[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
I I I I I I I I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF A 240 TONS/DAY WASTE-TO-ENERGY POWER PLANT ON CABRAS ISLAND, GUAM by GEOFFREY K. BURKE, P.E. Post Office Box 7233 Tamuning, Guam 96911 For The Guam Energy Office DR. DOUGLAS R. SMITH, Director Funded by Grant Number NA-83-AAD-CZ022 Provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA September, 1984 Table of Contents SECTION TITLE PAGE One Introduction 1 Purpose and Need I Background I Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Government Interrelationships 6 Concerns and Issues 7 Two Alternatives 8 Three Environmental Quality Factors 10 Four Environmental Impacts 12 A. Proposed Project 12 B. Cabras Steam Plant 20 C. Status Quo 21 Five Consultation and Coordination 23 Six Findings Recommended References 26 Appendix I Resource Recovery Activities Report 27 Appendix II Cabras Island Map 46 Appendix III GEPA Air Pollution Control Standards 48 Chapter 9: Control of Particulate Emission from Incineration 49 Chapter 10: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources 51 Chapter 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards 53 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION Purpose and Need This environmental assessment is intended to ascertain the environmental effects of the operation of a 240 ton per day, municipal solid waste incinerator making steam which drives a turbine generator to produce the equivalent of 4.5 MW of electrical power at or near the Cabras Power Plant. The environmental effects of the proposed projects should be understood prior to the committment of considerable resources toward their construction. The net effect of this proposed project is to reduce the burden on the Ordot and military landfills, by reducing volume to one-fifth the municipal solid waste (MSW) volume, thereby extending the landfill lives five fold, and by recovering electrical or steam energy to reduce electrical power consumption. Secondary effects include reducing operational problems associated with the Ordot landfill i.e. odors, top soil use, erosion, combustion of buried MSW, rodents, and flies. Background This recent history of the waste-to-energy plant begins during the mid-1970's when the environmental quality and energy crisis concerns converged. This situation helped to develop, what were then called, re- source recovery processes. There were about five general approaches to converting solid waste into energy, usually with front end material recovery for such materials as aluminum. These processes were: 1. Water-walled Incinerators: These units burn unprocessed solid waste to generate steam usually for manufacturing processes or heating of buildings. This concept has been in wide use throughout Europe for several decades and is known as the Von Roll process. The Wheelabrator-Frye company has marketed their refuse boiler in the U.S. using this technique. 2. Shredded Waste: In this process, refuse is shredded and separated into light (organic) and heavy (inorganic) frac- tions. The light fraction is used as a fuel substitute in utility and industrial furnaces. It has been used primarily in coal-burning utility boilers such as at the Union Electric Company St. Louis plant. The use of this process in oil burning utility boilers requires major new investment in particulate emission control devices and ash removal facili- ties. Considerable added investment in boiler modifications, and the absence of alkaline ash components from coal, pose a corrosion threat to boiler tubes in existing oil-fired plants that are retrofitted to use this process. 3. Pulped Waste: This technique blends the refuse into a wet pulp and then separates the organic and inorganic fractions. The organic fraction is dewatered and burned, or some of it may be recovered as fiber. The Black Clawson company has pio- neered this wet-pulped refuse derived fuel (RDF) process. The process is geared for front end resource recovery. It affords a higher single pass recovery of the organic fraction from municipal solid waste (MSW) than the standard air classifica- tion technique, and the resulting RDF is of more uniform 2 quality. However, the elimination of water from the pressed pulp carries a heavy energy loss penalty. The pressed product still contains about 50% moisture content, and thus requires a specially designed furnace for combustion that is not as efficient as dry processing. The pulp can be dried to 20% moisture content in a three-stage rotary drier, and then pulverized or pelleted. But, these steps take much energy away as station losses from the final energy product. 4. Pyrolysis: Consists of the chemical decomposition of MSW in a high temperature and controlled oxygen atmosphere, yielding oil or gas, which, in turn, is burned in an afterburner or conventional boiler. Several patented pyrolysis techniques have been promoted. These include the Monsanto Langard Pyrolisis System (1,000 tons per day (TPD), plant in Baltimore), the Occidental "Flash Pyrolysis" process (2,000 TPD demonstration plant in San Diego), the Carborundum Torrax System, and the Union Carbide Purox System. Most of these processes use some resource separation and recovery either in front of, or as an output of, the pyrolysis. 