐
sand small fish are released into Maryland rivers. Maryland Recognizes WTE as a Tier 1 Renewable
On May 17, 2011, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed into law a bill
that elevated waste-to-energy from Tier 2 to Tier 1 in the Maryland renewable
energy standard.
In a statement, Governor O’Malley said: “Our State has an aggressive goal of generating 20% of our energy from Tier I renewable sources by 2022 and we intend to achieve
that goal through as much in-state energy generation as possible. This will require a diverse
fuel mix including onshore and offshore wind, solar, biomass including poultry litter, and
now waste-to-energy if we are to realize our 20% goal.
“Marylanders generate tons of solid waste each and every day. If there is no waste-to-energy
facility available, these tons of trash are simply dumped into landfills, no value is derived
from the waste, and our State continues to rely on coal-fired generation to account for 55%
of our energy needs.
“On carbon emissions, those greenhouse gases that degrade our environment and contribute
to global warming, waste to energy facilities
are better for the environment than the combination of coal generated electricity and land
filling of solid waste. It is only through a
diverse, renewable fuel mix that we will be
able to reach our aggressive goals, protect our
precious environment, and create the economic
engine to move Maryland forward.”
44 MASSACHUSETTS
WTE Facili es:
Seven
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
256.9 MW
Total Steam Capacity:
68,000 Lbs/Hr
MA Popula on in 2010:
6,545,629
9,490 tons per day
MSW Managed in MA in 2011:
7,520,771 tons
% of MA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
42.2 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in MA in 2012:
68.1 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Massachuse s
is Enough to Power: 212,060 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in MA:
37.3 percent
Haverhill Resource Recovery Facility
City: Haverhill, MA County: Essex US Congressional District: 3rd Owner: Covanta Haverhill, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Haverhill, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,650 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 44.6 Full‐ me Employees: 48 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 475,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: Covanta Haverhill, Inc. won the ASME Large Combus on Facility Award in 2004. The facility sits on a 147 acre area in the Ward Hill Neck sec on of Haverhill. Jobs at WTE Facili es in MA:
489 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in MA: 1,441 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Massachuse s:
$591,600,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
MA §ch.25A § 11F Pioneer Valley Resource Recovery Facility
City: Agawam, MA County: Hampden US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Covanta Springfield, LLC (private) Operator: Covanta Springfield, LLC (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Modular Design Capacity (TPD): 400 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 9.4 Full‐ me Employees: 41 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 300,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: This facility was one of the first in the United States to successfully co‐combust wastewater treat‐
ment plant sludge and fats, oil and grease (FOG) with municipal solid waste. 45 Pi sfield Resource Recovery Facility
City: Pi sfield, MA County: Berkshire US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Covanta Pi sfield, LLC (private) Operator: Covanta Pi sfield, LLC (private) Project Startup:
1981 Opera ng Status:
Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 240 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Steam
Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 68,000 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
0.9 Full‐ me Employees: 29 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 70,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: Each year, the Pi sfield Re‐
source Recovery Facility pro‐
duces over 400 million pounds of steam as well as 3.5 million kW hours of elec‐
tricity used in‐house for fa‐
cility opera ons. On a daily basis, the steam generated by the facility and delivered to Crane & Co. enables Crane to run its currency paper manufacturing facility and avoid u lizing 16,000 gallons of oil per day. SEMASS Resource Recovery Facility
City: West Wareham, MA County: Plymouth US Congressional District: 9th Owner: Covanta SEMASS, L.P. (private) Operator: Covanta SEMASS, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1989 Opera ng RDF 2,700 3 78 85 1,000,000 Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The facility won the ASME Large Combus on Facility Award in 2007. It processes more than one million tons of trash per year. Wheelabrator Millbury Inc.
City: Millbury, MA County: Worcester US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1987 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,500 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 46 Full‐ me Employees: 54 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 750,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: Wheelabrator is strongly commi ed to suppor ng Millbury, including vol‐
unteering to help build a Victorian Garden at the senior center, restoring the “Great Room” in the historic Asa Water Mansion Museum; and work‐
ing to establish the state’s first inner‐
city wildlife sanctuary. 46 WTE Carbon Offsets
Carbon offset credits generated by
Hillsborough County’s Resource
Recovery Facility, in Tampa, FL
have been approved under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), a
global standard for the approval of
credible voluntary offset credits.
The credits represent reductions in
net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions achieved by generating renewable energy from waste at the
facility. In addition, for the credits
to be approved under the standard,
they must also meet strict program
requirements and be independently
verified by a qualified third party.
The Lee County Resource Recovery Facility in Ft. Myers, FL is also
qualified to sell carbon offsets under the Verified Carbon Standard,
and has sold offsets on the voluntary market.
Energy Recovery Council
Membership
The Energy Recovery Council is the
national trade association representing
companies and local governments engaged in the waste-to-energy sector.
ERC is responsible for advocating on
waste-to-energy issues before lawmakers and regulators, promoting wasteto-energy to the public, policymakers,
and opinion leaders, building coalitions in support of waste-to-energy,
publishing articles and educational
materials, and working as a clearinghouse for technical information.
Membership is available for WTE
owners and operators, local governments, and companies that provides
goods and services to WTE owners
and operators. Visit www.wte.org for
membership information.
Wheelabrator North Andover Inc.
City: North Andover, MA County: Essex US Congressional District: 6th Owner: Wheelabrator North Andover Inc. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator North Andover Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1985 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,500 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 40 Full‐ me Employees: 67 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 426,000 Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: The facility shares a neighbor‐
hood where businesses and resi‐
den al areas are thriving and con nuing to enjoy growth and expansion. The facility also sup‐
ports the Science Screen Report STEM educa on package for schools in the Merrimack Valley and beyond. Wheelabrator Saugus Inc.
City: Saugus, MA County: Essex US Congressional District: 6th Owner: Wheelabrator Saugus Inc. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Saugus Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1975 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,500 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 38 Full‐ me Employees: 65 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 850,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: Wheelabrator Saugus created the Bear Creek Wildlife Sanctuary and has spent more than $2.2 million in restor‐
ing coastal habitats, capping the landfill with na ve grassland species and pre‐
ven ng the growth of invasive plants. The sanctuary is cer fied by the Wildlife Habitat Council as a Wildlife at Work and Corporate Land for Learning site. 47 MICHIGAN
WTE Facili es:
Three
Total Waste Capacity: 4,125 tons per day
Total Electric Capacity:
88.8 MW
Total Steam Capacity:
271,118 Lbs/Hr
MI Popula on in 2010:
9,883,640
MSW Managed in MI in 2011:
13,780,212 tons
% of MI MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
7.2 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in MI in 2012:
9.6 percent
Detroit Renewable Power
City: Detroit, MI County: Wayne US Congressional District: 13th Owner: Detroit Renewable Energy LLC (private) Operator: Detroit Renewable Energy LLC (private) Project Startup:
1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 3,300 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 68 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 228,300 Full‐ me Employees: 157 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,000,000 Websites: www.detroitrenewablepower.com www.gdrra.org Notes: Energy Produced by WTE in Michigan is
Enough to Power:
89,313 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in MI:
13.7 percent
The Detroit facility provides steam to the Detroit steam loop. It will also export process steam that will be used to heat and cool por ons of GM’s De‐
troit‐Hamtramck assembly plant, helping GM achieve its renewable energy goals. Jobs at WTE Facili es in MI:
196 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in MI:
735 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Michigan:
$185,300,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
MI §460.1011 Jackson County Resource Recovery Facility
City: Jackson, MI County: Jackson US Congressional District: 7th Owner: Jackson County (public) Operator: n/a Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): Full‐ me Employees: 1987 Inac ve Mass Burn 200 2 4 42,818 n/a Websites: www.co.jackson.mi.us Notes: The Jackson facility became inac‐
ve on September 30, 2013. The facility may reopen at a future date. 48 ASME Facility Recognition Awards
Combustion Facility Winners
1994 - Commerce Refuse to Energy
1995 - Camden Resource Recovery Facility
2000 - Montenay Energy Resources of
Montgomery County (PA)
2001 - Lee County Solid Waste Resource
Recovery Facility (Large WTE
Facility)
2001 - Dutchess County Resource Recovery
Facility (Small WTE Facility)
2002 - (tie) Huntington Resource Recovery
SEMASS
Miami-Dade (Large WTE Facility)
2002 - Sumner County (Small WTE Facility)
2003 - McKay Bay (Large WTE Facility)
2003 - Wallingford (Small WTE Facility)
2004 - Greater Vancouver Regional District
(Large WTE Facility)
2004 - Covanta Haverhill, Inc. (Large WTE
Facility)
2004 - Pinellas County Resource Recovery
Facility (Large WTE Facility)
2004 - Pittsfield Resource Recovery Facility
(Small WTE Facility)
2005 - Great River Energy, Elk River Station
(Large WTE Facility)
2005 - American Ref-Fuel Company of
Hempstead (Large WTE Facility)
2005 - Bay County Resource Management
Center (Small WTE Facility)
2006 - Covanta SECONN (Large WTE Facility)
2006 - Union County Resource Recovery
Facility, NJ (Large WTE Facility Honorable Mention)
2007 - York Resource Recovery Center
(Large WTE Facility)
2007 - Southeast Resource Recovery Facility
(SERRF) (Large WTE Facility)
MacArthur Resource Recovery Facility, NY (Small WTE Facility).
2008- Covanta Onondaga. L.P. (Large WTE
Facility )
2008- Pioneer Valley Resource Recovery
Facility (Small WTE Facility)
2008- MacArthur Resource Recovery Facility. (Small WTE Facility - Honorable
mention)
2008- Covanta Bristol
2009- North County Resources Recovery
Facility (Large WTE Facility)
2009– ecomaine WTE Facility (Small WTE
Facility)
2010- Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy,
LP, (Large WTE Facility)
2011- Covanta Alexandria/Arlington Inc.
2011- Arnold O. Chantland Resource Recovery System, Ames IA
2012 - Honolulu Program of Waste Energy
Recovery (H-Power).
2013 - No Recipient
Kent County Waste‐to‐Energy Facility
City: Grand Rapids, MI County: Kent US Congressional District: 3rd Owner: Kent County (public) Operator: Covanta Kent, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): Cer fica ons:
Websites: www.covanta.com www.accesskent.com/
Departments/DPW/ Notes: 1990 Opera ng Mass Burn 625 2 16.8 39 605,213 VPP STAR The Kent facility was accepted into the Michigan Clean Corpo‐
rate Ci zen (C3) Program in 2006. WTE as CHP Delivers Green Steam
Under a long-term supply agreement, steam from the Wheelabrator Westchester
waste-to-energy plant is being piped directly to White Plains Linen’s adjacent 100,000
-square-foot commercial laundry facility via a newly-constructed steam line. White
Plains Linen is converting its natural gas-fueled laundry equipment and room heating
systems to steam. Now that the conversion is completed, White Plains Linen will
significantly reduce the amount of natural gas it uses to make steam and hot water,
from 1 million therms per year to less than 90,000 therms per year. This steep reduction in natural gas usage will eliminate 4,775 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions
annually, equivalent to taking 995 passenger vehicles off the road.
“Westchester County is pleased to support this innovative partnership between two
of our larger industrial employers,” said Westchester County Executive Robert P.
Astorino. “It is a great example of how corporate responsibility, especially when it
comes to protecting our environment, is also good for business.”
White Plains Linen is Peekskill’s largest employer and has made a multimillion dollar
investment in building a state-of-the-art, green laundry operation to serve the tri-state
area’s restaurant, catering and hospitality industries.
49 MINNESOTA
WTE Facili es:
Nine
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
123.2 MW
Total Steam Capacity:
183,000 Lbs/Hr
MN Popula on in 2010:
5,303,925
4,668 tons per day
MSW Managed by MN in 2011:
5,710,304 tons
% of MN MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
20.1 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in MN in 2012:
5.7 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Minnesota is
Enough to Power:
111,422 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in MN:
47.2 percent
Great River Energy—Elk River Sta on
City: Elk River, MN County: Sherburne US Congressional District: 6th Owner: Great River Energy (private) Operator: Great River Energy (private) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1989 Opera ng RDF 1,000 3 29 80 850,000 Websites: www.greatriverenergy.com Notes: The facility was retrofi ed in 1989 to combust RDF. Since original construc on in the early 1950s, the plant has used sever‐
al fuels, including coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear energy, re chips and wood chips. Jobs at WTE Facili es in MN:
322 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in MN: 888 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Minnesota:
$193,100,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
MN §216B.1691 Hennepin Energy Resource Center (HERC)
City: Minneapolis, MN County: Hennepin US Congressional District: 5th Owner: Hennepin County (public) Operator: Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Co., Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,212 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 36.7 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 20,000 Full‐ me Employees: 48 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,156,212 Websites: www.covanta.com www.hennepin.us/HERC Notes: Through a steam line, HERC pro‐
vides steam to buildings in down‐
town Minneapolis, including Tar‐
get Field, home of baseball’s Min‐
nesota Twins. 50 Olmsted Waste‐to‐Energy Facility
City: Rochester, MN County: Olmsted US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Olmsted County (public) Operator: Olmsted County (public) Project Startup:
1987 (Units 1&2) 2010 (Unit 3) Opera ng Status:
Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 400 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Steam
Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 61,000 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
9.5 Full‐ me Employees: 33 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 140,000 Websites: www.co.olmsted.mn.us Notes: The facility expanded in 2010 by adding a third boiler capable of processing an addi onal 200 tons per day. The OWEF pro‐
duces steam and electricity which is provided to 37 build‐
ings in the Olmsted County Dis‐
trict Energy System (OCDES). A public educa on program has been developed and ins tuted that includes a solid waste edu‐
ca on module that is included in many middle school environ‐
mental resources curriculums in the County. The curriculum typically includes a tour of the OWEF. Perham Resource Recovery Facility
City: Perham, MN County: O er Tail US Congressional District: 7th Owner: Prairie Lakes Municipal Solid Waste Authority (public) Operator: Prairie Lakes Municipal Solid Waste Authority (public) Project Startup:
1986; 2014 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 200 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 4.5 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 30,000 Full‐ me Employees: 15 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 75,000 Websites: www.co.o er‐tail.mn.us/prairielakes/ Notes: This facility is operated through a joint powers agreement between Becker, O er Tail, Todd, and Wade‐
na coun es. An expansion project adding a waste heat boiler, addi‐
onal air pollu on control equip‐
ment and a material recovery facili‐
ty is under construc on and will be completed in 2014. Polk County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility
City: Fosston, MN County: Polk US Congressional District: 7th Owner: Polk County (public) Operator: Polk County (public) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1988 Opera ng Modular 80 2 21,000 23 90,000 Websites: h p://pcphealth.org/list_departments/incinerator/index.aspx Notes: Polk County made the decision to u lize waste‐to‐energy combus‐
tor for their solid waste manage‐
ment to comply with the State’s mandate for landfill abatement. The facility includes a material recovery facility to pre‐process the incoming waste stream. 51 Pope/Douglas Waste‐to‐Energy
Facility
City: Alexandria, MN County: Douglas US Congressional District: 7th Owner: Pope/Douglas Solid Waste Joint Powers Board (public) Operator: Pope/Douglas Solid Waste Joint Powers Board (public) Project Startup:
1987 (Unit 1&2) 2011 (Unit 3) Opera ng Status:
Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 240 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Steam
Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 36,000 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
0.5 Full‐ me Employees: 43 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 42,000 Websites: www.popedouglasrecycle.com Notes: In 2011, a third combus on unit was added, doubling the capacity of the facility. Steam from the facility is sold to Alexandria Technical & Community College, the 3M Manufacturing plant, and the Douglas County Hos‐
pital. The facility pre‐
processes waste through a material recovery facility, which helps remove harmful elements that decrease the life of the equipment (such as glass and metals). Red Wing Resource Recovery Facility
City: Red Wing, MN County: Goodhue US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: City of Red Wing (public) Operator: City of Red Wing (public) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1982 Inac ve Modular 96 2 15,000 n/a 44,000 Websites: www.red‐wing.org/solidwaste.html Notes: The Red Wing Resource Recovery Facility stopped combus ng waste in June, 2013. The facility accepts waste which is processed into RDF and sent to the Xcel En‐
ergy Red Wing Genera ng Sta‐
on. Xcel Energy—Red Wing Steam Plant
City: Red Wing, MN County: Goodhue US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Xcel Energy (private) Operator: Xcel Energy (private) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1987 Opera ng RDF 720 2 24 28 1,280,891 Websites: h p://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/
Power_Genera on/
Red_Wing_Genera ng_Sta on Notes: The plant located on the Missis‐
sippi River burns RDF produced at a resource recovery facili es in Newport, MN. 52 QRO— Qualification for WTE
Operators
Overview
The waste-to-energy sector must meet
some of the nation’s most stringent
standards. In addition to meeting Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards for emissions, facility
operators are required by regulation to
be trained and certified under the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
QRO Certification Program. It is
based on the
ASME QRO-1-2005 Standard for the
Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery Facility Operators. This
program consist of 3 different levels of
certification: Provisional, Site Specific
Operator and Combustion System Operator.
ASME QRO Operator Certification
provides the means to comply with the
requirements of 40CFR60.54b
(Standards for municipal waste combustor operator training and certification)
when there is no state certification program.
QRO Provisional certification is the
first step toward achieving full Operator
certification. This level is equally applicable to Shift Supervisors and Chief Facility Operators.
Operator certification (full certification) applies to a specific facility. The
applicant is required to be the holder of
a valid Provisional certificate and document six months of satisfactory employment in the capacity of Shift Supervisor
or Chief Facility Operator at the specific
facility and pass an oral examination.
Xcel Energy—Wilmarth Plant
City: Mankato, MN County: Blue Earth US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Xcel Energy (private) Operator: Xcel Energy (private) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): Full‐ me Employees: 1987 Opera ng RDF 720 2 19 20 Websites: h p://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/
Power_Genera on/
Wilmarth_Genera ng_Sta on Notes: The RDF burned at Wilmarth is produced at resource recovery facili es in Elk River and New‐
port, MN. Refuse Derived Fuel Processing
Ramsey/Washington Resource Recovery Facility
City: Newport, MN County: Washington US Congressional District: 4th Owner: Resource Recovery Technologies (private) Operator: Resource Recovery Technologies (private) Project Startup:
1987 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
RDF Processing Design Capacity (TPD): 1,200 Full‐ me Employees: 65 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 750,000 Websites: www.rrtmn.com Notes: The RDF produced at this facility is converted to energy by Xcel Energy at its Red Wing and Wilmarth facili es. 53 NEW HAMPSHIRE
WTE Facili es:
Two
Total Waste Capacity: 700 tons per day
Total Electric Capacity:
19 MW
NH Popula on in 2010:
1,316,470
MSW Managed by NH in 2011:
1,144,568 tons
% of NH MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
22.0 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in NH in 2012:
9.3 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in New Hampshire
is Enough to Power: 15,358 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in NH:
21.2 percent
Wheelabrator Claremont Company, L.P.
City: Claremont, NH County: Sullivan US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Wheelabrator Claremont, L.P. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Claremont, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1987 Opera ng Status: Inac ve Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 200 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 5 Full‐ me Employees: n/a Serves Waste Needs of (people): 73,000
Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: The Claremont facility became inac ve on September 30, 2013. The facility may reopen at a fu‐
ture date. Jobs at WTE Facili es in NH:
38 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in NH: 174 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in New Hampshire:
$37,400,000
Wheelabrator Concord Company, L.P.
City: Concord, NH County: Merrimack US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Wheelabrator Concord, L.P. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Concord, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 500 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 14 Full‐ me Employees: 38 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 169,000
Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: The Concord facility celebrated its 25th anniversary on May 2, 2014 at an event a ended by city and state officials. In its first 25 years, the facility processed more than 4 million tons of waste, gener‐
a ng more than 2.5 million mega‐
wa s of electricity. 54 NEW JERSEY
WTE Facili es:
Five
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
169.6 MW
NJ Popula on in 2010:
8,791,894
5,717 tons per day
MSW Managed in NJ in 2011:
10,861,083 tons
% of NJ MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
19.6 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in NJ in 2012:
61.2 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in New Jersey is
Enough to Power:
137,095 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in NJ:
40.7 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in NJ:
Covanta Camden Energy Recovery Center
City: Camden, NJ County: Camden US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Covanta Camden GP, LLC (private) Operator: Covanta Camden GP, LLC (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,050 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 34 Full‐ me Employees: 52 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 506,420 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: Covanta acquired the Camden facility in August 2013 from Fos‐
ter Wheeler, which was the orig‐
inal designer, builder, owner and operator of the facility. 274 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in NJ:
822 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in New Jersey:
$496,900,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
NJ §14:8‐2.6 Covanta Warren Energy Resource Company Facility
City: Oxford, NJ County: Warren US Congressional District: 5th Owner: Covanta Warren Energy Resource Co., L.P. (private) Operator: Covanta Warren Energy Resource Co., L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 450 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 13.5 Full‐ me Employees: 41 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 35,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: An integral part of the solid waste management plan for the county, the facility sells renewa‐
ble electricity to Jersey Central Power and Light, a First Energy Company. 55 Essex County Resource Recovery
Facility
City: Newark, NJ County: Essex US Congressional District: 8th Owner: Covanta Essex Company (private) Operator: Covanta Essex Company (private) Project Startup:
1990 Opera ng Status:
Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,277 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
66 Full‐ me Employees: 86 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 1,200,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The Essex County Resource Recovery Facility is New Jer‐
sey's largest waste‐to‐
energy facility. The facility serves the refuse disposal needs of 22 municipali es in Essex County and the sur‐
rounding region. Covanta Essex has partnered with Clean Energy Fuels to open an on‐site compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling sta on for garbage trucks that u lize the facility. Union County Resource Recovery Facility
City: Rahway, NJ County: Union US Congressional District: 10th Owner: Union County U lity Authority (public) Operator: Covanta Union, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1994 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1440 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 42.1 Full‐ me Employees: 60 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 500,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites:
Notes: www.unioncountyu li esauthority.org www.covanta.com The Union County Resource Re‐
covery Facility won Honorable Men on for the 2006 ASME Large Combus on Facility Award. Wheelabrator Gloucester Company, L.P.