5. Methane Generation: Methane gas is produced by the decom- position of the organic wastes in MSW in this process. The methane is burned as gaseous fuel for conventional boilers. There are readily available organic waste sources that do not have such a high non-organic composition as MSW. And, con- versely, MSW is a better incineration material than methane gas source. Since 1975, landfill methane gas recovery has become the prime methane recovery technique. It is a tech- nique usually retrofitted to landfills to recovery energy from previous MSW deposits. As of 1983, there were 26 municipal landfill methane gas recovery projects in the U.S., versus two 3 methane and one ethanol gas recovery operations producing fuel outside of landfills. The average production per landfill is about 2 MW. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Resource Recovery Activities report appearing in the September /October 1983 issue of "City Currents" lists the existing Resource Recovery Facilities in the U.S. and is contained in Appendix I. We can see from this list that the present trend in resource recovery is for the mass burning of MSW in modular incinerators to produce process steam or electricity (60 of 90 facilities), while another 19 facilities shred and employ front end resource recovery before burning the Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) to generate steam or elec- tricity. Of the remaining 11 facilities, two use the methane generation process, one produces ethanol, one facility employs the wet pulp method, and no facilities are listed using the pyrolysis incineration technique. One other 1980's development that should be noted from this listing is the use of smaller modular incinerators to mass burn MSW. Thirteen of the 60 modular incinerators are between 7 (TPD) and 60 (TPD) in capa- city, and another 13 of these units are between 72 and 125 TPD. Thus, mass burning modular incinerators are being matched to the community's MSW disposal and energy end user's needs. This enables a more efficient pairing of MSW source with energy end user. The Guam Energy Office, during 1978 - 1982 negotiated with Inter Energy Inc. of New York to build a waste-to-energy power plant near the Cabras Power Plant site. The waste-to-energy plant would tie into the Island- wide Power System electrical distribution grid at the Cabras substation and was proposed to have common use of the Cabras Unit infrastructure. The project was to be in conjunction with the construction and operation of a land-based Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) power plant at 4 Cabras. The OTEC was to be in the range of 50-100 Megawatts (MW) while the waste-to-energy plant was estimated to produce 4 MW and burn 200 TPD of MSW. The waste-to-energy plant was to be constructed first, in about 1983. The waste-to-energy facility recently was resurrected when officials from Inter Energy Inc. revisited Guam in 1984. In meetings with the Governor and with the Director of the Guam Energy Office, plans were again discussed for Inter Energy Inc. to construct and operate a 200 - 240 TPD, water walled incinerator plant at the Cabras site. The plant was estimated to produce the equivalent of between 4 and 5 megawatts of power per day. It would employ a baghouse and ash quench pit with ash and flyash disposal at the Ordot and/or Navy Landfill to control emis- sions of these pollutants from the facility. If necessary, gaseous emissions would be scrubbed out to meet allowable ambient air quality standards of the Guam Environmental Protection Agency. There are no emission standards for gaseous pollutants for Guam except for SO X. The facility would cost about 15 million dollars to construct and about 3 million dollars a year to operate. Revenues from electrical power sales to the IWPS would be about 2 million dollars per year. The shortfall of $1,000,000 per year in cash flow would be raised with a $13-14 per ton tipping fee paid to the plant operator by private and public collectors, including the military collectors, delivering MSW to the facility. Of course the Ordot landfill would have to limit acceptance of trash by these public and private collectors or impose a landfill tipping fee of its own. The simpler solution would be for GPA to accept a higher cogeneration sales rate. i.e. 11@/XWH would provide profitability with no tipping fee. The proposed site of the waste-to-energy facility, as previously men- tioned, is behind or next to Unit #2 of the Cabras Power Plant. This site would require some filling and compacting before laying the ele- 5 vated concrete tipping f loor. Also, a paved access road, capable of handling the MSW collection vehicles, would be needed. For the purposes of this environmental assessment, the proposed waste-to-energy plant site is assumed to be directly adjacent to Cabras Unit #2. A location map of the proposed waste-to-energy plant is contained in Appendix II. Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Government Interrelationships Foremost in existing laws and regulations impacting on the proposed facility are the air and water pollution control regulations promulgated and enforced by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency. The air pollution control regulations are probably the standards most impacting on the facility. Chapters Nine, titled, "Control of Particulate Emis- sion from Incinerator: Design and Operation", and Fifteen, "Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources", concern the air pollution control regulations governing the facility as an air emission source. These chapters are included in Appendix III. Water pollution control standards are not as critical to this facility which will discharge less water effluent than effluents from the nearby Piti Plant Units #2 and #3 that will be phased out during the 1980's. Likewise, a similar permit must be obtained from the GEPA for air, water, and aquifer clearances. Several other governmental regulations must be addressed by consulting with the responsible agency to obtain the applicable clearances. These include, historical preservation (DPR), fish and wildlife habitat pro- tection (Dept. Agr.) endangered species clearances (Dept. Agr., and U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife), Coastal Zone Management, (Bureau of Planning), and Zoning (TPC). However, none of these regulations appear to be adversely impacted by this facility that is to be placed on the 6 grounds of an existing power plant whose output is many times that of the proposed facility and which is located in a higly disturbed tidal area that was filled during the construction of the Cabras Plant in 1972-73. This area is noted on the site map in Appendix II. Clearances and coordination must be made to the IWPS for connection to the power grid, and specifically with GPA regarding cogeneration sales to the utility. Also, "tipping fee" laws need to be passed to insure MSW collectors to deposit their loads at the waste-to-energy facility. Federal cooperation is needed from the Navy for their MSW collections to be dumped at the waste-to-energy plant. Of course, a DPW Building Permit must be obtained and Business Licenses and an Employer Identifi- cation Number obtained from the Dept. of Revenue and Taxation and from the U.S. IRS, respectively. Concerns and Issues Many of the concerns and issues regarding this facility have been ad- dressed in the preceeding subsection. The overall effect of this faci- lity is very positive in that it is recovering energy from the MSW while significantly, reducing the volume of material going into the Ordot and military landfills. This extends the life of these facilities about fivefold, and reduces operational problems, and costs. These environ- mental benefits will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections, but suffice to say that public concerns and issues will pre- dominantly center on increased collection costs and an increase in enforcement against illegal dumpers and dumps. There will be several opportunities for public involvement prior to the construction of the facility and during it's operation, especially during the permit and clearance application processes described in the previous subsection. 7 SECTION TWO ALTERNATIVES As with any proposed change of this magnitude, there are several alter- natives to the proposed project. The most probable alternative are: A. The proposed project, that of constructing a 240 tons per day (TPD) water-walled incinerator coupled with a turbine-gene- rator producing approximately 4.5 megawatts and located next to the Cabras Power Plant. B. The use of a 240 TPD water-walled incinerator tied into the Cabras boiler feedwater loop to preheat the feedwater before going to the Cabras boiler, thereby increasing the efficiency of the Cabras units. The facility would be located adjacent to the Cabras Power Plant. This is a close variation of the proposed project. C. No action being taken resulting in the military and Ordot landfills being used for MSW disposal. D. The present status being maintained as described in Alterna- tive C with the addition of methane gas extraction from the buried MSW at the Ordot and Navy landfills to directly power electrical generators on site that are tied into the IWPS power grid on a cogeneration arrangement. E. The use of several, modular, mass fired, incinerators coupled to boilers and turbine generators providing electrical power 8 to large, point source, electrical power consumers such as the shopping centers. F. Using small modular incinerator facilities as described in Alternative E at MSW Transfer Stations located in the villages. 9 SECTION TM?EE ENVIROMIENTAL QUALITY FACTORS There are many environmental qualities that should be considered. These include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Facility Air Pollution a. Particulate Emissions b. Gaseous (SO X@ HC@ NO X9 CO and Photochemical Oxidants) C. Thermal d. Fugitive Dust e. Odor 2. Facility Water Pollution a. Runoff b. Wastewater C. Condensing (cooling) Water/Thermal d. Blowdown/Washdown 3. Noise Pollution a. Collection Vehicles b. Loaders C. Plant Equipment 4. Collection Vehicle Pollution a. Gas/Oil b. Exhaust Emissions C. Odors d. Fugitive MSW 10 5. Wildlife and Habitat 6. Aquifer 7. Material Resources a. Collection Vehicles b. Roadwear C. Gas/Oil Vehicles d. Fuel Oil e. Electrical Energy (Includes IWPS resources to produce this energy.) 8. Human Environment a. Economics (money) Standard of Living b. Historic Preservation C. Recreation SECTION FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section will evaluate in detail the environmental quality affected by the proposed project described in the preceeding Section as Alterna- tive A. The variation of the proposed project, listed as Alternative B will be evaluated similarly. The environmental quality impacted by the remaining alternatives will not be evaluated. A. Proposed Project 1. Facility Air Pollution a. Particulate Emissions - Significant particulate emissions are produced by water-walled incineration of MSW. These emissions, if uncontrolled, would probably violate the air emission standards of the GEPA. However, ambient and emission quality standards can be maintained by using a baghouse which can achieve 98% - 99% collection efficiency. However, when the baghouse is down for repair, plant operation must be curtailed to prevent adverse point source particulate pollution from the facility. The emission standard for incinerators is .2 pounds per 100 pounds of refuse burned. b. Gaseous Emissions (SO X1 HC, NO X9 photochemical oxidants, CO) - The incineration of MSW produces less sulfur dioxide per unit of energy than the 12 - existing power plant emissions of Cabras and Piti. NO formation is limited due to the lower incinera- X tor combustion atmosphere temperature which is below the ideal formation temperature for NO X. Emissions of CO are even lower. 