City: Westville, NJ County: Gloucester US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Wheelabrator Gloucester Company, L.P. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Gloucester Company, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1990 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 500 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 14 Full‐ me Employees: 35 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 263,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: Wheelabrator Gloucester has created and maintains a wildlife refuge and nature trail which have been cer fied by The Wildlife Habitat Council as a “Wildlife at Work” site. In 2014, the NJ Dept. of Environmental Protec on hon‐
ored the facility with an environmental stewardship award for its proac ve engagement in sustainability ini a ves. 56 NEW YORK
WTE Facili es:
Ten
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
285.1 MW
Total Steam Capacity:
548,000 Lbs/Hr
NY Popula on in 2010:
19,378,102
11,131 tons per day
MSW Managed in NY in 2011:
17,349,855 tons
% of NY MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
21.2 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in NY in 2012:
30.9 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in New York is
Enough to Power:
265,896 homes Babylon Resource Recovery Facility
City: West Babylon, NY County: Suffolk US Congressional District: 3rd Owner: Covanta Babylon, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Babylon, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1989 Opera ng Mass Burn 750 2 16.8 45 430,000 Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: This facility operates with a "zero discharge" of process wa‐
ter, meaning all wastewater gen‐
erated on‐site is treated and reused. Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in NY:
27.7 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in NY:
522 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in NY:
1,377 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in New York:
$726,800,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
NY §1‐103 Covanta Hempstead
City: Westbury, NY County: Nassau US Congressional District: 4th Owner: Covanta Hempstead Co. (private) Operator: Covanta Hempstead Co. (private) Project Startup:
1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,505 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 72 Full‐ me Employees: 82 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,000,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: Covanta Hempstead is Long Is‐
land's largest waste‐to‐energy facility. The facility is the corner‐
stone of Hempstead's integrated waste service plan that includes an extensive curbside collec on system for recyclable materials. 57 Dutchess County Resource Recovery
Facility
City: Poughkeepsie, NY County: Dutchess US Congressional District: 18th Owner: Dutchess County Resource Re‐
covery Agency (public) Operator: Covanta Hudson Valley Re‐
newable Energy LLC (private) Project Startup:
1987 Opera ng Status:
Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 450 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
9.8 Full‐ me Employees: 44 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 293,562 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.dcrra.org www.covanta.com Notes: The Dutchess facility can process approximately 160,000 tons of municipal solid waste annually. The facility generates enough electricity to power approxi‐
mately 10,000 homes per year, which is equivalent to saving about 160,000 barrels of oil per year. The facility recovers and recycles ap‐
proximately 6,000 tons of ferrous metal per year. Hun ngton Resource Recovery Facility
City: East Northport, NY County: Suffolk US Congressional District: 3rd Owner: Covanta Hun ngton, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Hun ngton, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 750 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 24.3 Full‐ me Employees: 45 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 345,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The facility began commercial opera on in December 1991, serving the towns of Hun ngton and Smithtown. The facility is the cornerstone of an integrated solid waste management sys‐
tem. MacArthur Waste‐to‐Energy Facility
City: Ronkonkoma, NY County: Suffolk US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Islip Resource Recovery Agency (private) Operator: Covanta MacArthur Renewable Energy, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1990 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 486 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 12 Full‐ me Employees: 42 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 301,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR; ISO 14001 Websites: www.covanta.com www.toirra.com Notes: The MacArthur Waste‐to‐Energy Facility won the 2007 ASME Large Combus on Facility Award. 58 Niagara Resource Recovery Facility
City: Niagara Falls, NY County: Niagara US Congressional District: 26th Owner: Covanta Niagara Company (private) Operator: Covanta Niagara Company (private) Project Startup:
1980 Opera ng Status:
Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Steam
Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 470,000 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
32 Full‐ me Employees: 87 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 900,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR ISO 14001 Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The facility sells steam to adjacent chemical facili es and electricity to the New York State power grid. Facil‐
ity upgrades consis ng of a new steam line and a new natural gas steam boiler will provide steam for the new Greenpac paper mill project, as well as enhance steam genera ng capacity for ex‐
is ng businesses. A new rail spur to be built on remediat‐
ed land will significantly re‐
duce the number of trucks accessing local roadways reduce associated diesel emissions. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility
City: Jamesville, NY County: Onondaga US Congressional District: 24th Owner: Covanta Onondaga, L.P. (private) Operator: Covanta Onondaga, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1995 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 990 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 39.2 Full‐ me Employees: 44 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 470,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com www.ocrra.org Notes: The Onondaga facility was named Top Renewable Plant by POWER Magazine in 2008, won the ASME Large Combus on Facility Award in 2008 and won the SWANA Waste‐to‐Energy Opera ons Gold Award in 2012.
Oswego County Energy Recovery Facility
City: Fulton, NY County: Oswego US Congressional District: 24th Owner: Oswego County (public) Operator: Oswego County (public) Project Startup:
1986 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Modular Design Capacity (TPD): 200 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 4 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 60,000 Full‐ me Employees: 28 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 126,000 Websites: www.oswegocounty.com/dsw Notes: The facility was completely retro‐
fi ed in 1999‐2000. A state‐of‐the‐
art emissions control system was put in place. The ERF was upgraded 2009 to recover and recycle ferrous metals. 59 Wheelabrator Hudson Falls L.L.C.
City: Hudson Falls, NY County: Washington US Congressional District: 21st Owner: Wheelabrator Hudson Falls L.L.C (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Hudson Falls L.L.C (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 500 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 15 Full‐ me Employees: 37 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 345,966 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: The facility generates clean, re‐
newable energy by processing waste from Washington and Warren coun es, while pursuing opportuni es to enhance envi‐
ronmental educa on in the com‐
munity. Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P.
City: Peekskill, NY County: Westchester US Congressional District: 17th Owner: Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1984 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capcity (MW):
60 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 18,000 Full‐ me Employees: 68 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 855,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: wheelabratortechnolgies.com Notes: Under a long‐term supply agree‐
ment, steam from the Wheelabra‐
tor Westchester facility will be piped directly to White Plains Lin‐
en’s commercial laundry facility, reducing the laundry’s carbon foot‐
print by 90%.
60 NORTH CAROLINA
WTE Facili es:
One (Inac ve)
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
10.5 MW
NC Popula on in 2010:
9,535,483
500 tons per day
MSW Managed in NC in 2011:
9,137,435 tons
% of NC MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
0 percent
New Hanover County — WASTEC
City: Wilmington, NC County: New Hanover US Congressional District: 3rd Owner: New Hanover County (public) Operator: New Hanover County (public) Project Startup:
1984(Units 1&2); 1991 (Unit 3) Opera ng Status: Inac ve Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 500 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 10.5 Full‐ me Employees: n/a Serves Waste Needs of (people): 200,000 Websites: www.nhcgov.com Notes: The WASTEC facility in New Han‐
over County became inac ve in 2010. Opera ng permits remain ac ve, and the facility may reopen at a future date. European WTE Markets
The Amager Bakke waste-to-energy facility, now under construction in Copenhagen, is the most recent high-tech, high profile WTE facility in Europe demonstrating panache. When finished in 2017, it will produce heat for 160,000 households and electricity for 62,500 residences, but will be renowned for its aesthetic
design, and the ski slope that descends from its stack. Environmentally progressive cities all around Europe employ state-of-the-art waste-to-energy facilities,
convinced that producing megawatts is better than placing trash in landfills.
The value of waste-to-energy was reemphasized in Europe in 1999, with a European Union directive requiring member states to greatly reduce the amount of
garbage going to landfills. As of 2010 (the most current year for which statistics
are available), there were 451 WTE facilities in Europe, up from 390 in 2001,
according to the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP).
The plants annually process 73 million metric tons of waste, producing 44 million
megawatt-hours (MWH) of electricity and 61 million MWH of heat, or enough
power to keep 13 million people wired and another 13 million warm.
And more waste-to-energy projects are
starting up, or are on the way. One market
research firm says the EU's tightening
standards on waste are a key driver behind
world growth in WTE that it says will accelerate in the next five years, with 250 new
plants and installed capacity on track to
increase 21 percent by 2016.
61 OKLAHOMA
WTE Facili es:
One
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
16.8 MW
Total Steam Capacity:
80,000 Lbs/Hr
OK Popula on in 2010:
3,751,351
1,125 tons per day
MSW Managed in OK in 2011:
4,778,966 tons
% of OK MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
4.3 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in OK in 2012:
0.2 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Oklahoma is
Enough to Power:
18,754 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in OK:
9.8 percent
Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility
City: Tulsa, OK County: Tulsa US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Covanta Tulsa Renewable Energy, LLC (private) Operator: Covanta Tulsa Renewable Energy, LLC (private) Project Startup:
1986; 2011 (CLEERGAS retrofit) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn (Units 1&2); CLEERGAS® (Unit 3) Design Capacity (TPD): 1,125 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 16.8 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 80,000 Full‐ me Employees: 42 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 388,300 Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: In 2012, Covanta Tulsa received the Henry Bellmon Sustainability Award. A Covanta CLEERGAS® gasifica on demonstra on unit has operated successfully at the Tulsa facility since 2011. Jobs at WTE Facili es in OK:
42 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in OK:
123 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Oklahoma:
$20,700,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
OK §17‐801.4 Prescription for Safety Program (Rx4Safety)
When flushed down the drain or disposed of in landfills, medications enter
waterways and contaminate surface waters, having an adverse effect on drinking water and the environment. Typical waste water treatment plants are not
designed to remove drugs from drinking water, resulting in a negative impact
upon aquatic organisms, fish and other wildlife
when these pharmaceuticals are disposed of improperly. In addition, unused medication in the
household may contribute to growing rates of
prescription drug abuse among Americans,
particularly teenagers.
In support of national efforts to alleviate these
issues, Covanta developed the Prescription for
Safety Program (Rx4Safety) to provide safe, free
disposal of medications collected at community
sponsored drug take-back programs. Waste-toenergy facilities provide safe, environmentally sound destruction that protects
water resources and reduces the risk of drugs reaching unauthorized users.
Since the program’s launch in 2010, Covanta’s facilities have destroyed more
than one million pounds of unwanted medications from United States collection events held by municipalities, community groups and law enforcement
agencies.
62 OREGON
WTE Facili es:
One
Total Waste Capacity: 550 tons per day
Total Electric Capacity:
13.1 MW
OR Popula on in 2010:
3,831,074
MSW Managed in OR in 2011:
3,945,093 tons
% of OR MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
4.6 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in OR in 2012:
1.2 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Oregon is
Enough to Power:
10,589 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in OR:
51.2 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in OR:
38 FTE
Marion County Solid Waste‐to‐Energy Facility
City: Brooks, OR County: Marion US Congressional District: 5th Owner: Covanta Marion, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Marion, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1987 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 550 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 13.1 Full‐ me Employees: 38 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 314,866 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: SInce its incep on and through 2013, the Marion facility has pro‐
cessed approximately 5 million tons of MSW, while recovering and recycling approximately 100,000 tons of metals, the equivalent amount of steel used to build more than 80,000 cars.
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in OR:
116 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Oregon:
$31,800,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
OR §469A.020 Energy Comes in All
Shapes and Sizes
Don’t Waste It
63 PENNSYLVANIA
WTE Facili es:
Six
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
267.9 MW
PA Popula on in 2010:
12,702,379
8,748 tons per day
MSW Managed in PA in 2011:
14,135,701 tons
% of PA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
21.8 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in PA in 2012:
32.9 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Pennsylvania is
Enough to Power:
216,555 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in PA:
35.5 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in PA:
354 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in PA:
1,114 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Pennsylvania:
$586,000,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
PA 73 P.S. §1648.2 Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy
City: Conshohocken, PA County: Montgomery US Congressional District: 13th Owner: Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, L.P. (private) Operator: Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1992 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,216 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 32 Full‐ me Employees: 46 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 421,786 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR; ISO 14001 Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The facility received the 2008 Governor’s Award for Safety Excellence and has twice been recognized as the American Soci‐
ety of Mechanical Engineers Sol‐
id Waste Processing Division’s “Large Waste‐to‐Energy Facility of the Year.” (2000 and 2010). Delaware Valley Resource Recovery Facility
City: Chester, PA County: Delaware US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Covanta Delaware Valley, L.P. (private) Operator: Covanta Delaware Valley, L.P. (private) Project Startup:
1992 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,688 No. of Boilers:
6 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 87 Full‐ me Employees: 106 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,000,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The Delaware Valley facility is the largest waste‐to‐energy facility in Pennsylvania, serving the waste and electrical needs of Delaware County and the greater Delaware Valley region. 64 Metal Recovery and Recycling
Despite attempts to recycle materials
through curbside collection and
dropoff programs, many ferrous and
non-ferrous metals end up in the trash
that is sent to landfills and waste-toenergy facilities. If waste is sent to a
landfill, the metals contained within
are buried. If waste is sent to a wasteto-energy facility, metals can be recovered postcombustion.
More than
730,000 tons of
ferrous and nonferrous metals are
recovered annually from waste-to-energy facilities in the
U.S. Today the price levels for metals
are good and are likely to increase in
the future due to the growing global
demand for raw materials.
After energy is recovered from the
waste, metals are recovered from the
ash. Ferrous metals are extracted magnetically, and non-ferrous metals are
sorted using eddy current separators.
Recovered metals are sold into the
secondary materials market.
Waste-to-energy plants and recycling
facilities are the keystones in modern
waste management systems. Due to
the extra quantities of raw materials
recovered from bottom ashes, wasteto-energy plants contribute further to
an environmentally sound recycling
society and thus help to improve resource efficiency, using unavoidable
waste as a valuable resource wherever
possible.
Lancaster County Resource Recovery Facility
City: Bainbridge, PA County: Lancaster US Congressional District: 16th Owner: Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (public) Operator: Covanta Lancaster, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,200 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 33.1 Full‐ me Employees: 47 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 420,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.lcswma.org www.covanta.com Notes: The facility is a "zero discharge" fa‐
cility, meaning that all the wastewater generated on‐site is treated and reused in the waste management process. It also uses secondary sewage treatment efflu‐
ent for all of its process water. Susquehanna Resource Management Complex
City: Harrisburg, PA County: Dauphin US Congressional District: 11th Owner: Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (public) Operator: Covanta Harrisburg, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1972; 2006 (retrofit) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 800 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 20.8 Full‐ me Employees: 47 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 100,000 Websites: www.lcswma.org/srmc www.covanta.com Notes: In 2009, Covanta Harrisburg was named a Top Plant by Power Magazine. The facility was pur‐
chased by the LCSWMA on De‐
cember 23, 2014 to secure fu‐
ture waste processing capacity and ini ate a regionalized ap‐
proach to managing MSW. 65 WTE By The Numbers
In the U.S.
Operating in
84
23
WTE facilities
States
Recovering more than
730,000
tons of metals
Generating
14,565,467
megawatt hours of
renewable electricity
in 2012
And exporting steam
(thermal energy) at the rate of
2,600,000
pounds per hour
Enough total energy to power
2,250,000
homes
Avoiding
30,211,120
tons of CO2 equivalents
in 2012, based on EPA
data that, on average,
1 ton of CO2e is avoided
for every 1 ton of MSW
processed by WTE
Wheelabrator Falls Inc.
City: Morrisville, PA County: Bucks US Congressional District: 8th Owner: Wheelabrator Falls Inc. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Falls Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1994 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,500 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 53 Full‐ me Employees: 56 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 550,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: Wheelabrator Falls is a Wildlife Habitat Council Wildlife at Work and Corporate Lands for Learning cer fied facility. York County Resource Recovery Center
City: York, PA County: York US Congressional District: 4th Owner: York County Solid Waste Authority (public) Operator: Covanta York Renewable Energy LLC (private) Project Startup:
1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,344 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 42 Full‐ me Employees: 52 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 450,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR; ISO 14001 Websites: www.ycswa.org www.covanta.com Notes: This publicly owned facility is the cornerstone of the county's inte‐
grated waste management campus, which also includes an educa on center, a yard waste transfer facili‐
ty, and a recycle drop‐off center. 66 UTAH
WTE Facili es:
One
Total Waste Capacity: 420 tons per day
Total Steam Capacity:
105,000 Lbs/Hr
Total Electric Capacity:
1.6 MW
UT Popula on in 2010:
2,763,885
MSW Managed by UT in 2011:
2,535,552 tons
% of UT MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
5.0 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in UT in 2012:
0.9 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Utah is Enough
to Power:
8,083 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in UT:
11.7 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in UT:
Davis Energy Recovery Facility
City: Layton, UT County: Davis US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District (public) Operator: Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District (public) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 420 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 1.6 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 105,000 Full‐ me Employees: 40 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 217,000 Websites: www.wiwmd.org Notes: On Feb. 15, 2013, the Davis Energy Recovery Facility pro‐
cessed its 3 millionth ton of waste. The facility exports ap‐
proximately 450 million pounds of steam to nearby Hill Air Force Base. 40 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in UT:
159 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Utah:
$9,600,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
UT §54‐17‐601 Opportunities to Increase and Diversify Domestic Energy
Resources: A Path Forward for States to Create and Retain Jobs
September 8, 2012
Waste-to-energy "often brings greenhouse gas mitigating, baseload renewable
energy and significant jobs through both the construction and operation of
plants," according to the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA). In a
paper entitled, "Opportunities to Increase and Diversify Domestic Energy
Resources: A Path Forward for States to Create and Retain Jobs", DGA recognizes that trash is converted into energy at facilities throughout the U.S.
and serves as a sustainable baseload renewable energy resource, adding to our
fuel diversity. The boost to the local economy provided by waste-to-energy is
illustrated in the report by the expansion of the HPOWER facility in Hawaii,
which “created 400 construction jobs and will employ 34 full-time employees,
as well as contribute millions in direct and indirect spending to the local economy.”
For the entire report, please go to www.democraticgovernors.org.
67 VIRGINIA
WTE Facili es:
Five
Total Waste Capacity: Total Electric Capacity:
177.5 MW
Total Steam Capacity:
445,000 Lbs/Hr
VA Popula on in 2010:
8,001,024
6,415 tons per day
MSW Managed in VA in 2011:
15,359,820 tons
% of VA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
13.3 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in VA in 2012:
34.9 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Virginia is
Enough to Power:
172,258 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in VA:
36.2 percent
Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Facility
City: Alexandria, VA County: n/a US Congressional District: 8th Owner: Covanta Arlington/Alexandria, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Arlington/Alexandria, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 975 No. of Boilers:
3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 22 Full‐ me Employees: 48 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 600,000 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The Alexandria facility is situated on a 4 acre site, the smallest footprint of any operated by Covanta. The Alexandria facility processes all the post‐recycled waste generated in the U.S. Cap‐
itol and House and Senate office buildings. Jobs at WTE Facili es in VA:
356 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in VA:
1,010 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Virginia:
$423,600,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
VA §56.576 Hampton‐NASA Steam Plant
City: Hampton, VA County: n/a US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: NASA & City of Hampton (public) Operator: City of Hampton (public) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1980 Opera ng Mass Burn 240 2 66,000 38 180,000 Websites: www.hampton.gov Notes: The Hampton/NASA Steam Plant generates energy for NASA’s Langley Research Center by processing trash from Hampton, NASA Langley, Lang‐
ley Air Force Base and the Newport News shipyard. The facility won a 2012 Federal Energy and Water Management Award. 68 Harrisonburg Resource Recovery
Facility
City: Harrisonburg, VA County: n/a US Congressional District: 6th Owner: City of Harrisonburg (public) Operator: City of Harrisonburg (public) Project Startup:
1982; 2004 (retrofit) Opera ng Status:
Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 200 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Steam
Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 57,000 Gross Elec.
Capacity (MW):
2.5 Full‐ me Employees: 31 Serves Waste Needs of
(people): 122,000 Websites: www.harrisonburgva.gov/
resource‐recovery‐facilty Notes: The Harrisonburg facility creates steam to heat and cool the James Madison University (JMU) cam‐
pus. To keep up with the growing trash flow from the area and changing environ‐
mental regula on, the City decided to increase the pro‐
duc on capacity of the facil‐
ity from 100 tons a day to 200 tons a day in 2004. This also helped the City keep up with the steam needs of JMU's rapidly expanding campus.
I‐95 Energy/Resource Recovery Facility (Fairfax)
City: Lorton, VA County: Fairfax US Congressional District: 11th Owner: Covanta Fairfax, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Fairfax, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1990 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 3,000 No. of Boilers:
4 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 93 Full‐ me Employees: 75 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,651,647 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: Fairfax is the largest waste‐to‐
energy facility in Virginia, serving a popula on of more than one mil‐
lion people in the Washington, D.C. suburbs of Fairfax County. It is the first Covanta facility to have a non‐
ferrous metal recovery system. Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc.
City: Portsmouth, VA County: n/a US Congressional District: 3rd Owner: Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 2,000 No. of Boilers:
4 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 60 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 322,000 Full‐ me Employees: 164 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,127,790 Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: Wheelabrator Portsmouth has been an ac ve supporter of and par cipant in the non‐
profit Elizabeth River Project (ERP), which has brought industry and government together to restore the river. The facility has received ERP’s highest recogni on in its voluntary envi‐