50 TPD plants have tested at NOxlevels below 200 ppm and CO levels below 50 ppm. Therefore, no significant deterioration in the air quality of the Cabras - Piti area would result from the proposed project. In fact, the air quality should improve as emissions from the Piti plant are replaced by the overall cleaner emission of the proposed facility, which would result in a net de- crease in the emission of these pollutants in the area. There are no emission standards for CO, NO x or HC. Guam (GEPA) only has ambient air quality standards for these pollutants. These Ambient Air Quality Standards are listed in Appendix III. C. Thermal - There would be a net increase in air thermal loading of the immediate area due to the slightly lower thermal efficiency of the proposed facility. However, that net increase is less than can be detected by an individual at the property line boundary of the Cabras Island Road. Thus this environmental quality factor is not significantly compromised by the proposed facility. d. Fugitive Dust - There will undoubtably be an in- crease in fugitive dust in the area, however, when compared with the reduction of activity and fugitive dust emissions at the landfills, the overall effect of the proposed facility will be a net reduction in fugitive dust emissions between the facility and 13 - landfills. Mitigation of fugitive dust can have significant results at the proposed facility site by paving all vehicle travel surfaces, quenching ash in a wet pit and keeping the ash wet and covered until deposited at the landfill. e. Odor - Odors will not be a major problem at the site. Again, the odor emission of the facility will be less than odors produced by the landfill opera- tions, especially those from Ordot. Also, as the inert ash replaces the odorous MSW at the landfills, the odors at the landfills will be less over time. It should be noted that the main reason for a lack of odors from the facility is that the MSW is inci- nerated about as fast as it is delivered. The longest residence time of MSW at the proposed faci- lity is less than three days. The average residence time of MSW is measured in hours before it is re- duced to an inert ash. The incineration is wain- tained above 1200 degrees F. No odors are produced from MSW at a temperature above 1200 degrees F. Therefore, the incineration of MSW by the facility will not produce odors. MSW waste-to-energy plants in operation throughout the U.S. have no significant odors from operation. Conversely, landfills have significant decomposition of MSW over a long period of time. There will be no significant odor pollu- tion from the proposed facility. 2. Facility Water Pollution a. Storm Runoff - There will be more organic material in storm runoff from the access apron road and turn around area due to occasional MSW spills. This may result in the mild bacteriological contamination of runoff water. Again, this potential pollution effect will be less than the existing pollution by runoff at the Ordot landfill. The spillage will be 14 - insignificant compared to wholesale MSW landfilling. The tipping floor will be located inside a Butler type warehouse with drainage from the tipping floor going to the ash quenching pit. The residue water is evaporated or taken out with the ash as the moisturizer. Therefore, no significant pollution is anticipated from this storm runoff. b. Wastewater - Sanitation wastewater will not be a significant pollution factor since the facility will be connected to the Cabras sewer line. C. Condenser Cooling Water/Thermal - The seawater cooling loop for the condenser will be similar to those used at the Piti and Cabras Plants. The net pollution will be negligible from this source since it will essentially replace the cooling water dis- charge from the adjacent Piti Units it is replacing in generating capacity. The Piti Plant has had as much as 75 MW of operational capacity. The con- denser cooling water flow with the proposed facility and Piti units will be less than the flow with the previous Piti Plant capacity. The condenser piping will be new and not as corroded as the existing Piti Plant piping, so metal contamination should also be less with the proposed facility on line. No adverse impact is expected from this source. d. Blowdown/Washdown - The collection, and loader vehicle and tipping floor washdown water will be funneled to the ash pit. The ash pit will not pose a contamination problem. Facility equipment blow- down (boiler) will be vented to the ash pit also. 15 - Therefore, w sources. sh from venting b, could be piped sump. 3. Noise Pollution - The Cab. industrial zoned area with o stalled electrical generating ca, the Commercial Port in the immec proposed facility. The combined noi. facility's operation is miniscule in existing noise level of the area. The noist, from the proposed facility is insignificant. 