ronmental program and has earned ERP’s Sustained Dis nguished Performance award. 69 WASHINGTON
WTE Facili es:
One
Total Waste Capacity: 800 tons per day
Total Electric Capacity:
26 MW
WA Popula on in 2010:
6,724,540
WA MSW Managed in 2011:
8,801,350 tons
% of WA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
3.1 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in WA in 2012:
1.7 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Washington is
Enough to Power:
21,017 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in WA:
54.7 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in WA:
40 FTE
Wheelabrator Spokane Inc.
City: Spokane, WA County: Spokane US Congressional District: 5th Owner: City of Spokane (public) Operator: Wheelabrator Spokane Inc. (private) Project Startup:
1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 800 No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 26 Full‐ me Employees: 40 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 423,347 Cer fica ons:
VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Notes: The Spokane facility won the Solid Waste Associa on of North America's (SWANA) 2013 Waste‐
to‐Energy Gold Excellence Award. Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in WA: 119 FTE
The Four R’s
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Washington:
$74,900,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
WA §80.28.025 Solid waste hierarchies adopted by governments around the world recognize the benefits of the four “R’s” of waste management. After you
reduce, reuse, and recycle what you can, you should recover energy from
waste. BTUs are too valuable to throw away.
70 WISCONSIN
WTE Facili es:
Two
Total Waste Capacity: 490 tons per day
Total Electric Capacity:
30 MW
Total Steam Capacity:
10,000 Lbs/Hr
WI Popula on in 2010:
5,868,986
MSW Managed in WI in 2011:
5,650,450 tons
% of WI MSW Managed by WTE in 2011:
1.3 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec.
Genera on in WI in 2012:
1.1 percent
Energy Produced by WTE in Wisconsin is
Enough to Power:
24,897 homes Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in WI:
19.4 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in WI:
Barron County Waste‐to‐Energy & Recycling Facility
City: Almena, WI County: Barron US Congressional District: 7th Owner: Barron County (public) Operator: ZAC, Inc. (private) Project Startup:
Opera ng Status: Technology:
Design Capacity (TPD): No. of Boilers:
Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): Full‐ me Employees: Serves Waste Needs of (people): Websites:
Notes: 1986 Opera ng Modular 90 2 10,000 2 18 75,000 www.barroncountywi.gov www.zacincorporated.com/home The Barron County facility ex‐
ports steam energy to the Sa‐
puto USA Cheese. In 2010, the facility added a condensing steam turbine generator and sells electricity to Xcel Energy. 50 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐
ated by WTE in WI:
139 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect &
Induced) by WTE in Wisconsin:
$15,700,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable:
WI §196.378 Xcel Energy—French Island Genera ng Sta on
City: LaCrosse, WI County: LaCrosse US Congressional District: 3rd Owner: Xcel Energy (private) Operator: Xcel Energy (private) Project Startup:
1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology:
RDF (co‐fired 50‐50 with coal) Design Capacity (TPD): 400 (RDF) No. of Boilers:
2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 28 (a ributed to RDF) Full‐ me Employees: 32 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 250,000 Websites: www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/Power_Genera on/
French_Island_Genera ng_Sta on Notes: Older fossil fuel‐fired boilers were converted to fluidized bed boilers to process a blend of wood waste and RDF. These were the first fluidized bed boil‐
ers in the US to be used for com‐
mercial power produc on. 71 Copyright © 2014
Energy Recovery Council
The Energy Recovery Council is the national association representing companies, organizations, and local
governments engaged in the waste-to-energy sector in
the United States. For more information about waste-to
-energy, please visit www.eneryrecoverycouncil.org.
May, 2014
72 28.12.2000
EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
L 332/91
DIRECTIVE 2000/76/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 4 December 2000
on the incineration of waste
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof,
waste, and 0,2 ng/m; TE for installations burning more
than 1 tonne per hour of hazardous waste.
(3)
The Protocol on Heavy Metals signed by the Community
within the framework of the UN-ECE Convention on
long-range transboundary air pollution sets legally
binding limit values for the emission of particulate of
10 mg/m3 for hazardous and medical waste incineration
and for the emission of mercury of 0,05 mg/m3 for
hazardous waste incineration and 0,08 mg/m3 for
municipal waste incineration.
(4)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer and
the World Health Organisation indicate that some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are carcinogenic.
Therefore, Member States may set emission limit values
for PAHs among other pollutants.
(5)
In accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty,
there is a need to take action at the level of the
Community. The precautionary principle provides the
basis for further measures. This Directive confines itself
to minimum requirements for incineration and co-incineration plants.
(6)
Further, Article 174 provides that Community policy on
the environment is to contribute to protecting human
health.
(7)
Therefore, a high level of environmental protection and
human health protection requires the setting and maintaining of stringent operational conditions, technical
requirements and emission limit values for plants incinerating or co-incinerating waste within the Community.
The limit values set should prevent or limit as far as
practicable negative effects on the environment and the
resulting risks to human health.
(8)
The Communication from the Commission on the
review of the Community Strategy for waste management assigns prevention of waste the first priority,
followed by reuse and recovery and finally by safe
disposal of waste; in its Resolution of 24 February 1997
on a Community Strategy for waste management (6), the
Council reiterated its conviction that waste prevention
should be the first priority of any rational waste policy
in relation to minimising waste production and the
hazardous properties of waste.
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social
Committee (2),
Having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the
Regions (3),
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article
251 of the Treaty (4), and in the light of the joint text approved
by the Conciliation Committee on 11 October 2000,
Whereas:
(1)
(2)
The fifth Environment Action Programme: Towards
sustainability — A European Community programme of
policy and action in relation to the environment and
sustainable development, supplemented by Decision No
2179/98/EC on its review (5), sets as an objective that
critical loads and levels of certain pollutants such as
nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), heavy
metals and dioxins should not be exceeded, while in
terms of air quality the objective is that all people should
be effectively protected against recognised health risks
from air pollution. That Programme further sets as an
objective a 90 % reduction of dioxin emissions of identified sources by 2005 (1985 level) and at least 70 %
reduction from all pathways of cadmium (Cd), mercury
(Hg) and lead (Pb) emissions in 1995.
The Protocol on persistent organic pollutants signed by
the Community within the framework of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE)
Convention on long-range transboundary air pollution
sets legally binding limit values for the emission of
dioxins and furans of 0,1 ng/m; TE (Toxicity Equivalents) for installations burning more than 3 tonnes per
hour of municipal solid waste, 0,5 ng/m; TE for installations burning more than 1 tonne per hour of medical
(1) OJ C 13, 17.1.1998, p. 6 and
OJ C 372, 2.12.1998, p. 11.
(2) OJ C 116, 28.4.1999, p. 40.
3) OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 37.
(
(4) Opinion of the European Parliament of 14 April 1999 (OJ C 219,
30.7.1999, p. 249), Council Common Position of 25 November
1999 (OJ C 25, 28.1.2000, p. 17) and Decision of the European
Parliament of 15 March 2000 (not yet published in the Official
Journal). Decision of the European Parliament of 16 November
2000 and Decision of the Council of 20 November 2000.
5
( ) OJ C 138, 17.5.1993, p. 1 and
OJ L 275, 10.10.1998, p. 1.
(6) OJ C 76, 11.3.1997, p. 1.
L 332/92
(9)
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
In its Resolution of 24 February 1997 the Council also
underlines the importance of Community criteria
concerning the use of waste, the need for appropriate
emission standards to apply to incineration facilities, the
need for monitoring measures to be envisaged for
existing incineration plants, and the need for the
Commission to consider amending Community legislation in relation to the incineration of waste with energy
recovery in order to avoid large-scale movements of
waste for incineration or co-incineration in the
Community.
(10)
It is necessary to set strict rules for all plants incinerating
or co-incinerating waste in order to avoid transboundary
movements to plants operating at lower costs due to less
stringent environmental standards.
(11)
The Communication from the Commission/energy for
the future: renewable sources of energy/White paper for
a Community strategy and action plan takes into consideration in particular the use of biomass for energy
purposes.
(12)
Council Directive 96/61/EC ( ) sets out an integrated
approach to pollution prevention and control in which
all the aspects of an installations environmental
performance are considered in an integrated manner.
Installations for the incineration of municipal waste with
a capacity exceeding 3 tonnes per hour and installations
for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste with a
capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day are included
within the scope of the said Directive.
(13)
(16)
The distinction between hazardous and non-hazardous
waste is based principally on the properties of waste
prior to incineration or co-incineration but not on
differences in emissions. The same emission limit values
should apply to the incineration or co-incineration of
hazardous and non-hazardous waste but different techniques and conditions of incineration or co-incineration
and different monitoring measures upon reception of
waste should be retained.
(17)
Member States should take into account Council
Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit
values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides
of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient
air (4) when implementing this Directive.
(18)
The incineration of hazardous waste with a content of
more than 1 % of halogenated organic substances,
expressed as chlorine, has to comply with certain operational conditions in order to destroy as many organic
pollutants such as dioxins as possible.
(19)
The incineration of waste which contains chlorine generates flue gas residues. Such residues should be managed
in a way that minimises their amount and harmfulness.
(20)
There may be grounds to provide for specified exemptions to the emission limit values for some pollutants
during a specified time limit and subject to specific
conditions.
(21)
Criteria for certain sorted combustible fraction of nonhazardous waste not suitable for recycling, should be
developed in order to allow the authorisation of the
reduction of the frequency of periodical measurements.
(22)
A single text on the incineration of waste will improve
legal clarity and enforceability. There should be a single
directive for the incineration and co-incineration of
hazardous and non-hazardous waste taking fully into
account the substance and structure of Council Directive
94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of
hazardous waste (5). Therefore Directive 94/67/EC
should also be repealed.
(23)
Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
1975 on waste (6) requires Member States to take the
necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or
disposed of without endangering human health and
without harming the environment. To this end, Articles
9 and 10 of that Directive provide that any plant or
undertaking treating waste must obtain a permit from
the competent authorities relating, inter alia, to the
precautions to be taken.
1
Compliance with the emission limit values laid down by
this Directive should be regarded as a necessary but not
sufficient condition for compliance with the requirements of Directive 96/61/EC. Such compliance may
involve more stringent emissions limit values for the
pollutants envisaged by this Directive, emission limit
values for other substances and other media, and other
appropriate conditions.
(14)
Industrial experience in the implementation of techniques for the reduction of polluting emissions from
incineration plants has been acquired over a period of
ten years.
(15)
Council Directives 89/369/EEC (2) and 89/429/EEC (3)
on the prevention and reduction of air pollution from
municipal waste incineration plants have contributed to
the reduction and control of atmospheric emissions
from incineration plants. More stringent rules should
now be adopted and those Directives should accordingly
be repealed.
(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32. Directive as last amended by the
Accession Act of 1994.
(3) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989, p. 50. Directive as last amended by the
Accession Act of 1994.
28.12.2000
(4) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.
(5) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 34.
(6) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39. Directive as last amended by Commission Decision 350/96/EC (OJ L 135, 6.6.1996, p. 32).
28.12.2000
(24)
EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
The requirements for recovering the heat generated by
the incineration or co-incineration process and for minimising and recycling residues resulting from the operation of incineration or co-incineration plants will assist
in meeting the objectives of Article 3 on the waste
hierarchy of Directive 75/442/EEC.
(25)
Incineration and co-incineration plants treating only
animal waste regulated by Directive 90/667/EEC (1) are
excluded from the scope of this Directive. The Commission intends to propose a revision to the requirements of
Directive 90/667 with a view to providing for high
environmental standards for the incineration and coincineration of animal waste.
(26)
The permit for an incineration or co-incineration plant
shall also comply with any applicable requirements laid
down in Directives 91/271/EEC (2), 96/61/EC,
96/62/EC (3), 76/464/EEC (4), and 1999/31/EC (5).
(27)
The co-incineration of waste in plants not primarily
intended to incinerate waste should not be allowed to
cause higher emissions of polluting substances in that
part of the exhaust gas volume resulting from such
co-incineration than those permitted for dedicated incineration plants and should therefore be subject to appropriate limitations.
(28)
(29)
High-standard measurement techniques are required to
monitor emissions to ensure compliance with the emission limit values for the pollutants.
The introduction of emission limit values for the
discharge of waste water from the cleaning of exhaust
gases from incineration and co-incineration plants will
limit a transfer of pollutants from the air into water.
L 332/93
public should have access to reports on the functioning
and monitoring of the plants burning more than three
tonnes per hour in order to be informed of their potential effects on the environment and human health.
(32)
The Commission should present a report both to the
European Parliament and the Council based on the
experience of applying this Directive, the new scientific
knowledge gained, the development of the state of technology, the progress achieved in emission control techniques, and on the experience made in waste management and operation of the plants and on the development of environmental requirements, with a view to
proposing, as appropriate, to adapt the related provisions of this Directive.
(33)
The measures necessary for the implementation of this
Directive are to be adopted in accordance with Council
Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down
the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission (6).
(34)
Member States should lay down rules on penalties
applicable to infringements of the provisions of this
Directive and ensure that they are implemented; those
penalties should be effective, proportionate and
dissuasive,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Objectives
(30)
(31)
Provisions should be laid down for cases where the
emission limit values are exceeded as well as for technically unavoidable stoppages, disturbances or failures of
the purification devices or the measurement devices.
In order to ensure transparency of the permitting
process throughout the Community the public should
have access to information with a view to allowing it to
be involved in decisions to be taken following applications for new permits and their subsequent updates. The
(1) Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990, laying down
the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste,
for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens
in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/
425/EEC (OJ L 363, 27.12.1990, p. 51). Directive as last amended
by the Accession Act of 1994.
(2) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban
waste-water treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40). Directive as
amended by Directive 98/15/EC (OJ L 67, 7.3.1998, p. 29).
3) Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air
(
quality assessment and management (OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55).
(4) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused
by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23). Directive as
last amended by the Accession Act of 1994.
5
( ) Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ
L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1).
The aim of this Directive is to prevent or to limit as far as
practicable negative effects on the environment, in particular
pollution by emissions into air, soil, surface water and groundwater, and the resulting risks to human health, from the incineration and co-incineration of waste.
This aim shall be met by means of stringent operational conditions and technical requirements, through setting emission
limit values for waste incineration and co-incineration plants
within the Community and also through meeting the requirements of Directive 75/442/EEC.
Article 2
Scope
1.
This Directive covers incineration and co-incineration
plants.
(6) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.
L 332/94
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
2.
The following plants shall however be excluded from the
scope of this Directive:
(a) Plants treating only the following wastes:
(i) vegetable waste from agriculture and forestry,
(ii) vegetable waste from the food processing industry, if
the heat generated is recovered,
(iii) fibrous vegetable waste from virgin pulp production
and from production of paper from pulp, if it is
co-incinerated at the place of production and the heat
generated is recovered,
(iv) wood waste with the exception of wood waste which
may contain halogenated organic compounds or
heavy metals as a result of treatment with woodpreservatives or coating, and which includes in particular such wood waste originating from construction
and demolition waste,
(v) cork waste,
(vi) radioactive waste,
(vii) animal carcasses as regulated by Directive
90/667/EEC without prejudice to its future amendements,
(viii) waste resulting from the exploration for, and the
exploitation of, oil and gas resources from off-shore
installations and incinerated on board the installation;
(b) Experimental plants used for research, development and
testing in order to improve the incineration process and
which treat less than 50 tonnes of waste per year.
Article 3
28.12.2000
(i) the mass content of polychlorinated aromatic
hydrocarbons, e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB) or pentachlorinated phenol (PCP) amounts
to concentrations not higher than those set out in
the relevant Community legislation;
(ii) these wastes are not rendered hazardous by virtue
of containing other constituents listed in Annex II
to Directive 91/689/EEC in quantities or in
concentrations which are inconsistent with the
achievement of the objectives set out in Article 4
of Directive 75/442/EEC; and
(iii) the net calorific value amounts to at least 30 MJ
per kilogramme,
(b) any combustible liquid wastes which cannot cause, in
the flue gas directly resulting from their combustion,
emissions other than those from gasoil as defined in
Article 1(1) of Directive 93/12/EEC (3) or a higher
concentration of emissions than those resulting from
the combustion of gasoil as so defined;
3. ‘mixed municipal waste’ means waste from households as
well as commercial, industrial and institutional waste,
which because of its nature and composition is similar to
waste from households, but excluding fractions indicated
in the Annex to Decision 94/3/EC (4) under heading 20 01
that are collected separately at source and excluding the
other wastes indicated under heading 20 02 of that Annex;
4. ‘incineration plant’ means any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment of wastes with or without recovery of the combustion heat generated. This includes the incineration by
oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment
processes such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma
processes in so far as the substances resulting from the
treatment are subsequently incinerated.
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:
1. ‘waste’ means any solid or liquid waste as defined in
Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC;
2. ‘hazardous waste’ means any solid or liquid waste as
defined in Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of
12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (1).
For the following hazardous wastes, the specific requirements for hazardous waste in this Directive shall not
apply:
(a) combustible liquid wastes including waste oils as
defined in Article 1 of Council Directive 75/439/EEC
of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (2)
provided that they meet the following criteria:
(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20. Directive as amended by Directive
94/31/EC. (OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28).
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23. Directive as last amended by the
Accession Act of 1994.
This definition covers the site and the entire incineration
plant including all incineration lines, waste reception,
storage, on site pretreatment facilities, waste-fuel and airsupply systems, boiler, facilities for the treatment of
exhaust gases, on-site facilities for treatment or storage of
residues and waste water, stack, devices and systems for
controlling incineration operations, recording and
monitoring incineration conditions;
5. ‘co-incineration plant’ means any stationary or mobile
plant whose main purpose is the generation of energy or
production of material products and:
— which uses wastes as a regular or additional fuel; or
— in which waste is thermally treated for the purpose of
disposal.
(3) Council Directive 93/12/EEC of 23 March 1993 relating to the
sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 81).
Directive as last amended by Directive 1999/32/EC (OJ L
121,11.5.1999, p. 13).
4) Commission Decision 94/3/EC of 20 December 1993 establishing a
(
list of wastes pursuant to Article 1a of Council Directive 75/
442/EEC on waste (OJ L 5, 7.1.1994, p. 15).
28.12.2000
EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
If co-incineration takes place in such a way that the main
purpose of the plant is not the generation of energy or
production of material products but rather the thermal
treatment of waste, the plant shall be regarded as an
incineration plant within the meaning of point 4.
This definition covers the site and the entire plant
including all co-incineration lines, waste reception, storage,
on site pretreatment facilities, waste-, fuel- and air-supply
systems, boiler, facilities for the treatment of exhaust gases,
on-site facilities for treatment or storage of residues and
waste water, stack devices and systems for controlling
incineration operations, recording and monitoring incineration conditions;
6. ‘existing co-incineration or co-incineration plant’ means an
incineration or co-incineration plant:
(a) which is in operation and has a permit in accordance
with existing Community legislation before 28
December 2002, or,
(b) which is authorised or registered for incineration or
co-incineration and has a permit issued before 28
December 2002 in accordance with existing
Community legislation, provided that the plant is put
into operation not later than 28 December 2003, or
(c) which, in the view of the competent authority, is the
subject of a full request for a permit, before 28
December 2002, provided that the plant is put into
operation not later than 28 December 2004;
7. ‘nominal capacity’ means the sum of the incineration
capacities of the furnaces of which an incineration plant is
composed, as specified by the constructor and confirmed
by the operator, with due account being taken, in particular, of the calorific value of the waste, expressed as the
quantity of waste incinerated per hour;
8. ‘emission’ means the direct or indirect release of
substances, vibrations, heat or noise from individual or
diffuse sources in the plant into the air, water or soil;
9. ‘emission limit values’ means the mass, expressed in terms
of certain specific parameters, concentration and/or level
of an emission, which may not be exceeded during one or
more periods of time;
10. ‘dioxins and furans’ means all polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans listed in Annex I;
11. ‘operator’ means any natural or legal person who operates
or controls the plant or, where this is provided for in
national legislation, to whom decisive economic power
over the technical functioning of the plant has been delegated;
12. ‘permit’ means a written decision (or several such decisions) delivered by the competent authority granting
authorisation to operate a plant, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the plant complies with all the
L 332/95
requirements of this Directive. A permit may cover one or
more plants or parts of a plant on the same site operated
by the same operator;
13. ‘residue’ means any liquid or solid material (including
bottom ash and slag, fly ash and boiler dust, solid reaction
products from gas treatment, sewage sludge from the treatment of waste waters, spent catalysts and spent activated
carbon) defined as waste in Article 1(a) of Directive
75/442/EEC, which is generated by the incineration or
co-incineration process, the exhaust gas or waste water
treatment or other processes within the incineration or
co-incineration plant.
Article 4
Application and permit
1.
Without prejudice to Article 11 of Directive 75/442/EEC
or to Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC, no incineration or
co-incineration plant shall operate without a permit to carry
out these activities.
2.
Without prejudice to Directive 96/61/EC, the application
for a permit for an incineration or co-incineration plant to the
competent authority shall include a description of the measures
which are envisaged to guarantee that:
(a) the plant is designed, equipped and will be operated in such
a manner that the requirements of this Directive are taking
into account the categories of waste to be incinerated;
(b) the heat generated during the incineration and co-incineration process is recovered as far as practicable e.g. through
combined heat and power, the generating of process steam
or district heating;
(c) the residues will be minimised in their amount and harmfulness and recycled where appropriate;
(d) the disposal of the residues which cannot be prevented,
reduced or recycled will be carried out in conformity with
national and Community legislation.
3.
The permit shall be granted only if the application shows
that the proposed measurement techniques for emissions into
the air comply with Annex III and, as regards water, comply
with Annex III paragraphs 1 and 2.
4.
The permit granted by the competent authority for an
incineration or co-incineration plant shall, in addition to
complying with any applicable requirement laid down in
Directives 91/271/EEC, 96/61/EC, 96/62/EC, 76/464/EEC and
1999/31/EC:
(a) list explicitly the categories of waste which may be treated.
The list shall use at least the categories of waste set up in
the European Waste Catalogue (EWC), if possible, and
contain information on the quantity of waste, where appropriate;
L 332/96
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
28.12.2000
(b) include the total waste incinerating or co-incinerating
capacity of the plant;
measures shall meet at least the requirements set out in paragraphs 3 and 4.
(c) specify the sampling and measurement procedures used to
satisfy the obligations imposed for periodic measurements
of each air and water pollutants.
2.
The operator shall determine the mass of each category
of waste, if possible according to the EWC, prior to accepting
the waste at the incineration or co-incineration plant.
5.
The permit granted by the competent authority to an
incineration or co-incineration plant using hazardous waste
shall in addition to paragraph 4:
3.
Prior to accepting hazardous waste at the incineration or
co-incineration plant, the operator shall have available information about the waste for the purpose of verifying, inter alia,
compliance with the permit requirements specified in Article
4(5). This information shall cover:
(a) list the quantities of the different categories of hazardous
waste which may be treated;
(a) all the administrative information on the generating
process contained in the documents mentioned in paragraph 4(a);
(b) specify the minimum and maximum mass flows of those
hazardous wastes, their lowest and maximum calorific
values and their maximum contents of pollutants, e.g. PCB,
PCP, chlorine, fluorine, sulphur, heavy metals.
(b) the physical, and as far as practicable, chemical composition of the waste and all other information necessary to
evaluate its suitability for the intended incineration process;
6.
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Treaty,
Member States may list the categories of waste to be mentioned
in the permit which can be co-incinerated in defined categories
of co-incineration plants.
7.
Without prejudice to Directive 96/61/EC, the competent
authority shall periodically reconsider and, where necessary,
update permit conditions.
8.
Where the operator of an incineration or co-incineration
plant for non-hazardous waste is envisaging a change of operation which would involve the incineration or co-incineration of
hazardous waste, this shall be regarded as a substantial change
within the meaning of Article 2(10)(b) of Directive 96/61/EC
and Article 12(2) of that Directive shall apply.
9.
If an incineration or co-incineration plant does not
comply with the conditions of the permit, in particular with
the emission limit values for air and water, the competent
authority shall take action to enforce compliance.
Article 5
(c) the hazardous characteristics of the waste, the substances
with which it cannot be mixed, and the precautions to be
taken in handling the waste.
4.
Prior to accepting hazardous waste at the incineration or
co-incineration plant, at least the following reception procedures shall be carried out by the operator:
(a) the checking of those documents required by Directive
91/689/EEC and, where applicable, those required by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993
on the supervision, and control of shipments of waste
within, into and out of the European Community (1) and by
dangerous-goods transport regulations;
(b) the taking of representative samples, unless inappropriate,
e.g. for infectious clinical waste, as far as possible before
unloading, to verify conformity with the information
provided for in paragraph 3 by carrying out controls and
to enable the competent authorities to identify the nature
of the wastes treated. These samples shall be kept for at
least one month after the incineration.
5.
The competent authorities may grant exemptions from
paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 for industrial plants and undertakings
incinerating or co-incinerating only their own waste at the
place of generation of the waste provided that the requirements
of this Directive are met.
Article 6
Operating conditions
Delivery and reception of waste
1.
The operator of the incineration or co-incineration plant
shall take all necessary precautions concerning the delivery and
reception of waste in order to prevent or to limit as far as
practicable negative effects on the environment, in particular
the pollution of air, soil, surface water and groundwater as well
as odours and noise, and direct risks to human health. These
1.
Incineration plants shall be operated in order to achieve a
level of incineration such that the slag and bottom ashes Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) content is less than 3 % or their loss on
ignition is less than 5 % of the dry weight of the material. If
necessary appropriate techniques of waste pretreatment shall be
used.
(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2408/98 (OJ L 298, 7.11.1998, p. 19).
28.12.2000
EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
Incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a way that the gas resulting from the process is
raised, after the last injection of combustion air, in a controlled
and homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfavourable conditions, to a temperature of 850 °C, as measured near
the inner wall or at another representative point of the
combustion chamber as authorised by the competent authority,
for two seconds. If hazardous wastes with a content of more
than 1 % of halogenated organic substances, expressed as
chlorine, are incinerated, the temperature has to be raised to
1 100 °C for at least two seconds.
Each line of the incineration plant shall be equipped with at
least one auxiliary burner. This burner must be switched on
automatically when the temperature of the combustion gases
after the last injection of combustion air falls below 850 °C or
1 100 °C as the case may be. It shall also be used during plant
start-up and shut-down operations in order to ensure that the
temperature of 850 °C or 1 100 °C as the case may be is
maintained at all times during these operations and as long as
unburned waste is in the combustion chamber.
During start-up and shut-down or when the temperature of the
combustion gas falls below 850 °C or 1 100 °C as the case
may be, the auxiliary burner shall not be fed with fuels which
can cause higher emissions than those resulting from the
burning of gasoil as defined in Article 1(1) of Council Directive
75/716/EEC, liquefied gas or natural gas.
2.
Co-incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built
and operated in such a way that the gas resulting from the
co-incineration of waste is raised in a controlled and homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfavourable conditions, to a temperature of 850 °C for two seconds. If hazardous
wastes with a content of more than 1 % of halogenated organic
substances, expressed as chlorine, are co-incinerated, the
temperature has to be raised to 1 100 °C.
3.
Incineration and co-incineration plants shall have and
operate an automatic system to prevent waste feed:
(a) at start-up, until the temperature of 850 °C or 1 100 °C as
the case may be or the temperature specified according to
paragraph 4 has been reached;
(b) whenever the temperature of 850 °C or 1 100 °C as the
case may be or the temperature specified according to
paragraph 4 is not maintained;
(c) whenever the continuous measurements required by this
Directive show that any emission limit value is exceeded
due to disturbances or failures of the purification devices.
L 332/97
provided the requirements of this Directive are met. Member
States may lay down rules governing these authorisations. The
change of the operational conditions shall not cause more
residues or residues with a higher content of organic pollutants
compared to those residues which could be expected under the
conditions laid down in paragraph 1.
Conditions different from those laid down in paragraph 2 and,
as regards the temperature, paragraph 3 and specified in the
permit for certain categories of waste or for certain thermal
processes may be authorised by the competent authority,
provided the requirements of this Directive are met. Member
States may lay down rules governing these authorisations. Such
authorisation shall be conditional upon at least the provisions
for emission limit values set out in Annex V for total organic
carbon and CO being complied with.
In the case of co-incineration of their own waste at the place of
its production in existing bark boilers within the pulp and
paper industry, such authorisation shall be conditional upon at
least the provisions for emission limit values set out in Annex
V for total organic carbon being complied with.
All operating conditions determined under this paragraph and
the results of verifications made shall be communicated by the
Member State to the Commission as part of the information
provided in accordance with the reporting requirements.
5.
Incineration and co-incineration plants shall be designed,
equipped, built and operated in such a way as to prevent
emissions into the air giving rise to significant ground-level air
pollution; in particular, exhaust gases shall be discharged in a
controlled fashion and in conformity with relevant Community
air quality standards by means of a stack the height of which is
calculated in such a way as to safeguard human health and the
environment.
6.
Any heat generated by the incineration or the co-incineration process shall be recovered as far as practicable.
7.
Infectious clinical waste should be placed straight in the
furnace, without first being mixed with other categories of
waste and without direct handling.
8.
The management of the incineration or the co-incineration plant shall be in the hands of a natural person who is
competent to manage the plant.
Article 7
Air emission limit values
4.
Conditions different from those laid down in paragraph 1
and, as regards the temperature, paragraph 3 and specified in
the permit for certain categories of waste or for certain thermal
processes may be authorised by the competent authority,
1.
Incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and
operated in such a way that the emission limit values set out in
Annex V are not exceeded in the exhaust gas.
L 332/98
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
2.
Co-incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built
and operated in such a way that the emission limit values
determined according to or set out in Annex II are not
exceeded in the exhaust gas.
If in a co-incineration plant more than 40 % of the resulting
heat release comes from hazardous waste, the emission limit
values set out in Annex V shall apply.
3.
The results of the measurements made to verify compliance with the emission limit values shall be standardised with
respect to the conditions laid down in Article 11.
4.
In the case of co-incineration of untreated mixed municipal waste, the limit values will be determined according to
Annex V, and Annex II will not apply.
5.
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Treaty,
Member States may set emission limit values for polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons or other pollutants.
Article 8
Water discharges from the cleaning of exhaust gases
1.
Waste water from the cleaning of exhaust gases
discharged from an incineration or co-incineration plant shall
be subject to a permit granted by the competent authorities.
2.
Discharges to the aquatic environment of waste water
resulting from the cleaning of exhaust gases shall be limited as
far as practicable, at least in accordance with the emission limit
values set in Annex IV.
3.
Subject to a specific provision in the permit, the waste
water from the cleaning of exhaust gases may be discharged to
the aquatic environment after separate treatment on condition
that:
28.12.2000
(b) on the other waste water stream or streams prior to its or
their input into the collective waste water treatment plant;
(c) at the point of final waste water discharge, after the treatment, from the incineration plant or co-incineration plant.
The operator shall take appropriate mass balance calculations
in order to determine the emission levels in the final waste
water discharge that can be attributed to the waste water
arising from the cleaning of exhaust gases in order to check
compliance with the emission limit values set out in Annex IV
for the waste water stream from the exhaust gas cleaning
process.
Under no circumstances shall dilution of waste water take place
for the purpose of complying with the emission limit values set
in Annex IV.
5.
When waste waters from the cleaning of exhaust gases
containing the polluting substances referred to in Annex IV are
treated outside the incineration or co-incineration plant at a
treatment plant intended only for the treatment of this sort of
waste water, the emission limit values of Annex IV are to be
applied at the point where the waste waters leave the treatment
plant. If this off-site treatment plant is not only dedicated to
treat waste water from incineration, the operator shall take the
appropriate mass balance calculations, as provided for under
paragraph 4(a), (b) and (c), in order to determine the emission
levels in the final waste water discharge that can be attributed
to the waste water arising from the cleaning of exhaust gases in
order to check compliance with the emission limit values set
out in Annex IV for the waste water stream from the exhaust
gas cleaning process.
Under no circumstances shall dilution of waste water take place
for the purpose of complying with the emission limit values set
in Annex IV.
6.
The permit shall:
(a) the requirements of relevant Community, national and
local provisions are complied with in the form of emission
limit values; and
(a) establish emission limit values for the polluting substances
referred to in Annex IV, in accordance with paragraph 2
and in order to meet the requirements referred to in paragraph 3(a);
(b) the mass concentrations of the polluting substances
referred to in Annex IV do not exceed the emission limit
values laid down therein.
(b) set operational control parameters for waste water at least
for pH, temperature and flow.
4.
The emission limit values shall apply at the point where
waste waters from the cleaning of exhaust gases containing the
polluting substances referred to in Annex IV are discharged
from the incineration or co-incineration plant.
Where the waste water from the cleaning of exhaust gases is
treated on site collectively with other on-site sources of waste
water, the operator shall take the measurements referred to in
Article 11:
(a) on the waste water stream from the exhaust gas cleaning
processes prior to its input into the collective waste water
treatment plant;
7.
Incineration and co-incineration plant sites, including
associated storage areas for wastes, shall be designed and in
such a way as to prevent the unauthorised and accidental
release of any polluting substances into soil, surface water and
groundwater in accordance with the provisions provided for in
relevant Community legislation. Moreover, storage capacity
shall be provided for contaminated rainwater run-off from the
incineration or co-incineration plant site or for contaminated
water arising from spillage or fire-fighting operations.
The storage capacity shall be adequate to ensure that such
waters can be tested and treated before discharge where necessary.
28.12.2000
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
L 332/99
8.
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Treaty,
Member States may set emission limit values for polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons or other pollutants.
2.
The following measurements of air pollutants shall be
carried out in accordance with Annex III at the incineration
and co-incineration plant:
Article 9
(a) continuous measurements of the following substances:
NOx, provided that emission limit values are set, CO, total
dust, TOC, HCl, HF, SO2;
Residues
Residues resulting from the operation of the incineration or
co-incineration plant shall be minimised in their amount and
harmfulness. Residues shall be recycled, where appropriate,
directly in the plant or outside in accordance with relevant
Community legislation.
Transport and intermediate storage of dry residues in the form
of dust, such as boiler dust and dry residues from the treatment
of combustion gases, shall take place in such a way as to
prevent dispersal in the environment e.g. in closed containers.
Prior to determining the routes for the disposal or recycling of
the residues from incineration and co-incineration plants,
appropriate tests shall be carried out to establish the physical
and chemical characteristics and the polluting potential of the
different incineration residues. The analysis shall concern the
total soluble fraction and heavy metals soluble fraction.
(b) continuous measurements of the following process operation parameters: temperature near the inner wall or at
another representative point of the combustion chamber as
authorised by the competent authority, concentration of
oxygen, pressure, temperature and water vapour content of
the exhaust gas;
(c) at least two measurements per year of heavy metals,
dioxins and furans; one measurement at least every three
months shall however be carried out for the first 12
months of operation. Member States may fix measurement
periods where they have set emission limit values for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or other pollutants.
3.
The residence time as well as the minimum temperature
and the oxygen content of the exhaust gases shall be subject to
appropriate verification, at least once when the incineration or
co-incineration plant is brought into service and under the
most unfavourable operating conditions anticipated.
Article 10
Control and monitoring
1.
Measurement equipment shall be installed and techniques
used in order to monitor the parameters, conditions and mass
concentrations relevant to the incineration or co-incineration
process.
2.
The measurement requirements shall be laid down in the
permit or in the conditions attached to the permit issued by the
competent authority.
3.
The appropriate installation and the functioning of the
automated monitoring equipment for emissions into air and
water shall be subject to control and to an annual surveillance
test. Calibration has to be done by means of parallel measurements with the reference methods at least every three years.
4.
The location of the sampling or measurement points shall
be laid down by the competent authority.
5.
Periodic measurements of the emissions into the air and
water shall be carried out in accordance with Annex III, points
1 and 2.
Article 11
Measurement requirements
1.
Member States shall, either by specification in the conditions of the permit or by general binding rules, ensure that
paragraphs 2 to 12 and 17, as regards air, and paragraphs 9
and 14 to 17, as regards water, are complied with.
4.
The continuous measurement of HF may be omitted if
treatment stages for HCl are used which ensure that the emission limit value for HCl is not being exceeded. In this case the
emissions of HF shall be subject to periodic measurements as
laid down in paragraph 2(c).
5.
The continuous measurement of the water vapour
content shall not be required if the sampled exhaust gas is
dried before the emissions are analysed.
6.
Periodic measurements as laid down in paragraph 2(c) of
HCl, HF and SO2 instead of continuous measuring may be
authorised in the permit by the competent authority in incineration or co-incineration plants, if the operator can prove that
the emissions of those pollutants can under no circumstances
be higher than the prescribed emission limit values.
7.
The reduction of the frequency of the periodic measurements for heavy metals from twice a year to once every two
years and for dioxins and furans from twice a year to once
every year may be authorised in the permit by the competent
authority provided that the emissions resulting from co-incineration or incineration are below 50 % of the emission limit
values determined according to Annex II or Annex V respectively and provided that criteria for the requirements to be met,
developed in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 17, are available. These criteria shall at least be based on
the provisions of the second subparagraph, points (a) and (d).
Until 1 January 2005 the reduction of the frequency may be
authorised even if no such criteria are available provided that:
L 332/100
EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
28.12.2000
(a) the waste to be co-incinerated or incinerated consists only
of certain sorted combustible fractions of non-hazardous
waste not suitable for recycling and presenting certain characteristics, and which is further specified on the basis of the
assessment referred to in subparagraph (d);
10.
The emission limit values for air shall be regarded as
being complied with if:
(b) national quality criteria, which have been reported to the
Commission, are available for these wastes;
— 97 % of the daily average value over the year does not
exceed the emission limit value set out in Annex V(e)
first indent;
(c) co-incineration and incineration of these wastes is in line
with the relevant waste management plans referred to in
Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC;
(d) the operator can prove to the competent authority that the
emissions are under all circumstances significantly below
the emission limit values set out in Annex II or Annex V
for heavy metals, dioxins and furans; this assessment shall
be based on information on the quality of the waste
concerned and measurements of the emissions of the said
pollutants;
(e) the quality criteria and the new period for the periodic
measurements are specified in the permit; and
(f) all decisions on the frequency of measurements referred to
in this paragraph, supplemented with information on the
amount and quality of the waste concerned, shall be
communicated on a yearly basis to the Commission.
8.
The results of the measurements made to verify compliance with the emission limit values shall be standardised at the
following conditions and for oxygen according to the formula
as referred to in Annex VI:
(a) Temperature 273 K, pressure 101,3 kPa, 11 % oxygen, dry
gas, in exhaust gas of incineration plants;
(b) Temperature 273 K, pressure 101,3 kPa, 3 % oxygen, dry
gas, in exhaust gas of incineration of waste oil as defined in
Directive 75/439/EEC;
(c) when the wastes are incinerated or co-incinerated in an
oxygen-enriched atmosphere, the results of the measurements can be standardised at an oxygen content laid down
by the competent authority reflecting the special circumstances of the individual case;
(d) in the case of co-incineration, the results of the measurements shall be standardised at a total oxygen content as
calculated in Annex II.
When the emissions of pollutants are reduced by exhaust gas
treatment in an incineration or co-incineration plant treating
hazardous waste, the standardisation with respect to the
oxygen contents provided for in the first subparagraph shall be
done only if the oxygen content measured over the same
period as for the pollutant concerned exceeds the relevant
standard oxygen content.
9.
All measurement results shall be recorded, processed and
presented in an appropriate fashion in order to enable the
competent authorities to verify compliance with the permitted
operating conditions and emission limit values laid down in
this Directive in accordance with procedures to be decided
upon by those authorities.
(a) — none of the daily average values exceeds any of the
emission limit values set out in Annex V(a) or Annex II;
(b) either none of the half-hourly average values exceeds any of
the emission limit values set out in Annex V(b), column A
or, where relevant, 97 % of the half-hourly average values
over the year do not exceed any of the emission limit
values set out in Annex V(b), column B;
(c) none of the average values over the sample period set out
for heavy metals and dioxins and furans exceeds the emission limit values set out in Annex V(c) and (d) or Annex II;
(d) the provisions of Annex V(e), second indent or Annex II,
are met.
11.
The half-hourly average values and the 10-minute averages shall be determined within the effective operating time
(excluding the start-up and shut-off periods if no waste is being
incinerated) from the measured values after having subtracted
the value of the confidence interval specified in point 3 of
Annex III. The daily average values shall be determined from
those validated average values.
To obtain a valid daily average value no more than five halfhourly average values in any day shall be discarded due to
malfunction or maintenance of the continuous measurement
system. No more than ten daily average values per year shall be
discarded due to malfunction or maintenance of the continuous measurement system.
12.
The average values over the sample period and the
average values in the case of periodical measurements of HF,
HCl and SO2 shall be determined in accordance with the
requirements of Article 10(2) and (4) and Annex III.
13.
The Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 17, shall decide, as soon as appropriate measurement techniques are available within the
Community, the date from which continuous measurements of
the air emission limit values for heavy metals, dioxins and
furans shall be carried out in accordance with Annex III.
14.
The following measurements shall be carried out at the
point of waste water discharge:
(a) continuous measurements of the parameters referred to in
Article 8(6)(b);
(b) spot sample daily measurements of total suspended solids;
Member States may alternatively provide for measurements
of a flow proportional representative sample over a period
of 24 hours;
(c) at least monthly measurements of a flow proportional
representative sample of the discharge over a period of 24
hours of the polluting substances referred to in Article 8(3)
with respect to items 2 to 10 in Annex IV;
28.12.2000
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
L 332/101
(d) at least every six months measurements of dioxins and
furans; however one measurement at least every three
months shall be carried out for the first 12 months of
operation. Member States may fix measurement periods
where they have set emission limit values for polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons or other pollutants.
hour shall be drawn up by the competent authority and shall
be made available to the public.
15.
The monitoring of the mass of pollutants in the treated
waste water shall be done in conformity with Community
legislation and laid down in the permit as well as the frequency
of the measurements.
Abnormal operating conditions
16.
The emission limit values for water shall be regarded as
being complied with if:
(a) for total suspended solids (polluting substance number 1),
95 % and 100 % of the measured values do not exceed the
respective emission limit values as set out in Annex IV;
(b) for heavy metals (polluting substances number 2 to 10) no
more than one measurement per year exceeds the emission
limit values set out in Annex IV; or, if the Member State
provides for more than 20 samples per year, no more than
5 % of these samples exceed the emission limit values set
out in Annex IV;
(c) for dioxins and furans (polluting substance 11), the twiceyearly measurements do not exceed the emission limit
value set out in Annex IV.
17.
Should the measurements taken show that the emission
limit values for air or water laid down in this Directive have
been exceeded, the competent authorities shall be informed
without delay.
Article 12
Article 13
1.
The competent authority shall lay down in the permit the
maximum permissible period of any technically unavoidable
stoppages, disturbances, or failures of the purification devices
or the measurement devices, during which the concentrations
in the discharges into the air and the purified waste water of
the regulated substances may exceed the prescribed emission
limit values.
2.
In the case of a breakdown, the operator shall reduce or
close down operations as soon as practicable until normal
operations can be restored.
3.
Without prejudice to Article 6(3)(c), the incineration
plant or co-incineration plant or incineration line shall under
no circumstances continue to incinerate waste for a period of
more than four hours uninterrupted where emission limit
values are exceeded; moreover, the cumulative duration of
operation in such conditions over one year shall be less than
60 hours. The 60-hour duration applies to those lines of the
entire plant which are linked to one single flue gas cleaning
device.
4.
The total dust content of the emissions into the air of an
incineration plant shall under no circumstances exceed
150 mg/m3 expressed as a half-hourly average; moreover the
air emission limit values for CO and TOC shall not be
exceeded. All other conditions referred to in Article 6 shall be
complied with.
Access to information and public participation
1.
Without prejudice to Council Directive 90/313/EEC (1)
and Directive 96/61/EC, applications for new permits for incineration and co-incineration plants shall be made available at
one or more locations accessible to the public, such as local
authority offices, for an appropriate period to enable it to
comment on them before the competent authority reaches a
decision. That decision, including at least a copy of the permit,
and any subsequent updates, shall also be made available to the
public.
2.
For incineration or co-incineration plants with a nominal
capacity of two tonnes or more per hour and notwithstanding
Article 15(2) of Directive 96/61/EC, an annual report to be
provided by the operator to the competent authority on the
functioning and monitoring of the plant shall be made available to the public. This report shall, as a minimum requirement, give an account of the running of the process and the
emissions into air and water compared with the emission
standards in this Directive. A list of incineration or co-incineration plants with a nominal capacity of less than two tonnes per
(1) Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of
access to information on the environment (OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p.
56). Directive as last amended by the Accession Act of 1994.
Article 14
Review clause
Without prejudice to Directive 96/61/EC, the Commission shall
submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council
before 31 December 2008 based on experience of the application of this Directive, in particular for new plants, and on the
progress achieved in emission control techniques and experience in waste management. Furthermore, the report shall be
based on the development of the state of technology, of experience in the operation of the plants, of environmental requirements. This report will include a specific section on the
application of Annex II.1.1. and in particular on the economic
and technical feasibility for existing cement kilns as referred to
in the footnote to Annex II.1.1. of respecting the NOx emission
limit value for new cement kilns set out in that Annex. The
report shall, as appropriate, be accompanied by proposals for
revision of the related provisions of this Directive. However,
the Commission shall, if appropriate, propose an amendment
for Annex II.3 before the said report, if major waste streams
are directed to types of co-incineration plants other than those
dealt with in Annex II.1 and II.2.
L 332/102
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
28.12.2000
Article 15
Article 20
Reporting
Transitional provisions
The reports on the implementation of this Directive shall be
established in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 5 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC. The first report
shall cover at least the first full three-year period after 28
December 2002 and comply with the periods referred to in
Article 17 of Directive 94/67/EC and in Article 16(3) of
Directive 96/61/EC. To this effect, the Commission shall elaborate the appropriate questionnaire in due time.
1.
Without prejudice to the specific transitional provisions
provided for in the Annexes to this Directive, the provisions of
this Directive shall apply to existing plants as from 28
December 2005.
Article 16
Future adaptation of the directive
The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 17(2), amend Articles 10, 11 and 13 and
Annexes I and III in order to adapt them to technical progress
or new findings concerning the health benefits of emission
reductions.
Article 17
Regulatory committee
1.
The Commission shall be assisted by a regulatory
committee.
2.
Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and
7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the
provisions of Article 8 thereof.
The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC
shall be set at three months.
3.
The committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure.
Article 18
2.
For new plants, i.e. plants not falling under the definition
of ‘existing incineration or co-incineration plant’ in Article 3(6)
or paragraph 3 of this Article, this Directive, instead of the
Directives mentioned in Article 18, shall apply as from 28
December 2002.
3.
Stationary or mobile plants whose purpose is the generation of energy or production of material products and which
are in operation and have a permit in accordance with existing
Community legislation where required and which start coincinerating waste not later than 28 December 2004 are to be
regarded as existing co-incineration plants.
Article 21
Implementation
1.
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
Directive not later than 28 December 2002. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain
a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods
of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member
States.
2.
Member States shall communicate to the Commission the
text of the provisions of domestic law which they adopt in the
field governed by this Directive.
Repeal
The following shall be repealed as from 28 December 2005:
(a) Article 8(1) and the Annex to Directive 75/439/EEC;
(b) Directive 89/369/EEC;
(c) Directive 89/429/EEC;
Article 22
Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
(d) Directive 94/67/EC.
Article 23
Addressees
Article 19
Penalties
The Member States shall determine penalties applicable to
breaches of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this
Directive. The penalties thus provided for shall be effective,
proportionate and dissuasive. The Member States shall notify
those provisions to the Commission by 28 December 2002 at
the latest and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent
amendment affecting them.
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 December 2000.
For the European Parliament
For the Council
The President
The President
N. FONTAINE
F. VÉDRINE
28.12.2000
EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
L 332/103
ANNEX I
Equivalence factors for dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
For the determination of the total concentration (TE) of dioxins and furans, the mass concentrations of the following
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans shall be multiplied by the following equivalence factors before summing:
Toxic equivalence factor
2,3,7,8
— Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD)
1
1,2,3,7,8
— Pentachlorodibenzodioxin (PeCDD)
0,5
1,2,3,4,7,8
— Hexachlorodibenzodioxin (HxCDD)
0,1
1,2,3,6,7,8
— Hexachlorodibenzodioxin (HxCDD)
0,1
1,2,3,7,8,9
— Hexachlorodibenzodioxin (HxCDD)
0,1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8
— Heptachlorodibenzodioxin (HpCDD)
0,01
— Octachlorodibenzodioxin (OCDD)
0,001
2,3,7,8
— Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)
0,1
2,3,4,7,8
— Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF)
0,5
1,2,3,7,8
— Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF)
0,05
1,2,3,4,7,8
— Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)
0,1
1,2,3,6,7,8
— Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)
0,1
1,2,3,7,8,9
— Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)
0,1
2,3,4,6,7,8
— Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)
0,1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8
— Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF)
0,01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9
— Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF)
0,01
— Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF)
0,001
L 332/104
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
28.12.2000
ANNEX II
DETERMINATION OF AIR EMISSION LIMIT VALUES FOR THE CO-INCINERATION OF WASTE
The following formula (mixing rule) is to be applied whenever a specific total emission limit value ‘C’ has not been set out
in a table in this Annex.
The limit value for each relevant pollutant and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gas resulting from the co-incineration of
waste shall be calculated as follows:
Vwaste × Cwaste + Vproc × Cproc
Vwaste + Vproc1
Vwaste:
=C
exhaust gas volume resulting from the incineration of waste only determined from the waste with the lowest
calorific value specified in the permit and standardised at the conditions given by this Directive.
If the resulting heat release from the incineration of hazardous waste amounts to less than 10 % of the total
heat released in the plant, Vwaste must be calculated from a (notional) quantity of waste that, being incinerated,
would equal 10 % heat release, the total heat release being fixed.
Cwaste:
emission limit values set for incineration plants in Annex V for the relevant pollutants and carbon monoxide.
Vproc:
exhaust gas volume resulting from the plant process including the combustion of the authorised fuels
normally used in the plant (wastes excluded) determined on the basis of oxygen contents at which the
emissions must be standardised as laid down in Community or national regulations. In the absence of
regulations for this kind of plant, the real oxygen content in the exhaust gas without being thinned by
addition of air unnecessary for the process must be used. The standardisation at the other conditions is given
in this Directive.
Cproc:
emission limit values as laid down in the tables of this annex for certain industrial sectors or in case of the
absence of such a table or such values, emission limit values of the relevant pollutants and carbon monoxide
in the flue gas of plants which comply with the national laws, regulations and administrative provisions for
such plants while burning the normally authorised fuels (wastes excluded). In the absence of these measures
the emission limit values laid down in the permit are used. In the absence of such permit values the real mass
concentrations are used.
C:
total emission limit values and oxygen content as laid down in the tables of this annex for certain industrial
sectors and certain pollutants or in case of the absence of such a table or such values total emission limit
values for CO and the relevant pollutants replacing the emission limit values as laid down in specific Annexes
of this Directive. The total oxygen content to replace the oxygen content for the standardisation is calculated
on the basis of the content above respecting the partial volumes.
Member States may lay down rules governing the exemptions provided for in this Annex.
II.1.
Special provisions for cement kilns co-incinerating waste
Daily average values (for continuous measurements) Sample periods and other measurement requirements as in Article 7.
All values in mg/m3 (Dioxins and furans ng/m3). Half-hourly average values shall only be needed in view of calculating the
daily average values.
The results of the measurements made to verify compliance with the emission limit values shall be standardised at the
following conditions: Temperature 273 K, pressure 101,3 kPa, 10 % oxygen, dry gas.
II.1.1. C — total emission limit values
Pollutant
C
Total dust
30
HCI
10
HF
1
NOx for existing plants
800
NOx for new plants
500 (1)
28.12.2000
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
Pollutant
L 332/105
C
Cd + Tl
0,05
Hg
0,05
Sb + As + Pb + Cr + Co + Cu + Mn + Ni + V
0,5
Dioxins and furans
0,1
(1) For the implementation of the NOx emission limit values, cement kilns which are in operation and have a permit in accordance with
existing Community legislation and which start co-incinerating waste after the date mentioned in Article 20(3) are not to be regarded as
new plants.
Until 1 January 2008, exemptions for NOx may be authorised by the competent authorities for existing wet process
cement kilns or cement kilns which burn less than three tonnes of waste per hour, provided that the permit foresees a
total emission limit value for NOx of not more than 1200 mg/m3.
Until 1 January 2008, exemptions for dust may be authorised by the competent authority for cement kilns which burn
less than three tonnes of waste per hour, provided that the permit foresees a total emission limit value of not more than
50 mg/m3.
II.1.2. C — total emission limit values for SO2 and TOC
Pollutant
C
SO2
50
TOC
10
Exemptions may be authorised by the competent authority in cases where TOC and SO2 do not result from the
incineration of waste.
II.1.3. Emission limit value for CO
Emission limit values for CO can be set by the competent authority.
II.2.
Special provisions for combustion plants co-incinerating waste
II.2.1. Daily average values
Without prejudice to Directive 88/609/EEC and in the case where, for large combustion plants, more stringent emission
limit values are set according to future Community legislation, the latter shall replace, for the plants and pollutants
concerned, the emission limit values as laid down in the following tables (Cproc). In that case, the following tables shall be
adapted to these more stringent emission limit values in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 17 without
delay.
Half-hourly average values shall only be needed in view of calculating the daily average values.
Cproc:
Cproc for solid fuels expressed in mg/Nm3 (O2 content 6 %):
Pollutants
< 50 MWth
50-100 MWth
100 to 300 MWth
> 300 MWth
general case
850
850 to 200
(linear decrease from
100 to 300 MWth)
200
indigenous fuels
or rate of
desulphurisation
≥90 %
or rate of
desulphurisation
≥92 %
or rate of
desulphurisation
≥95 %
NOx
400
300
200
50
30
30
SO2
Dust
50
Until 1 January 2007 and without prejudice to relevant Community legislation, the emission limit value for NOx does not
apply to plants only co-incinerating hazardous waste.
L 332/106
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
28.12.2000
Until 1 January 2008, exemptions for NOx and SO2 may be authorised by the competent authorities for existing
co-incineration plants between 100 and 300 MWth using fluidised bed technology and burning solid fuels provided that
the permit foresees a Cproc value of not more than 350 mg/Nm3 for NOx and not more than 850 to 400 mg/Nm3 (linear
decrease from 100 to 300 MWth) for SO2.
Cproc for biomass expressed in mg/Nm3 (O2 content 6 %):
‘Biomass’ means: products consisting of any whole or part of a vegetable matter from agriculture or forestry, which can be
used for the purpose of recovering its energy content as well as wastes listed in Article 2(2)(a)(i) to (v).
Pollutants
< 50 MWth
50 to 100 MWth
100 to 300 MWth
> 300 MWth
SO2
200
200
200
NOx
350
300
300
50
30
30
Dust
50
Until 1 January 2008, exemptions for NOx may be authorised by the competent authorities for existing co-incineration
plants between 100 and 300 MWth using fluidised bed technology and burning biomass provided that the permit
foresees a Cproc value of not more than 350 mg/Nm3.
Cproc for liquid fuels expressed in mg/Nm3 (O2 content 3 %):
Pollutants
< 50 MWth
50 to 100 MWth
100 to 300 MWth
> 300 MWth
SO2
850
850 to 200
(linear decrease from
100 to 300 MWth)
200
NOx
400
300
200
50
30
30
Dust
50
II.2.2. C — total emission limit values
C expressed in mg/Nm3 (O2 content 6 %). All average values over the sample period of a minimum of 30 minutes and a
maximum of 8 hours:
Pollutant
C
Cd + Tl
0,05
Hg
0,05
Sb + As + Pb + Cr + Co + Cu + Mn + Ni + V
0,5
C expressed in ng/Nm3 (O2 content 6 %). All average values measured over the sample period of a minimum of 6 hours
and a maximum of 8 hours:
Pollutant
Dioxins and furans
II.3.
C
0,1
Special provisions for industrial sectors not covered under II.1 or II.2 co-incinerating waste
II.3.1. C — total emission limit values:
C expressed in ng/Nm3. All average values measured over the sample period of a minimum of 6 hours and a maximum of
8 hours:
28.12.2000
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
Pollutant
Dioxins and furans
C
0,1
C expressed in mg/Nm3. All average values over the sample period of a minimum of 30 minutes and a maximum of 8
hours:
Pollutant
C
Cd + Tl
0,05
Hg
0,05
ANNEX III
Measurement techniques
1. Measurements for the determination of concentrations of air and water polluting substances have to be carried out
representatively.
2. Sampling and analysis of all pollutants including dioxins and furans as well as reference measurement methods to
calibrate automated measurement systems shall be carried out as given by CEN-standards. If CEN standards are not
available, ISO standards, national or international standards which will ensure the provision of data of an equivalent
scientific quality shall apply.
3. At the daily emission limit value level, the values of the 95 % confidence intervals of a single measured result shall not
exceed the following percentages of the emission limit values:
Carbon monoxide:
10 %
Sulphur dioxide:
20 %
Nitrogen dioxide:
20 %
Total dust:
30 %
Total organic carbon:
30 %
Hydrogen chloride:
40 %
Hydrogen fluoride:
40 %.
L 332/107
L 332/108
EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
28.12.2000
ANNEX IV
Emission limit values for discharges of waste water from the cleaning of exhaust gases
Polluting substances
1. Total suspended solids as defined by Directive 91/271/EEC
Emission limit values expressed in mass
concentrations for unfiltered samples
95 %
30 mg/l
100 %
45 mg/l
2. Mercury and its compounds, expressed as mercury (Hg)
0,03 mg/l
3. Cadmium and its compounds, expressed as cadmium (Cd)
0,05 mg/l
4. Thallium and its compounds, expressed as thallium (Tl)
0,05 mg/l
5. Arsenic and its compounds, expressed as arsenic (As)
0,15 mg/l
6. Lead and its compounds, expressed as lead (Pb)
0,2 mg/l
7. Chromium and its compounds, expressed as chromium (Cr)
0,5 mg/l
8. Copper and its compounds, expressed as copper (Cu)
0,5 mg/l
9. Nickel and its compounds, expressed as nickel (Ni)
0,5 mg/l
10. Zinc and its compounds, expressed as zinc (Zn)
1,5 mg/l
11. Dioxins and furans, defined as the sum of the individual dioxins and
furans evaluated in accordance with Annex I
0,3 mg/l
Until 1 January 2008, exemptions for total suspended solids may be authorised by the competent authority for existing
incineration plants provided the permit foresees that 80 % of the measured values do not exceed 30 mg/l and none of
them exceed 45 mg/l.
28.12.2000
EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
L 332/109
ANNEX V
AIR EMISSION LIMIT VALUES
(a) Daily average values
Total dust
10 mg/m3
Gaseous and vaporous organic substances, expressed as
total organic carbon
10 mg/m3
Hydrogen chloride (HCl)
10 mg/m3
Hydrogen fluoride (HF)
1 mg/m3
Sulphur dioxide (SO2)
50 mg/m3
Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
expressed as nitrogen dioxide for existing incineration
plants with a nominal capacity exceeding 6 tonnes per
hour or new incineration plants
200 mg/m3 (*)
Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
expressed as nitrogen dioxide for existing incineration
plants with a nominal capacity of 6 tonnes per hour or
less
400 mg/m3 (*)
(*) Until 1 January 2007 and without prejudice to relevant (Community) legislation the emission limit value for NOx does not apply to
plants only incinerating hazardous waste.
Exemptions for NOx may be authorised by the competent authority for existing incineration plants:
— with a nominal capacity of 6 tonnes per hour, provided that the permit foresees the daily average values do not
exceed 500 mg/m3 and this until 1 January 2008,
— with a nominal capacity of >6 tonnes per hour but equal or less than 16 tonnes per hour, provided the permit
foresees the daily average values do not exceed 400 mg/m3 and this until 1 January 2010,
— with a nominal capacity of >16 tonnes per hour but <25 tonnes per hour and which do not produce water
discharges, provided that the permit foresees the daily average values do not exceed 400 mg/m3 and this until 1
January 2008.
Until 1 January 2008, exemptions for dust may be authorised by the competent authority for existing incinerating
plants, provided that the permit foresees the daily average values do not exceed 20 mg/m3.
(b) Half-hourly average values
(100 %) A
(97 %) B
Total dust
30 mg/m3
10 mg/m3
Gaseous and vaporous organic substances,
expressed as total organic carbon
20 mg/m3
10 mg/m3
Hydrogen chloride (HCl)
60 mg/m3
10 mg/m3
Hydrogen fluoride (HF)
4 mg/m3
2 mg/m3
Sulphur dioxide (SO2)
200 mg/m3
50 mg/m3
Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), expressed as nitrogen dixoide for existing
incineration plants with a nominal capacity
exceeding 6 tonnes per hour or new incineration plants
400 mg/m3 (*)
200 mg/m3 (*)
(*) Until 1 January 2007 and without prejudice to relevant Community legislation the emission limit value for NOx does not apply to
plants only incinerating hazardous waste.
L 332/110
EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
28.12.2000
Until 1 January 2010, exemptions for NOx may be authorised by the competent authority for existing incineration
plants with a nominal capacity between 6 and 16 tonnes per hour, provided the half-hourly average value does not
exceed 600 mg/m3 for column A or 400 mg/m3 for column B.
(c) All average values over the sample period of a minimum of 30 minutes and a maximum of 8 hours
Cadmium and its compounds, expressed as cadmium (Cd)
Thallium and its compounds, expressed as thallium (Tl)
total 0,05 mg/m3
total 0,1 mg/m3 (*)
Mercury and its compounds, expressed as mercury (Hg)
0,05 mg/m3
0,1 mg/m3 (*)
total 0,5 mg/m3
total 1 mg/m3 (*)
Antimony and its compounds, expressed as antimony (Sb)
Arsenic and its compounds, expressed as arsenic (As)
Lead and its compounds, expressed as lead (Pb)
Chromium and its compounds, expressed as chromium (Cr)
Cobalt and its compounds, expressed as cobalt (Co)
Copper and its compounds, expressed as copper (Cu)
Manganese and its compounds, expressed as manganese (Mn)
Nickel and its compounds, expressed as nickel (Ni)
Vanadium and its compounds, expressed as vanadium (V)
(*) Until 1 January 2007 average values for existing plants for which the permit to operate has been granted before 31 December 1996,
and which incinerate hazardous waste only.
These average values cover also gaseous and the vapour forms of the relevant heavy metal emissions as well as their
compounds.
(d) Average values shall be measured over a sample period of a minimum of 6 hours and a maximum of 8 hours.
The emission limit value refers to the total concentration of dioxins and furans calculated using the concept
of toxic equivalence in accordance with Annex I.
Dioxins and furans
0,1 ng/m3
(e) The following emission limit values of carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations shall not be exceeded in the
combustion gases (excluding the start-up and shut-down phase):
— 50 milligrams/m3 of combustion gas determined as daily average value;
— 150 milligrams/m3 of combustion gas of at least 95 % of all measurements determined as 10-minute average
values or 100 mg/m3 of combustion gas of all measurements determined as half-hourly average values taken in
any 24-hour period.
Exemptions may be authorised by the competent authority for incineration plants using fluidised bed technology,
provided that the permit foresees an emission limit value for carbon monoxide (CO) of not more than 100 mg/m3 as
an hourly average value.
(f) Member States may lay down rules governing the exemptions provided for in this Annex.
28.12.2000
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
ANNEX VI
Formula to calculate the emission concentration at the standard percentage oxygen concentration
ES =
21 – OS
21 – OM
× EM
ES =
calculated emission concentration at the standard percentage oxygen concentration
EM =
measured emission concentration
OS = standard oxygen concentration
OM = measured oxygen concentration
L 332/111
Energy from waste and incineration
Standard Note:
SNSC-05958
Last updated:
13 July 2011
Author:
Oliver Bennett, Policy Analyst
Section
Science and Environment
Incineration is the burning of waste to reduce its volume, so that the remaining ash is easier
to dispose of. Energy from waste (EfW) takes this process further by recovering some of the
energy contained in the waste. There are a variety of incineration and EfW technologies,
such as gasification. Together these technologies are called ‗thermal treatment‘.
Local opposition to thermal treatment technologies can be fierce. Concerns are often raised
about the health implications and the wider environmental impacts of burning waste.
However, Government agencies and many professional groups argue that the evidence
shows that the thermal treatment of waste is safe. Many also argue that it can play an
important role in sustainable waste management—although the degree to which a plant may
be considered ‗sustainable‘ is dependent upon a number of factors.
It is likely that these technologies will play an increasing role in UK waste management as it
becomes more expensive to landfill waste. These technologies may also become
increasingly important in the move towards a low carbon economy. However, some analysts
have indicated that we might be nearing maximum capacity for thermal treatment in the UK,
depending on the number of plants that gain consent and the waste policies introduced.
The Government‘s Waste Review stated that it would continue to ―support the role of energy
recovery from waste within the waste hierarchy and aim to improve understanding of this
role‖.
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties
and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should
not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last
updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for
it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is
required.
This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available
online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the
content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.
Contents
1
What is incineration, energy from waste, combined heat and power and thermal
treatment?
2
2
Legislation
2
2.1
Regulating thermal treatment—the environmental permitting process
3
2.2
Monitoring and enforcement
3
3
Local impacts of thermal treatment—planning
5
4
Are the emissions dangerous?
5
5
Is the burning of waste sustainable?
6
6
Is thermal treatment compatible with high recycling rates?
6
7
Will there be too many thermal treatment plants?
7
8
Labour Government policy
7
9
Coalition Government Policy—the Waste Review
8
1
What is incineration, energy from waste, combined heat and power
and thermal treatment?
Incineration is the burning of waste to reduce its volume, so that the remaining ash is easier
to dispose of. Energy from waste (EfW) takes this process further by recovering some of the
energy contained in the waste. If both electricity and heat is recovered from the waste, the
plant is known as combined heat and power (CHP).1
There are a variety of incineration and EfW technologies, such as gasification. Together
these technologies are called ‗thermal treatment‘. Background technical information on
thermal treatment technologies can be found in the Defra documents Incineration of
Municipal Solid Waste and Advanced Thermal Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste.2
2
Legislation
Thermal treatment of waste is covered by the EU Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC.
The Directive aims to prevent or limit ―as far as practicable‖ pollution through the setting of
specific conditions, technical requirements and emission limit values.3 The regime operates
on the principle that installations must operate using the best available technologies for
reducing pollution, as set out in guidance.
In addition, the revised Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC states that a thermal
treatment plant can be considered a ‗recovery‘ option rather than a ‗disposal‘ option if the
plant exceeds a certain efficiency level of energy recovery. This distinction is intended to
1
Sustainable Development Commission Scotland, A burning issue; Energy from Waste in Scotland, 17 December
2007
2
New waste technologies: Supporter programme publications, Defra, 27 August 2008
3
Environmental Permitting Guidance; The Waste Incineration Directive, For the Environmental Permitting
(England and Wales) Regulations 2010, Defra, March 2010
2
incentivise more efficient plant over less efficient plant and landfill options. The efficiency is
calculated using the R1 formula found in Annex II of the Directive.4
2.1
Regulating thermal treatment—the environmental permitting process
The Waste Incineration Directive has been transposed in England and Wales through the
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. These regulations mean
that thermal plant must have a permit from the Environment Agency to operate. More
information can be found on the Environment Agency website.
The Environment Agency will only grant a permit for a plant to operate if it is ―sure that the
plant will be designed, constructed and operated in a way that will not significantly pollute the
environment or harm human health‖.5 Specifically, the following conditions have to be met:
2.2

the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed facility meets the
requirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations and uses Best
Available Techniques in its design and operation. It must also meet criteria set
out in other relevant Directives on Air Quality, Urban Waste Water and
Dangerous Substance;

the standards proposed for the design, construction and operation of the
facility meet or exceed our guidance, national legislation and relevant
Directives;

the comments received from the public and statutory consultees have been
taken into account;

as far as practicable, the energy generated by the EfW plant will be recovered
for use;

the amount of residues and their harmfulness will be minimised and recycled
where appropriate; and

proposed measurement techniques for emissions are in line with those
specified in national legislation and relevant Directives. 6
Monitoring and enforcement
The Environment Agency will issue a permit if it is satisfied that the criteria set out in
guidance are met in an application. Permits contain a series of legally binding conditions
such as:

Staff training, awareness of permit conditions and providing written operating
instructions.

Receiving, handling and storing waste and raw materials.

Categories of waste that can be incinerated.

Plant operating conditions, for example residence time, temperature, ash burn out.

Energy efficiency, accident prevention, noise and vibration control.
4
Waste to Energy Focus: Achieving R1 Status, Waste Management World, viewed 13 May 2011
Energy from waste – regulation, Environment Agency, viewed 13 May 2011
6
ibid
5
3

Emission limit values for air, water, land, sewer and ground water protection (where
appropriate).

Monitoring – techniques, equipment, standards, sampling etc. The permit specifies
the frequency of monitoring and reporting. All EfW plants must have continuous.
monitors for gaseous pollutants and dust. Heavy metals and dioxins are monitored
periodically but at a defined frequency.

Record keeping, reporting and notifications, for example all exceedances of
emission limits must be notified to the Environment Agency within 24 hours.
The Environment Agency monitors plant throughout their operation to ensure compliance
with the permit. It said:

Operators must monitor emissions at given times and report the results to us.

We regularly inspect installations, review monitoring techniques and assess
monitoring results to measure the performance of the plant.

We carry out independent routine monitoring of emissions (once a year for all EfW
plants) or undertake auditing of operator monitoring, as well as making spot
checks.

Operators must inform us within 24 hours of any breach of the emissions limits,
followed by a fuller report of the size of the release, its impact and how they
propose to avoid this happening in the future.

Operators‘ monitoring results are placed on the public registers.
The Environment Agency will take enforcement action against those who fail to meet the
requirements of their permit. The Agency explained that enforcement can include:

enforcement notices and works notices (where contravention can be prevented or
needs to be remedied);

prohibition notices (where there is an imminent risk of serious environmental
damage);

suspension or revocation of environmental permits and licences;

variation of permit conditions;

injunctions;

carrying out remedial works (where we carry out remedial works, we will seek to
recover the full costs incurred from those responsible);

criminal sanctions, including prosecution;

civil sanctions, including financial penalties. 7
The Environment Agency‘s Enforcement and Prosecution Policy provides further information.
7
Enforcement, Environment Agency, viewed 13 May 2011
4
3
Local impacts of thermal treatment—planning
In addition to an environmental permit from the Environment Agency, thermal treatment
plants require planning permission. Even if a permit is granted, planning permission may not.
The planning system will enable the consideration of a range of positive and negative
impacts on local communities. The potential negative impacts of thermal treatment plant can
be mitigated by the planning system.
Positive impacts may include the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions where thermal
treatment fits within a sustainable waste management strategy and the creation of jobs.
Thermal treatment may also help communities to manage their waste in a more cost effective
manner in certain circumstances.
Negative local impacts may include increased road congestion in the area, visual intrusion
and noise nuisance. Thermal treatment may also not be the best environmental option in all
circumstances.
The Coalition Government has indicated that it will introduce major reforms to the planning
system. Please consult Library Standard Note Planning for Constituency Cases for further
information. In August 2010 commentators indicated that Coalition Government proposals for
the planning system may lead to more applications for new thermal treatment plant being
rejected.8
4
Are the emissions dangerous?
Concerns about the safety of thermal treatment emissions are common. This is because the
emissions can contain low levels of a number of pollutants including dioxins and particulates.
However, because the concentrations of these substances are low, the evidence suggests
that the emissions have no detectable impact on human health. An Environment Agency
factsheet provided more information. The Health Protection Agency said:
While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated
municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the
health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable…
[M]odern and well managed municipal waste incinerators make only a very small
contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants…
[A]ny potential risk of cancer due to residency near to municipal waste incinerators is
exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern techniques. Since
any possible health effects are likely to be very small, if detectable, studies of public
health around modern, well managed municipal waste incinerators are not
recommended.9
While thermal treatment contributes to air pollution, any additional pollution it causes tends to
be very small in comparison to other sources, such as traffic. For example, in 2006
particulate matter pollution (PM10) from incineration was ―0.03% of the total compared with
27% and 25% for traffic and industry respectively‖. The Health Protection Agency went on
that ―this low proportion is also found at a local level… one incinerator modelling study…
8
9
Fears for efforts on low carbon energy, Financial Times, 17 August 2010
The Impact on Health of Emissions to Air from Municipal Waste Incinerators, Health Protection Agency,
September 2009
5
found a modelled ground level increment in PM10 of 0.0005 μg/m3 as an annual average‖.10
The World Health Organisation guideline values for particulate matter, which ―represent an
acceptable and achievable objective to minimize health effects‖, state that PM10 should not
exceed 20 μg/m3 as an annual average.11
Nevertheless, thermal treatment emissions should be considered in the context of overall air
pollution. Air pollution can have serious health implications.12 13
5
Is the burning of waste sustainable?
Whether thermal treatment can be considered a sustainable solution to waste management
is a complex issue. The answer depends on the individual characteristics of the thermal
treatment process involved and the wider management of waste.
A process known as lifecycle analysis can help to assess whether a specific waste
management proposal is sustainable. An example of such an assessment was conducted by
the Environment Agency Wales on the South West Wales Regional Waste Plan. In that case
the highest sustainability appraisal rating was given to a waste management option involving
high recycling and composting rates with the thermal treatment of residual waste.14
In a major study for the Scottish Government, the Sustainable Development Commission
(SDC) found that thermal treatment of waste can be a sustainable option if a number of
principles are followed including:
1. No easily recyclable material is burnt. As recycling normally leads to lower overall
emissions than thermal treatment with energy recovery, it is best to recycle waste
rather that recover energy from it. However, the SDC recognised that a fraction of
waste cannot easily be recycled—the ‗residual waste‘. The SDC considered that it
was better to recover energy from the residual waste than to landfill it.
2. The plant is efficient at recovering energy from the waste. The SDC
recommended that no new EfW plants should be constructed with an efficiency of
less than 60%. Few UK EfW plants have efficiencies of over 60%.15 The normal
efficiency of energy from waste plants producing electricity is about 25%.16 In order for
EfW to achieve efficiencies of over 60%, it is likely that the heat produced by the
process would also need to be used—i.e. they would need to be combined heat and
power (CHP).17
6
Is thermal treatment compatible with high recycling rates?
Some argue that thermal treatment is incompatible with high recycling rates. Friends of the
Earth argue that because plants require a through-put of material, recyclable material may be
10
ibid
Air quality and health, World Health Organisation, August 2008
12
ibid
13
ibid
14
Sustainability Appraisal and Life Cycle Analysis of Strategic Waste Management Options, Environment Agency,
viewed 13 May 2011
15
Revision of the Waste Framework Directive – agreement reached, Local Government Association, viewed 13
May 2011
16
Waste incineration – questions and answers, Environment Agency, viewed 13 May 2011
17
Sustainable Development Commission Scotland, A burning issue; Energy from Waste in Scotland, 17
December 2007
11
6
burned if there is not enough residual waste. In addition it argued that incinerators create an
incentive to maintain waste levels in order to fuel the plant.18
However, while it is true that thermal treatment can create perverse incentives that may
undermine recycling and waste minimisation objectives, these can be avoided with effective
planning. To avoid these problems the Audit Commission recommended that authorities
should use challenging recycling and waste minimisation forecasts when deciding what size
of thermal treatment plant is required.19 The need to prevent thermal treatment from crowding
out recycling was acknowledged in the Labour Government‘s Waste Strategy documents.20
7
Will there be too many thermal treatment plants?
Dr Dominic Hogg of the consultancy Eunomia recently cautioned about over-capacity in the
sector, which may have implications for thermal treatment‘s relationship with recycling (see
previous section).21 He indicated that within the next few years the UK may not have enough
residual waste to run the number of planned thermal treatment plants.22
Over-capacity could happen if all the plants currently seeking planning consent are
successful and if residual waste production reduced.23 Residual waste could be reduced by
greater recycling, improved recyclability of products and waste minimisation. However, it is
unlikely that all planned plants will get consent. Dr Hogg called for an assessment of residual
waste treatment capacity:
―If the government says it wants a zero-waste nation, we need to understand how
much residual waste treatment capacity that will require. And if more is done to
enhance recyclability of materials, there will be even less residual waste treatment
capacity needed. We have to ask the question ‗When will we have too much?‘,
because we might get there soon with what we‘re planning.‖ 24
The Coalition Government Waste Review will therefore have important consequences for the
relationship between thermal treatment and recycling.
8
Labour Government policy
It has been claimed that the Labour Government was reticent about supporting thermal
treatment due to its controversial nature.25
The Labour Government set out its Waste Strategy for England in 2007. It said that it wanted
to ―maximise energy recovered from unavoidable residual waste (that would otherwise go to
landfill) so as to make the greatest contribution to energy policy‖.26 It stated that while there
was no specific target for EfW, meeting other waste targets would probably translate to ―an
increase in energy recovery to about 25% of municipal waste in 2020 compared to around
10% today‖. Energy recovery in this case included anaerobic digestion. The landfill tax was
the primary driver used by the last Government to divert waste from landfill to other disposal
18
Up in smoke: Why Friends of the Earth opposes incineration, Friends of the Earth, September 2007
Well disposed: Responding to the waste challenge, Audit Commission, 25 September 2008
20
Up in smoke: Why Friends of the Earth opposes incineration, Friends of the Earth, September 2007
21
UK close to waste treatment overcapacity, ENDS Report 426, July 2010, p. 20
22
ibid
23
ibid
24
ibid
25
Government to clarify policy on energy-from-waste, Letsrecycle.com, 17 February 2010
26
Energy from waste and anaerobic digestion, Defra, viewed 13 May 2011
19
7
methods, including EfW. The last Government also sought to support the development of
waste infrastructure:
The Government has continued to support development of waste infrastructure though
PFI credits with £2.48 billion of PFI credits committed to 37 projects. There are
additional projects in the application process, for which it is expected a further £0.8
billion PFI credits will be awarded. Other support has been in the form of the
demonstration of new technologies (New Technology Demonstrator Scheme), and the
Waste Infrastructure Capital Grant (£185m 2008/09 – 2010/11) to Local Authorities in
recognition of the need to get front-end waste infrastructure such as recycling and
composting facilities on the ground. The recent rise in the landfill tax escalator is also
expected to trigger greater investment from the private sector in merchant facilities for
municipal and nonmunicipal waste.27
The Renewables Obligation, a scheme designed to incentivise renewable energy generation,
was also changed to support EfW. The biomass fraction of waste was eligible for Renewable
Obligation Certificates (ROCs) provided an advanced thermal technology such as
gasification or pyrolysis was used.28
9
Coalition Government Policy—the Waste Review
On 15 June 2010 Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, announced a
major Waste Review. This would ―look at what policies are needed to reduce the amount of
waste generated and to maximise reuse and recycling, while also considering how waste
policies affect local communities, individual households and businesses‖.29 The review
considered the thermal treatment of waste:
Energy recovery is about extracting, through various technologies, Energy from Waste.
Energy from waste (EfW) processes include direct combustion (incineration),
gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion and others. EfW can be an effective waste
management option. It avoids methane emissions from waste that would otherwise rot
in landfill and using waste as a fuel can replace fossil fuels such as oil, coal or gas –
both of these factors deliver climate change benefits. The technology used choice
depends on the type of waste available, local circumstances and finance. The
Government has therefore not made recommendations on technology type, but has
supported the provision of infrastructure through the Waste Infrastructure Delivery
Programme.
The exception is Anaerobic Digestion which, in England, has been encouraged for
separately collected food waste because it meets a number of environmental
objectives, such as: reducing greenhouse gas emissions; producing renewable energy
for heat, power and transport fuel; recycling nutrients back to land; and reducing air
and diffuse water pollution). The Coalition has committed to a huge increase in energy
from waste through Anaerobic Digestion. Energy from waste has a key role in the
government‘s commitment to working towards a zero waste society and being the
greenest government to date.
A separate cross-Government Energy from Waste project is underway with the
intention of reporting later in 2010. As well as inputting into the Review of Waste
27
Waste Strategy Annual Progress Report 2008/09, Defra, October 2009
Eligible renewable sources and banding levels, DECC, viewed 13 May 2011
29
Waste Review, Defra, viewed 13 May 2011
28
8
Policies, this will from a technical perspective consider what technologies are best
deployed in relation to available feedstocks.30
The Waste Review was published in June 2011. The Government stated that it supported
energy from waste where it fit within the waste hierarchy. It set out how it would support the
technology:
The role of government is to facilitate informed decisions by communities, local
authorities and businesses about how they recover value from their residual waste. To
do this we will:
30
31

Support the role of energy recovery from waste within the waste hierarchy
and aim to improve understanding of this role.

Provide a clear position on the health implications of the recovery of
energy from waste, based on the best available evidence, to support a
reasoned, evidence based evaluation of risks and benefits.

Work with all involved to identify commercially viable routes by which
communities can realise benefits from hosting recovery infrastructure;

Work to identify and communicate the full range of recovery technologies
available and their relative merits – right fuel, right place and right time. As
part of this we will publish a guide on energy from waste to help all
involved make decisions best suited to their specific requirements.

Not ‗pick winners‘ but we will provide the necessary framework to address
market failures and deliver the most sustainable solutions.

Ensure the correct blend of incentives are in place to support the
development of recovery infrastructure as a renewable energy source that
can make an effective contribution to renewable energy targets and carbon
reduction commitments.

Work with industry and delivery partners to develop effective fuel
monitoring and sampling systems which allow the renewable content of
mixed wastes and waste derived energy to be accurately measured to help
facilitate an effective market.

Ensure that waste management legislation and regulation provides a safe
well monitored sector but does not have unintended consequences on
development of energy recovery industry through unnecessary barriers or
burdens.31
Waste Review Background, Defra, viewed 13 May 2011
Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011, Defra, 14 June 2011
9
Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman
Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion
efficiency and NOx control
M.H. Waldner a, R. Halter a, A. Sigg a, B. Brosch b, H.J. Gehrmann c, M. Keunecke a,⇑
a
Hitachi Zosen Inova AG, Zürich, Switzerland
Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik, Ruhr Universität of Bochum, Germany
c
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, KIT, Germany
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 December 2011
Accepted 9 August 2012
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Energy from Waste
Combustion process
NOx reduction
Secondary air
SNCR
DEM modelling
CFD modelling
Energy efficiency
Low oxygen combustion
a b s t r a c t
Traditionally EfW (Energy from Waste) plants apply a reciprocating grate to combust waste fuel. An integrated steam generator recovers the heat of combustion and converts it to steam for use in a steam
turbine/generator set. This is followed by an array of flue gas cleaning technologies to meet regulatory
limitations.
Modern combustion applies a two-step method using primary air to fuel the combustion process on the
grate. This generates a complex mixture of pyrolysis gases, combustion gases and unused combustion air.
The post-combustion step in the first pass of the boiler above the grate is intended to ‘‘clean up’’ this mixture by oxidizing unburned gases with secondary air.
This paper describes modifications to the combustion process to minimize exhaust gas volumes and the
generation of noxious gases and thus improving the overall thermal efficiency of the EfW plant. The
resulting process can be coupled with an innovative SNCR (Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction) technology
to form a clean and efficient solid waste combustion system.
Measurements immediately above the grate show that gas compositions along the grate vary from 10%
CO, 5% H2 and 0% O2 to essentially unused ‘‘pure’’ air, in good agreement with results from a mathematical model. Introducing these diverse gas compositions to the post combustion process will overwhelm
its ability to process all these gas fractions in an optimal manner. Inserting an intermediate step aimed
at homogenizing the mixture above the grate has shown to significantly improve the quality of combustion, allowing for optimized process parameters. These measures also resulted in reduced formation of
NOx (nitrogenous oxides) due to a lower oxygen level at which the combustion process was run
(2.6 vol% O2, wet instead of 6.0 vol% O2, wet).
This reduction establishes optimal conditions for the DyNOR™ (Dynamic NOx Reduction) NOx reduction
process. This innovative SNCR technology is adapted to situations typically encountered in solid fuel combustion. DyNOR™ measures temperature in small furnace segments and delivers the reducing reagent to
the exact location where it is most effective. The DyNOR™ distributor reacts precisely and dynamically to
rapid changes in combustion conditions, resulting in very low NOx emissions from the stack.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. Reduced oxygen levels and better mixing
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) must always take
into consideration the complex and ever-changing composition
of this challenging fuel mixture. Attempts to homogenize the fuel
in order to simplify the combustion process must be viewed as
an inefficient and inadequate process. The energy requirements
and cost for size reduction and separation of fractions are signifi⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 442771345; fax: +41 442771444.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Keunecke).
cant and the results of the homogenized product remain
insufficient to improve the combustion process. Rather, process
improvements must be focused on modifications to the events
taking place on the grate and in the combustion chambers of
municipal waste combustors.
The approach taken by the authors followed these steps:
Measurement of gas conditions in the combustion process.
Development of a mathematical model to simulate the combustion process under varying conditions.
Conceptual adaptation of the incineration process.
Redesign of the stoker furnace to implement the above concept.
Full scale trial and demonstration tests.
0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
2
M.H. Waldner et al. / Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
In order to first characterize the events taking place on the
grate, measurement campaigns were conducted at the Energy from
Waste plant Müllheizkraftwert Nordweststadt in Frankfurt,
Germany in 2010 with the assistance of the KIT (Karlsruhe Institute
of Technology). The main objective of these campaigns was to
analyze the gas composition in the early stages of combustion
immediately above the grate.
Additionally a mathematical model was developed in cooperation with LEAT (Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik) at the Ruhr-University of Bochum, aimed at simulating
the mechanical and chemical processes on the reciprocating grate.
One important model output was the gas composition above the
waste bed.
A comparison of the modelling results with the measurements
from Frankfurt confirmed the quality of the model and provided
a solid understanding of the complex processes taking place in
the drying, gasification, oxidation and burn-out zones of the
furnace grate.
Equipped with this in-depth understanding, process modifications were devised in order to redesign the combustion process
for operation at reduced oxygen levels. These modifications included on the one hand premixing the gases that evolve on the
grate which then enter the post combustion process in a more
evenly distributed fashion. On the other hand, the volume of combustion air injected under the grate and of the secondary air fed
into the post combustion chamber were reduced, yielding a smaller flue gas flow.
These changes were implemented on a trial basis at the full
scale commercial MSWI plant Tridel at Lausanne, Switzerland
and tested extensively with very positive results.
One consequence of the modified process is a marked improvement in the homogenization of gas conditions following the post
combustion zone. More even distributions of temperature and oxygen concentration form a good precondition for the following SNCR
process where NOx are reduced, allowing it to perform superiorly.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Measurement of the primary combustion process
Traditional measurement efforts typically focus on the exhaust
gas in the stack of Energy from Waste plants. During the commissioning phase additional samples might be taken from various
locations in the boiler. However, only rarely, if ever have gas samples been collected within the first one or two meters immediately
above the grate. In the spring of 2010 a week-long campaign was
conducted to sample this region of the combustion process at the
MSW plant in Frankfurt.
The plant has a thermal rating of 57 MW, a waste throughput
capacity of 20 tonnes per hour at a LHV (Lower Heating Value) of
10.3 MJ/kg. Its grate and furnace are approximately 7.3 m wide
and are equipped with penetrations in the sidewall allowing for
the extraction of gas samples from this area. A sketch can be seen
in Fig. 1.
The measurement campaign was carried out with KIT. The primary combustion gas was simultaneously sampled with five measurement probes, two of which were cooled on the outside and
heated on the inside to inhibit condensation of water vapor. The
extracted gas was continuously analyzed with regard to its content
of H2, CO, CO2, H2O, CH4, higher hydrocarbons, O2, and temperature. Additionally, at four locations the gas temperature was measured with IR (InfraRed) pyrometers. A picture of the gas analysis
station can be seen in Fig. 2.
The measurement was divided into three phases I–III:
I: adapted primary air distribution for a ‘‘long fire’’ at a LHV of
roughly 9 MJ/kg.
II: adapted primary air distribution for a ‘‘short fire’’ at a LHV of
roughly 10.5 MJ/kg.
III: lower primary and secondary air excess.
The data was used to gain a deeper insight into the process as
well as to validate and tune the model described below.
1.2. Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
Reduction of NOx is typically accomplished by reacting nitrogen
oxides with a strong reducing agent such as ammonia (NH3), either
in a catalytically supported process or at elevated temperatures
using SNCR according to the following reaction:
6NO þ 4NH3 ! 5N2 þ 6H2 O
This reaction can only take place under very controlled conditions, unless it is forced by means of a catalyst. Most importantly
the reaction will preferentially run at temperatures in the range
of approximately 850–920 °C. Below this range the reaction will
not take place and non-reacted ammonia will be emitted while
at higher temperatures ammonia will oxidize to NOx and actually
increase NOx emissions. In order to apply the SNCR process to
MSWI plants the reagent must be introduced at the correct location (temperature) and be distributed evenly within a reasonably
short period of time. One method of real time monitoring SNCR
is described by Dittrich (2012). By the use of a mobile injection
lance (+/À 15° two axes) NOx reduction to an extent of 90% is possible, not exceeding an ammonia slip of 40 mg/N m3. Our approach
goes in the same direction, but we use fixed nozzles at different
levels, measure the local temperature and define both injection
time and quantity of reducing agent.
The use of urea instead of ammonia adds an additional dimension: urea must first decompose to form ammonia before it can react as described above. The decomposition time must be taken into
account when designating the best injection location.
2.2. Modelling of the primary combustion process
During the course of 2009 and 2010 work was completed with
LEAT at the Ruhr-University of Bochum to develop a 2-dimensional
mathematical model of the processes on the grate and in the lower
furnace chamber. This flexible model can be adapted to various
furnace geometries and grate mechanics. A thorough description
can be found in Simsek et al. (2009), while a short version is presented here.
The model uses a time-driven DEM (Discrete Element Method)
which turns out to be the most complex but also the most adaptable method. It is a numerical approach to modelling systems with
a large number of solid particles as an accumulation of single particles (Bruch, 2001). Both position and velocity for each individual
particle are traced over time. The collision forces of a particle with
other particles or surrounding walls are determined by force models. These forces are used to solve Newton’s and Euler’s equations
for translational and rotational motion, respectively. To apply the
Discrete Element Method to dense systems with large numbers
of particles such as on the grate of a MSW incinerator, it is suitable
to model the contact forces by simplified physical laws such as a
spring damper model. Municipal waste consists of a multitude of
differently shaped objects with a broad range of sizes. Its transport
behavior is modeled by spherical particles and force laws which
suitably approximate the cohesive effects and combustion properties of the fuel.
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
3
M.H. Waldner et al. / Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Sketch of the furnace sidewall (orange) of Frankfurt with locations of the penetrations (blue: ports for measurement probes, red: ports for IR pyrometers). Green:
location of injection of secondary air. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
The typical fractions of MSWI (organic, plastic, paper, inert minerals, etc.) are assigned to the particles in order to be congruent
with global waste models used for the design of the plants (e.g.
FDBR(Fachverband Dampfkessel Behälter und Rohrleitungen)
waste model) with respect to size distribution as well as composition and thermo-chemical properties.
LEAT’s code of the grate processes is coupled with a CFDs (computational fluid dynamics) code. Therefore, solid particle movement and interaction of particles with a surrounding fluid can be
simulated. The DEM-code has been extended to thermal and
thermo-chemical processes. Well understood single particle models (Brosch et al., 2011) for heat transfer (conduction, thermal radiation and convective heat transfer) as well as drying, pyrolysis and
combustion of char are considered simultaneously within the
calculation of the mechanical movement.
The model was validated and tuned with the help of the data
collected at Frankfurt. Only few adaptations needed to be made
to the model in order to reproduce the collected data. Generally
good agreement of the measurement and the model output exist
for temperature as well as oxygen concentrations, while the absolute concentration of reaction intermediates (H2, CH4) are still
slightly over predicted by the model. An example is given in Fig. 3.
1400
rad. Pyrometers (HZI)
temperature
temperature [[K]
C]
1200
400
suction probes (KIT)
DEM/CFD model
experiment
grate coordinate [m]
Fig. 2. Measurement campaign at Müllheizkraftwerk Nordweststadt Frankfurt
2010 – gas analysis station.
Fig. 3. Comparison of model and measurement.
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
4
M.H. Waldner et al. / Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
2.3. Temperature measurement in first pass with IR pyrometers
The modified combustion process described above with fuel gas
premixing, good feed control of waste fuel, precise distribution of
primary combustion air in response to process needs and minimal
uncontrolled air in leakage, followed by a staged post combustion
zone establishes best possible temperature conditions for the SNCR
reaction.
While these best efforts showed that with an adapted technology ideal conditions for SNCR systems are achieved, common traditionally operated plants exhibit a much larger variability of
temperature distribution. These dynamics are only visible with
quick responding measurements, e.g. when infrared pyrometers
are used to measure the temperature. As shown in Fig. 4, flue gas
temperatures can routinely vary from left to right by up to
150 °C and the temporal variation can reach 100 °C within 60 s.
An effective SNCR process must be able to respond to these regional and temporal temperature fluctuations in a short period of
time.
2.4. DyNOR™
Hitachi Zosen Inova’s new SNCR process can respond in time to
these changes and delivers the correct amount of reducing agent to
the precise location where it is needed most. The DyNOR™ process
was developed to meet the new EU standard of 100 mg/N m3 NOx
and 10 mg/N m3 NH3 slip (at 11% oxygen, dry). This objective was
reached in full scale demonstration tests at a MSWI plant at Trondheim, Norway (Line 3) and is currently being implemented in other
locations (e.g. Vaasa, Finland).
DyNOR™ follows the fundamentals of the well known SNCR
process: Ammonia or urea is used as reagent, and reagent injection
occurs at different levels in response to measured flue gas temperatures. However, the new means of distribution of reagent to
different locations (injection nozzles) takes the dynamics shown
in Fig. 4 into account.
The process approach is based on the following:
Steady control of combustion temperature within the possibilities of a modern MSWI plant (if possible including primary
measures such as described in the first half of this paper, but
it should also yield good results for all other plants).
Controlled reagent feed based on stack NOx emissions.
Precise and quick measurement of flue gas temperature in various boiler regions.
Selection of injection location based on individual temperature
measurements.
Quick and stepless transfer of reagent injection between levels.
Good combustion control results in steady oxygen and temperature levels. This in turn yields relatively steady uncontrolled NOx
concentrations in the furnace, which in turn means that reagent
feed will not vary greatly. This feature helps to stabilize the process. Improving the combustion process as described earlier in this
paper builds on these aspects and further reduces uncontrolled
NOx levels, thus improves the boundary conditions for DyNOR™.
The recognition that the temperature changes in the furnace are
as quick and localized as shown in Fig. 4 led to two key aspects of
the DyNOR™ process:
(1) The reagent injection must be flexible enough to follow the
three-dimensional temperature profile, and
(2) the changes between the injection levels must be as quick as
the temperature changes and occur in a smooth, uninterrupted fashion.
These process requirements are addressed by virtually segregating the furnace into several vertical sectors, as depicted in Fig. 5.
The MSWI plant in Trondheim has a thermal capacity of 46 MW
(waste feed rate approximately 19 ton/h) and a first boiler pass
which measures 5 m by 6 m in cross section. For DyNOR™ implementation the furnace is virtually divided into four identical quadrants (Fig. 5). Each quadrant is equipped with an individual
independent injection module consisting of
four nozzle sets at four different elevations,
a Hitachi Zosen Inova 2-phase distributor (Fig. 6) and,
a dedicated infrared pyrometer.
For smaller boilers two sectors are sufficient while larger plants
can be divided into any suitable number of sectors (e.g. 8), each of
them equipped with one independent DyNOR™ module and one IR
pyrometer as described above.
The DyNOR™ flow distributor (Fig. 6) is uniquely capable of
directing the two phase flow of ammonia (or urea) and compressed
air (or steam) to the nozzle elevation best suited for NOx reduction.
Based on the quick temperature measurement in the specific sector, the distributor can rapidly change injection elevations. It does
so by smoothly and continuously redirecting the flow from one
nozzle level to another, allowing for a temporary injection at both
elevations simultaneously. This fast and localized adjustment and
the ‘‘stepless’’ elevation switch result in optimized reaction conditions and minimized ammonia slip.
It is important to stress that these two individual aspects of a
modern waste incinerator – low oxygen combustion with premixing and the state-of-the-art SNCR process DyNOR have not yet
been linked together. The reason is twofold:
(1) To test and measure the effect of running the plant at low
oxygen with premixing the primary combustion gases, the
uncontrolled NOx emissions must be measured. This is only
practically possible with plants that feature a catalytical
DeNOx system (SCR) rather than an SNCR system.
(2) The DyNOR™ process must be able to work both for an
advanced as well as conventional combustion process. It is
important to test for its NOx levels reached on plants running
at conventional parameters and thus establishing a direct
comparison of it’s performance compared standard SNCR
systems.
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 4. Temperature curves of four IR pyrometers of a non-optimized plant (1 –
boiler side left; 2 – boiler side right; 3 – bunker side left; 4 – bunker side right).
The most important finding from the measurement and modelling work described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 was the recognition
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
M.H. Waldner et al. / Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
DyNORTM
Flow
Distributors
5
IR Pyrometers
Injection Level
Fig. 5. Vertical sectors in the first boiler pass.
that the gas composition above the waste bed can be divided into
two general areas:
(1) Drying and pyrolysis zone: H2, H2O, CO, CO2, CxHy, but no O2.
(2) Carbon burn-out zone: virtually unused air, thus around 20%
O2, very little CO, CO2, virtually no H2, H2O, or CxHy.
a. When waste enters the furnace from the stoker it is subjected to preheated primary combustion air from below
and radiant heat from above. Under typical operating conditions most of the waste’s energy content is released on the
first half of the grate, where roughly 50% of the primary combustion air is fed. This yields a gas mixture which contains no
residual oxygen (i.e. all the primary combustion air has been
consumed), but significant concentrations of highly combustible pyrolysis products such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbons (mainly methane). This gas mixture rises
from the grate and enters the post combustion area of the
furnace hugging the wall above the stoker in the first pass
of the boiler.
b. At the other end of the grate, opposite conditions prevail.
Here most of the fuel fractions have been oxidized and very
little primary air is consumed. Nevertheless, typically 20% of
the primary air is introduced through the last grate zone to
complete the MSW burn-out on the grate. The resulting gas
leaving this area contains about 20% oxygen, close to that
of fresh combustion air, and essentially no unburned fuel
components. It rises into the post-combustion chamber
along the rear wall of the furnace and is essentially preheated air.
Visual observations of the combustion process confirm this
principal finding. The interface plane between these two streams
is clearly delineated by a rather narrow flame zone (0.5–1.0 m)
where the energy-rich fuel gas of the feed end meets the oxygenrich gas from the discharge end of the grate.
The same behavior is predicted by the DEM model, which also
characterizes these two gas fractions as roughly comparable in size,
depending on the primary air distribution under the grate and the
positioning of the fire line on the grate. It is depicted in Fig. 7
3.1. Process design adaptation (premixing of primary combustion gas)
It is important to maximize the efficiency of the Energy from
Waste process. One way to accomplish this goal is to reduce the
volumes of flue gas exhaust by reducing the combustion air volumes. For this purpose, the above analysis becomes critical. Even
at traditionally high excess air ratios of 1.5–2.0 the locally available
amount of secondary air injected on the stoker side may be insufficient to complete oxidation of the occasionally high concentrations of CO and hydrocarbons originating from the stoker side of
the furnace. Measurements in Frankfurt and other locations have
confirmed transient elevated levels of unburned carbon monoxide
on the stoker side (front side) of the first boiler pass, while the
opposite side rarely showed such an effect. This negative situation
is further augmented when excess air ratios are reduced to 1.3 and
below.
One promising approach to remedy this situation is to improve
the boundary conditions for the post combustion process by
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
6
M.H. Waldner et al. / Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
Extensive instrumentation to measure temperatures and gas
compositions at various locations in the furnace and the
boiler.
Visual observations in the furnace confirmed that lateral mixing
was occurring. The re-circulated flue gas jets from the individual
nozzles were able to penetrate the flame front in the main combustion zone thus visualizing the fact that this flame zone was a mere
50–100 cm deep. This observation is consistent with the expectation that the interface zone between the two conditions is quite
sharp and that indeed two distinctively different conditions are
present.
Gas phase measurements at a specific location in the first
boiler pass roughly 10 m above the secondary air injection and
at the boiler exit showed the following results when the RFG
system was activated in the furnace and with reduced combustion air supply:
Fig. 6. DyNOR™ 2-phase flow distributor.
‘‘premixing’’ the two extreme gas fractions above the waste bed
before they reach the secondary air injection level. This prevents
the feed end secondary air portion from being overwhelmed while
allowing the discharge end portion to more effectively participate
in the oxidation.
Mixing these two gas streams from the grate can be accomplished by injecting a gas at high velocities to impart a horizontal
impulse. This transports the high concentration fraction towards
the low concentrated one. A good option is to use flue gas as impulse media, re-circulated from a cooler region of the plant downstream of the boiler. It is injected perpendicular to the gas flow
from the grate through high-velocity nozzles, generating a lateral
mixing. The re-circulated flue gas can be injected in the direction
of waste fuel flow or in the opposite direction.
3.2. Tests at Lausanne (low oxygen combustion with premixing)
The design principles described above were implemented in the
HZ-Inova EfW plant of Tridel at Lausanne, Switzerland and subjected to a series of trial runs. The last of three trials lasted
3 months and included the following modifications:
Re-circulated flue gas (RFG) injection in the roof area above the
deslagger, through an array of eight nozzles, directed towards
the stoker (see Fig. 8).
Reduced primary combustion air flow, reduced secondary air
flow.
Modified primary air distribution under the grate, modified
grate speed control.
Adjustments to the combustion control system so that it quickly
responds to extreme low oxygen conditions (i.e. below
1 vol% O2), should they occur.
NOx levels dropped from 340 mg/N m3 to below 190 mg/N m3
(1 min averages, corrected to 11% oxygen) due to the lower
air excess set in the combustion control system (see Fig. 10).
CO concentrations in the stack dropped from 10 to 5 mg/N m3
on average while instantaneous CO peaks were reduced by a
factor 3 despite the low O2 levels during the campaign.
Oxygen concentrations in the flue gas leaving the boiler
matched those measured locally in the first pass, thus the flue
gas was well mixed (without RFG oxygen concentrations were
unevenly distributed in the first pass. Due to this mal-distribution the average oxygen levels there had a tendency not to
match those measured at the boiler exit) (Fig. 9).
NOx, CO and oxygen concentrations in the first pass were much
more evenly distributed across the cross section than without
the premixed process.
Flue gas volumes entering the flue gas treatment equipment
were reduced by almost 20%, from 63,400 N m3/h down to
51,500 N m3/h (thermal power 36.7 MW). This has an positive
impact on the overall energy efficiency of the plant.
New plants exhibiting this technology could be built up to 10%
smaller because of the reduced flue gas flow rates, which significantly lower both investment and operating costs.
These operating conditions were maintained for a period of
3 months without any adverse effects. The plant operators stated
that the modified combustion line ran much more smoothly than
the identical parallel line that had not been changed.
These results confirm that EfW plants can be designed for operation at oxygen levels of 4% or below (wet basis) and actually perform better in terms of CO burn-out than existing plants running at
higher excess air ratios. As a result of the re-circulated flue gas
injection the temperatures in the furnace are only moderately elevated when combustion air levels are reduced.
Reduced oxygen levels between 2% and 4% and more even mixing of the fuel gas in the combustion zone resulted in markedly
lower NOx concentrations. Previously found levels above 300 mg/
N m3 dropped to the vicinity 200 mg/N m3 and below (green1 dots
in Fig. 10), which represents the current NOx emission limits in some
jurisdictions.
1
For interpretation of color in Fig. 10, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
M.H. Waldner et al. / Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
7
Fig. 7. Side view of the furnace chamber and first pass with predicted gas concentrations left: H2O, middle: O2, right: CO.
Fig. 8. Re-circulated flue gas injection above the grate at Lausanne, Switzerland.
The following Table 3.2.1 lists the results in a tabular form:
3.3. Results of SNCR tests at Trondheim (normal oxygen conditions, no
premixing)
The MSWI plant at Trondheim combines the traditional SNCR
process with a semi-dry air pollution control system and a tailend wet scrubber. The plant is typically operated at a NOx level
at stack of 140 mg/N m3 (11% oxygen, dry) and runs at common
oxygen concentrations of about 6 vol%, wet. Any ammonia slip
resulting from the SNCR process is absorbed in the wet scrubber
and recovered. This configuration makes the plant uniquely suitable for the demonstration of enhanced SNCR systems.
DyNOR™ was installed there in parallel with the existing SNCR
system. The installation allowed for instantaneous switching from
one system to the other. A laser-based ammonia emission monitor
was installed at the exit of the boiler to measure the ammonia slip.
Fig. 11 shows the impact of DyNOR™ on the NOx emission
performance at the usual control setpoint of 140 mg/N m3 at stack
(11% oxygen, dry). Ammonia slip at the boiler exit with the
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
8
M.H. Waldner et al. / Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
6
//
RFG ON
RFG OFF
RFG ON
O2 [vol%wet ]
5
4
3
2
1
O2, global
O2, local
0
0
100000
3
COlocal [mg/m at STP]
RFG
OFF
//
20
110
130
150
170
190 200
110
130
150
time [min.]
170
190 200
10000
1000
100
10
0
//
20
Fig. 9. Upper graph: local (in first boiler pass) and global (at boiler exit) oxygen concentration. Lower graph: local CO concentration at 10 m above the secondary air injection.
Table 3.2.1
Comparison data of conventionel and low O2 operation.
Condition
Flue gas flow
(N m3/h)
O2, at boiler exit
(vol%, wet)
Uncontrolled NOx, at boiler exit
(mg/N m3) (at 11 vol% O2, dry)
CO, at stack
(mg/N m3)
CO peaks, at stack
# (normalized)
Conventional
Low O2, premix
63,400
51,500
6
2.6
340
<190
10
5
1
0.3
traditional SNCR process ranged from 2 to 8 mg/N m3 (11% oxygen,
dry). Upon activation of DyNOR™ the ammonia slip immediately
dropped to 2 and gradually declined to less than 1 mg/m3 (11%
oxygen, dry). Most notable is the stability of the ammonia slip signal during DyNOR™ operation.
Further reducing the NOx set point to 100 mg/N m3 (11%
oxygen, dry), yielded similar results (see Fig. 12). Obviously the
ammonia slip increased slightly at these conditions and ultimately
hovered around 5 mg/N m3 (11% oxygen, dry). It remained, how-
ever, below the average slip of the conventional SNCR process
operating at 140 mg/N m3 (11% oxygen, dry).
While being a prototype, the DyNOR™ process at Trondheim is
considered a full scale, commercial installation. It has demonstrated excellent performance over extended periods of time.
The data is summarized in the following Table 3.3.1.
The data from DyNOR™ has allowed the performance range of
SNCR processes to be extended to significantly lower NOx values,
thus closing the gap between traditional SNCR processes and the
3
NOx conc. (mg/m i.N. 11%O2 dry)
600
Germany 2004
Norway 1999
Germany 1998
Switzerland 2002
Switzerland 1990
Netherlands 2004
Netherlands 1996
Switzerland 2003
Germany 2005
Germany 2005
Norway 2007
Switzerland 2010
500
with flue gas
recirculation
400
300
without flue gas
recirculation
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
O2 concentration boiler (vol % dry)
Fig. 10. Uncontrolled NOx emissions (1 min averages) vs. O2 concentration.
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
9
140mg/m3
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
12
:00
6:0
0
0:0
0
18
:00
12
:00
0:0
0
6:0
0
DyNORTM
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
NH3 (mg/m3 stp dry 11% O 2)
NOx -setpoint:
NH 3 (mg/m3 stp dry 11% O2)
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
18
:00
NOx (mg/m3 stp dry 11% O 2)
M.H. Waldner et al. / Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
NOx -setpoint:
100mg/m3
12
:0 0
6 :0
0
0 :0
0
18
:0 0
6 :0
0
0 :0
0
12
:0 0
DyNORTM
18
:0 0
NO x (mg/m3 stp dry 11% O2)
Fig. 11. DyNOR™ performance at 140 mg/N m3 (11% oxygen, dry).
Fig. 12. DyNOR™ performance at 100 mg/N m3 (11% oxygen, dry).
Table 3.3.1
Comparison of conventional SNCR and DyNOr™.
Condition
O2 at boiler
exit (vol%,
wet)
NOx, at stack
(mg/N m3) (at
11 vol% O2, dry)
NH3 slip at boiler
exit (mg/N m3)
(at 11 vol% O2, dry)
Conventional SNCR
DyNOR™
DyNOR™
6
6
6
140
140
100
2–8
1–2
4–5
NH3-slip (mg/m3 stp dry 11%O2)
more costly SCR systems. The operating ranges of the various NOxreduction technologies shown in Fig. 13 are estimated ranges
based on several punctual measurements.
The efficiency of a SNCR-system has to be evaluated separately
for each particular fired apparatus (Javed et al., 2007). DyNOR™
20
SNCR
withNH3recovery
15
10
SNCR
5
SCR
50
DyNORTM
100
NOx-concentration
150
(mg/m 3
200
250
stp dry 11% O2)
Fig. 13. Operating ranges of NOx-reduction technologies.
achieves better emissions compared to conventional SNCR-systems on grate fired waste incineration plants (Dainoff and Anacker,
2009). Other advanced SNCR-systems with comparable functionality are able to achieve equal emissions (von der Heide, 2008) The
advantage of DyNOR™ is the simple setup and the use of Hitachi
Zosen Inova’s nozzles injecting undiluted reagent at a high injection velocity. The high injection velocity prevents the nozzle from
plugging, which allows the installation of the nozzle tips planar to
the membrane wall, where it is protected from corrosion.
Coupled to an advanced combustion process such as described
in this paper, even lower emissions will be achievable.
4. Conclusions
The combustion process for municipal solid waste can be operated at very low excess air levels, with oxygen concentrations well
below 4% while still providing for very good burn-out of the evolving gases and producing significantly less flue gas and energy
losses through the stack. A solid understanding of the combustion
process steps on a theoretical and practical basis is essential when
designing this process. Premixing the pyrolysis gases above the
grate is the preferred way to consistently achieve good burn-out.
New plants operating at these conditions exhibit 20% smaller
flue gas rates and can be built some 10% smaller, leading to a significant reduction of both investment and operating costs. Besides,
operating the combustion process at these lower oxygen levels
consequently reduces NOx generation to as low as approximately
200 mg/N m3 (11% oxygen, dry). Under these conditions, secondary
NOx reduction measures (such as the SNCR process) will perform
significantly better.
The DyNOR™ SNCR process recognizes that temperatures in the
first boiler pass can vary locally and temporally despite the efforts
involved in advanced combustion process design. It takes advantage of fast acting temperature measurements at several locations
simultaneously and ensures that reducing agents are always injected at the location where they can be fully effective. Its performance pushes the envelope of SNCR further towards levels below
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
10
M.H. Waldner et al. / Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
100 mg/N m3 NOx and less than 10 mg/m3 ammonia slip, and
closes the gap towards capital-intensive catalytic systems even at
plants operating at regular oxygen conditions.
The next steps will be to combine the low oxygen, premix combustion process (yielding low uncontrolled NOx concentrations and
better temperature distribution) with the DyNOR™ SNCR process.
It is expected to reach much lower controlled NOx concentrations
than measured at Trondheim. Controlled NOx concentrations of
below 80 mg/N m3 (11% oxygen, dry) with an ammonia slip of
below 5 mg/N m3 are the expected and anticipated performance
range.
References
Bruch, C., 2001. Beitrag zur Modellierung der Festbettverbrennung in
Automatischen Holzfeuerungen, Dissertation, Eidgenössische Technische
Universität Zürich.
Dainoff, A., Anacker, D., 2009. The design and operation of an advanced NOx control
system on the new 636TPD MWC at the Lee County WTE facility. In:
Proceedings of the 17th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference
NAWTEC17-2322.
Dittrich, R., 2012. Technische Umsetzung von SNCR – Verfahren mit Dem Ziel der
Maximalen NOx-Reduzierung, Energie aus Abfall Band 9, 629–640, TK Verlag
Karl Thomé Kozmiensky.
Javed, M.T., Irfan, N., Gibbs, B.M., 2007. Control of combustion-generated nitrogen
oxides by selective non-catalytic reduction. Journal of Environmental
Management 83, 251–289.
Simsek, E., Brosch, B., Wirtz, S., Scherer, V., Krüll, F., 2009. Numerical simulation of
grate firing systems using a coupled CFD/discrete element method (DEM).
Powder Technology 193, 266–273.
von der Heide, B., 2008. SNCR Process – Best Available Technologie for NOx
Reduction in Waste To Energy Plants, June 3–5. Power-Gen Europe, Milan.
Brosch, B., Wirtz, S., Scherer, V., 2011. A particle based model for the combustion of
municipal waste in grate firing systems, INFUB-9. Estoril, Portugal.
Please cite this article in press as: Waldner, M.H., et al. Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx
control. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.007
Designation: D 5231 – 92 (Reapproved 2003)
Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed
Municipal Solid Waste1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 5231; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
2.1.4 unprocessed municipal solid waste—solid waste in its
discarded form, that is, waste that has not been size reduced or
otherwise processed.
2.1.5 waste component—a category of solid waste, composed of materials of similar physical properties and chemical
composition, which is used to define the composition of solid
waste, for example, ferrous, glass, newsprint, yard waste,
aluminum, etc.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method describes procedures for measuring the
composition of unprocessed municipal solid waste (MSW) by
employing manual sorting. This test method applies to determination of the mean composition of MSW based on the
collection and manual sorting of a number of samples of waste
over a selected time period covering a minimum of one week.
1.2 This test method includes procedures for the collection
of a representative sorting sample of unprocessed waste,
manual sorting of the waste into individual waste components,
data reduction, and reporting of the results.
1.3 This test method may be applied at landfill sites, waste
processing and conversion facilities, and transfer stations.
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded
as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for
information only.
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the
safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For specific hazard
statements, see Section 6.
3. Summary of Test Method
3.1 The number of samples to be sorted is calculated based
on statistical criteria selected by the investigators.
3.2 Vehicle loads of waste are designated for sampling, and
a sorting sample is collected from the discharged vehicle load.
3.3 The sample is sorted manually into waste components.
The weight fraction of each component in the sorting sample is
calculated from the weights of the components.
3.4 The mean waste composition is calculated using the
results of the composition of each of the sorting samples.
4. Significance and Use
4.1 Waste composition information has widespread applications and can be used for activities such as solid waste
planning, designing waste management facilities, and establishing a reference waste composition for use as a baseline
standard in both facility contracts and acceptance test plans.
4.2 The method can be used to define and report the
composition of MSW through the selection and manual sorting
of waste samples. Where applicable, care should be taken to
consider the source and seasonal variation of waste.
4.3 After performing a waste composition analysis, laboratory analyses may be performed on representative samples of
waste components, or mixtures of waste components, for
purposes related to the planning, management, design, testing,
and operation of resource recovery facilities.
2. Terminology
2.1 Definitions:
2.1.1 composite item—an object in the waste composed of
multiple waste components or dissimilar materials, such as
disposable diapers, bi-metal beverage containers, electrical
conductors composed of metallic wire encased in plastic
insulation, etc.
2.1.2 solid waste composition or waste composition—the
characterization of solid waste as represented by a breakdown
of the mixture into specified waste components on the basis of
mass fraction or of weight percent.
2.1.3 sorting sample—a 200 to 300-lb (91 to 136-kg)
portion deemed to represent the characteristics of a vehicle
load of MSW.
5. Apparatus
5.1 Metal, Plastic, or Fiber Containers, sufficient for storing and weighing each waste component, labeled accordingly.
For components that will have a substantial moisture content
(for example, food waste), metal or plastic containers are
recommended in order to avoid absorption of moisture by the
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D34 on Waste
Disposal and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D34.01.06 on Analytical
Methods.
Current edition approved July 31, 1992. Published September 1992.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
1
D 5231 – 92 (2003)
container and thus the need for a substantial number of
weighings to maintain an accurate tare weight for the container.
5.2 Mechanical or Electronic Weigh Scale, with a capacity
of at least 200 lb (91 kg) and precision of at least 0.1 lb (0.045
kg).
5.3 Heavy-Duty Tarps, Shovels, Rakes, Push Brooms, Dust
Pans, Hand Brooms, Magnets, Sorting Table, First Aid Kit,
Miscellaneous Small Tools, Traffıc Cones, Traffıc Vests, Leather
Gloves, Hardhats, Safety Glasses, and Leather Boots.
8.3 Weigh all empty storage containers and record the tare
weights.
8.4 Determine the number of samples to be sorted. The
determination is a function of the waste components to be
sorted and the desired precision as applied to each component.
Weights of 200 to 300 lb (91 to 136 kg) for sorting samples of
unprocessed solid waste are recommended. The number of
samples is determined using the calculational method described in 9.1.
8.5 A comprehensive list of waste components for sorting is
given in Table 1. A description of some of the waste component
categories is given in Table 2. Other waste components can be
defined and sorted, depending on the purpose of the waste
composition determination. The list in Table 1 is comprised of
those components most commonly used to define and report
the composition of solid waste. It is recommended that, at a
minimum, the complement of left-justified categories in Table
1 be sorted. Similar breakdowns of solid waste composition are
therefore available for purposes of comparison, if desired.
Label the storage containers accordingly.
8.6 Vehicles for sampling shall be selected at random during
each day of the one-week sampling period, or so as to be
representative of the waste stream as agreed upon by the
affected parties. With respect to the random selection of
vehicles, any method is acceptable that does not introduce a
bias into the selection. An acceptable method is the use of a
random number generator. For a weekly sampling period of k
days, the number of vehicles sampled each day shall be
approximately n/k, where n is the total number of vehicle loads
to be selected for the determination of waste composition. A
weekly period is defined as 5 to 7 days.
8.7 Direct the designated vehicle containing the load of
waste to the area secured for discharge of the load and
collection of the sorting sample.
8.8 Collect any required information from the vehicle operator before the vehicle leaves the discharge area. Direct the
vehicle operator to discharge the load onto the clean surface in
one contiguous pile, that is, to avoid gaps in the discharged
load in order to facilitate collection of the samples.
8.9 Using a front-end loader with at least a 1-yd 3(0.765-m3)
bucket, remove the material longitudinally along one entire
side of the discharged load in order to obtain a representative
cross-section of the material. The mass of material shall be
sufficient to form a mass of material which, on a visual basis,
is at least four times the desired weight of the sorting sample
6. Hazards
6.1 Review the hazards and procedures with the operating
and sorting personnel prior to conducting the field activities.
6.2 Sharp objects, such as nails, razor blades, hypodermic
needles, and pieces of glass, are present in solid waste.
Personnel should be instructed of this danger, and they should
brush waste particles aside while sorting rather than projecting
their hands with force into the mixture. Personnel handling and
sorting solid waste should wear appropriate protection, such as
heavy leather gloves, dust masks, hardhats, safety glasses, and
safety boots.
6.3 During the processes of unloading waste from collection
vehicles and handling waste with heavy equipment, projectiles
may issue from the mass of waste. The projectiles can include
flying glass particles from breaking glass containers and metal
lids from plastic and metal containers that burst under pressure
when run over by heavy equipment. The problem is particularly severe when the waste handling surface is of high
compressive strength, for example, concrete. Personnel should
be informed of this danger and wear eye and head protection if
in the vicinity of either the collection vehicle unloading point
or heavy equipment, or both.
6.4 Select a location for the discharge of designated loads,
manual sorting activities, and weighing operations that is flat,
level, and away from the normal waste handling and processing areas.
6.5 Weigh storage containers each day, or more frequently,
if necessary, in order to maintain an accounting of the tare
weight.
6.6 Loss of mass from the sorting sample can occur through
the evaporation of water. Samples should thus be sorted as
soon as possible after collection.
6.7 Containers of liquids or other potentially dangerous
wastes shall be put aside and handled by the crew chief.
7. Calibration
7.1 All weigh scale equipment shall be calibrated according
to the manufacturer’s instructions. Take appropriate corrective
action if the readings are different from those of the calibration
weights.
TABLE 1 List of Waste Component Categories
Mixed paper
High-grade paper
Computer printout
Other office paper
Newsprint
Corrugated
Plastic
PET bottles
HDPE bottles
Film
Other plastic
Yard waste
Food waste
Wood
8. Procedure
8.1 Secure a flat and level area for discharge of the vehicle
load. The surface should be swept clean or covered with a
clean, durable tarp prior to discharge of the load.
8.2 Position the scale on a clean, flat, level surface and
adjust the level of the scale if necessary. Determine the
accuracy and operation of the scale with a known (that is,
reference) weight.
2
Other organics
Ferrous
Cans
Other ferrous
Aluminum
Cans
Foil
Other aluminum
Glass
Clear
Brown
Green
Other inorganics
D 5231 – 92 (2003)
TABLE 2 Descriptions of Some Waste Component Categories
Category
Mixed paper
Newsprint
Corrugated
Plastic
Yard waste
Food waste
Wood
Other organics/
combustibles
Ferrous
Aluminum
Glass
Other inorganics/
non-combustibles
8.12.3 If composite items represent substantial weight percents of the sorting sample, a separate category should be
established, for example, composite roofing shingles.
8.12.4 If none of the above procedures is appropriate, place
the item(s) (or proportion it (them)) in the storage container
labeled“ other non-combustible” or “other combustible,” as
appropriate.
8.13 Sorting continues until the maximum particle size of
the remaining waste particles is approximately 0.5 in. (12.7
mm). At this point, apportion the remaining particles into the
storage containers corresponding to the waste components
represented in the remaining mixture. The apportionment shall
be accomplished by making a visual estimate of the mass
fraction of waste components represented in the remaining
mixture.
8.14 Record the gross weights of the storage containers and
of any waste items sorted but not stored in containers. The data
sheet shown in Fig. 1 can be used to record both gross and tare
weights.
8.15 After recording the gross weights, empty the storage
containers and weigh them again, if appropriate. Re-weighing
is important and necessary if the containers become moistureladen, for example, from wet waste.
8.16 Clean the sorting site, as well as the load discharge
area, of all waste materials.
Description
Office paper, computer paper, magazines, glossy paper,
waxed paper, and other paper not fitting the categories
of newsprint and corrugated
Newspaper
Corrugated medium, corrugated boxes or cartons, and
brown (kraft) paper (that is, corrugated) bags
All plastics
Branches, twigs, leaves, grass, and other plant material
All food waste except bones
Lumber, wood products, pallets, and furniture
Textiles, rubber, leather, and other primarily burnable
materials not included in the above component
categories
Iron, steel, tin cans, and bi-metal cans
Aluminum, aluminum cans, and aluminum foil
All glass
Rock, sand, dirt, ceramics, plaster, non-ferrous nonaluminum metals (copper, brass, etc.), and bones
(that is, approximately 1000 lb (454 kg)). Mix, cone, and
quarter the material, and select one quarter to be the sorting
sample, using a random method of selection or a sequence
agreed by all affected parties, for the purpose of eliminating or
minimizing biasing of the sample. If an oversize item (for
example, water heater) composes a large weight percent of the
sorting sample, add a notation on the data sheet and weigh it,
if possible. Unprocessed solid waste is a heterogeneous mixture of materials. Care must thus be taken during application of
the procedures for sample collection in order to obtain a
representative sample.
8.10 One sorting sample is selected from each collection
vehicle load designated for sampling. All handling and manipulation of the discharged load and longitudinal and sorting
samples shall be conducted on previously cleaned surfaces. If
necessary, remove the sorting sample to a secured manual
sorting area. The sorting sample may be placed on a clean table
for sorting for the convenience of the sorting personnel. The
sorting area shall be a previously cleaned, flat, level surface.
8.11 Position the storage containers around the sorting
sample. Empty all containers from the sorting sample, such as
capped jars, paper bags, and plastic bags of their contents.
Segregate each waste item and place it in the appropriate
storage container.
8.12 In the case of composite items found in the waste,
separate the individual materials where practical, and place the
individual materials into the appropriate storage containers.
Where impractical, segregate the composite items for classification by the crew chief according to the following order:
8.12.1 If there are many identical composite items (for
example, plastic-sheathed aluminum electrical conductor),
place them into the waste component containers corresponding
to the materials present in the item, and in the approximate
proportions according to the estimated mass fraction of each
material in the item.
8.12.2 If there are only a few of the identical composite
item, place them in the storage container corresponding to the
material that comprises, on a weight basis, the majority of the
item (for example, place bi-metal beverage cans in the ferrous
container).
9. Calculation
9.1 Number of 200 to 300-lb (91 to 136-kg) Samples:
9.1.1 The number of sorting samples (that is, vehicle loads)
(n) required to achieve a desired level of measurement precision is a function of the component(s) under consideration and
the confidence level. The governing equation for n is as
follows:
n 5 ~t* s/e·x¯!2
(1)
where:
t* = student t statistic corresponding to the desired level of
confidence,
s = estimated standard deviation,
e = desired level of precision, and
x¯ = estimated mean.
9.1.1.1 All numerical values for the symbols are in decimal
notation. For example, a precision value (e) of 20 % is
represented as 0.2.
9.1.1.2 One sorting sample is chosen per vehicle load.
9.1.1.3 Suggested values of s and of x¯ for waste components
are listed in Table 3. Values of t* are given in Table 4 for 90 and
95 % levels of confidence, respectively.
9.1.2 Estimate the number of samples ( n8) for the selected
conditions (that is, precision and level of confidence) and
components using (Eq 1). For the purposes of estimation, select
from Table 4 the t* value for n = ` for the selected level of
confidence. Since the required number of samples will vary
among the components for a given set of conditions, a
compromise will be required in terms of selecting a sample
size, that is, the number of samples that will be sorted. The
component that is chosen to govern the precision of the
composition measurement (and therefore the number of
3
D 5231 – 92 (2003)
TABLE 3 Values of Mean ( x¯ ) and Standard Deviation(s) for
Within-Week Sampling to Determine MSW Component
CompositionA
Component
Newsprint
Corrugated
Plastic
Yard waste
Food waste
Wood
Other organics
Ferrous
Aluminum
Glass
Other inorganics
Standard
Deviation(s)
Mean (x¯)
0.07
0.06
0.03
0.14
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.004
0.05
0.03
0.10
0.14
0.09
0.04
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.08
0.06
1.00
A
The tabulated mean values and standard deviations are estimates based on
field test data reported for MSW sampled during weekly sampling periods at
several locations around the United States.
TABLE 4 Values of t Statistics (t *) as a Function of Number of
Samples and Confidence Interval
FIG. 1 Waste Composition Data Sheet
samples required for sorting) is termed the “governing component” for the purposes of this method.
9.1.3 After determining the governing component and its
corresponding number of samples (n o), return to Table 4 and
select the student t statistic (t* o) corresponding to n o.
Recalculate the number of samples, that is, n8, using t*o.
9.1.4 Compare n o to the new estimate of n, that is, n8, which
was calculated for the governing component. If the values
differ by more than 10 %, repeat the calculations given in 9.1.2
and 9.1.3.
9.1.5 If the values are within 10 %, select the larger value as
the number of samples to be sorted. Refer to Appendix X1 for
a sample calculation of n.
9.2 Component Composition:
9.2.1 The component composition of solid waste is reported
on the basis of the mass fraction (expressed as a decimal) or
Number of Samples, n
90 %
95 %
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
36
41
46
51
61
71
81
91
101
121
141
161
189
201
`
6.314
2.920
2.353
2.132
2.015
1.943
1.895
1.860
1.833
1.812
1.796
1.782
1.771
1.761
1.753
1.746
1.740
1.734
1.729
1.725
1.721
1.717
1.714
1.711
1.708
1.706
1.703
1.701
1.699
1.697
1.690
1.684
1.679
1.676
1.671
1.667
1.664
1.662
1.660
1.658
1.656
1.654
1.653
1.653
1.645
12.706
4.303
3.182
2.776
2.571
2.447
2.365
2.306
2.262
2.228
2.201
2.179
2.160
2.145
2.131
2.120
2.110
2.101
2.093
2.086
2.080
2.074
2.069
2.064
2.060
2.056
2.052
2.048
2.045
2.042
2.030
2.021
2.014
2.009
2.000
1.994
1.990
1.987
1.984
1.980
1.977
1.975
1.973
1.972
1.960
percent of waste component i in the solid waste mixture. The
4
D 5231 – 92 (2003)
reporting is on the basis of wet weight, that is, the weight of
materials immediately after sorting.
9.2.2 The mass fraction of component i, mfi, is defined and
computed as follows:
mfi 5
wi
9.3 The mean component composition for the one-week
period is calculated using the component composition results
from each of the analysis samples. The mean mass fraction of
¯i, is calculated as follows:
component i, mf
1
mf
¯i 5 n
(2)
j
( wi
i51
n
( ~mfi!k
k51
(6)
and the mean percent of component i, Pi, is calculated as
follows:
where:
wi = weight of component i and
j = number of waste components.
In those cases in which a container is used to store and weigh
the materials,
1
P¯i 5 n
n
(
k51
~Pi!k
(7)
where:
n = number of samples.
10. Precision and Bias
10.1 A precision and bias statement cannot be made for this
test method at this time. However, the committee is interested
in conducting an interlaboratory test program and encourages
interested parties to contact ASTM Headquarters.2
wi 5 gross weight 2 tare weight of container
(3)
9.2.3 The percent of component i, Pi, is defined and
computed as follows:
Pi 5 mf i 3 100
(4)
11. Keywords
11.1 composition;
characterization
9.2.4 For the data analysis to be correct, the denominator of
(Eq 2) must be unity, and
municipal
solid
waste;
waste
j
( Pi 5 100
i51
(5)
2
ASTM Headquarters, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
APPENDIX
(Nonmandatory Information)
X1. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS
5 50
5 no
X1.1 Example Assumptions:
X1.1.1 Corrugated is selected as the governing component.
X1.1.2 A 90 % confidence level is selected.
X1.1.3 A precision of 10 % is desired.
X1.1.4 Therefore:
s
x¯
e
t *(n = `)
Referring again to Table 4, for n = 50,
t* 90 ~n 5 50! 5 1.677
and,
= 0.06 (from Table 3),
= 0.14 (from Table 3),
= 0.10, and
= 1.645 (from Table 4).
F
F
1.677 ~0.06!
0.1 ~0.14!
5 52
5 n8
n5
Using (Eq 1):
n 5 @t* s/~e·x¯!# 2
1.645 ~0.06!
5
0.1 ~0.14!
(X1.1)
G
G
(X1.2)
2
(X1.3)
Since 52 (that is, n8) is within 10 % of 50 (that is, n o), 52
samples should be selected for analysis.
2
5
D 5231 – 92 (2003)
ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.
This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.
This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or [email protected] (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org).
6