4. Collection Vehicle Pollution - The net added pollution caused by the collection vehicles delivering to the proposed facility is a function of its location in rela- tion to the collection truck routes and the Ordot and Navy landfills. The Naval Station landfill is 5.5 miles and the Ordot landfill is 9.0 miles from the proposed facility. In the case of collection trucks, many of them pass close to the proposed facility on their way to their respective landfills along Marine Drive. The Municipal Solid Waste Energy Conversion Study pre- pared by Barrett, Harris and Associates, Inc. noted the 1983 quantities of MSW generated on Guam in yd 3 and, based on density, the tons per day collected. According to this information, and that of recent consultations, Commercial Sanitation collection vehicles total about 14 trips per day, Basula vehicles 2 trips per day, and DPW vehicles 14 trips per day. Assume Navy PW vehicles at 10 - 16 - trips per day. Private construction commercial and private trips are estimated to total an equivalent of 20 collection vehicle trips. This makes an estimated total of 60 trips per day for the proposed facility. Assuming 10 of the trips displace those for the Navy landfill from the Naval Station, Naval Magazine and Apra Heights. Another 40 trips per day are assumed to be from Northern and Eastern Guam displaced from the Ordot landfill to the proposed facility. 5.5 miles x 10 trips = 55 vehicle miles 9.0 miles x 40 trips = 360 vehicle miles Total: 415 vehicle miles per day This is the collection vehicle estimated additional pollution potential caused by the proposed facility. This environmental impact is measurable, but again not very significant in motor fuel and oil spillage. The same insignificance applies to the other pollution fac- tors of exhaust emissions, odors and fugitive MSW asso- ciated with increased collection vehicle mileage. 5. Wildlife and Habitat - The proposed facility is to be located in a heavily disturbed area next to fuel tanks, transmission lines and power plants. Further investiga- tion of the proposed site by officials of the the Department of Agriculture, Aquatic and Wildlife Division is needed before construction. However, initial obser- vation indicates insignificant impact on wildlife and habitat at the proposed facility site. 17 - 6. Aquifer - The proposed facility location does not impact on the aquifer of Northern Guam. Therefore, no adverse impact on this environmental quality factor caused by the proposed facility. 7. Material Resourses a. Collection Vehicle Repairs - By replacing the worn road and soft shoulder and dusty and muddy condi- tions of the landfills, with the concrete tipping floor and paved access of the proposed plant, col- lection vehicle maintenance will require fewer repairs and materials. The net effect of the faci- lity on this factor is an improvement. b. Roadwear - The additional 415 vehicle miles per day by collection vehicles is again very insignificant in road wear characteristics considering the few vehicle miles as compared with total vehicle miles on Guam, less than k of one percent of total vehicle miles traveled daily on Guam. C. Gas/Oil - Similarily, the extra 415 vehicle miles per day plus about 80 vehicle miles per day for the ash truck equals 495 vehicle miles per day at about 14 miles per gallon equals about 35 gallons per day in additional vehicle fuel required by the proposed facility. Again, this is insignificant in terms of the total motor vehicle fuel use per day on Guam. d. Fuel Oil - The proposed facility generating at 4.5 megawatts per hour x 24 hours per day x 330 days per year equals 35,640,000 KWH/year saved in generation. - 18 - At an average rate for the IWPS of 13.0 KWH/gallon, this amounts to a residual fuel oil savings for the IWPS of 2,741,538.5 gallons. This is quite an environmental improvement in fuel oil savings. e. Electrical Energy - The aforementioned estimated savings in KWH/year equals 35,640,000. The savings in generation enables the retirement of older, power generating capacity with resultant savings in repair materials and other material resources. This is a significant improvement in this material resource factor. 8. Human Environment a. Economics/ Standard of Living - This factor would be enhanced by the proposed facility. The waste-to- energy plant would directly employ about 30 people. The added MSW collection effort anticipated would employ another six people. Additionally, the cash flow from the proposed facility operations would have a greater turnover on every dollar spent (i.e. about 7 to 1), since the resource is locally ge- nerated versus for foreign supply of residual fuel oil, the payment for which, leaves the island with much less left on Guam and with much less turnover of every dollar (i.e. about 3 to 1). A large seg- ment of the fuel savings is transferred into wages of the employees of the proposed facility, and into supplies and utilities, all of which are locally supplied. The dollar savings in KWH supplied by the proposed facility amounts to $2,851,200 a year. b. Historic Preservation - In consultation with the 19 - Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Preser- vation Section, it appears the proposed site does not pose any threat to historic preservation activi- ties. A clearance in this matter from the Depart- ment is required prior to the construction of the facility, but it is not anticipated that this factor is compromised. C. Recreation - There is no recreational activity conducted at the proposed facility site. Therefore this environmental factor is not affected. B. Cabras Steam Plant This alternative comprises a 240 TPD water-walled mass incine- rator tied into the Cabras I and II Unit boiler feedwater loop to preheat the feedwater and thereby increase the efficiency, and hence fuel requirements of the Cabras units. This variation of the proposed project is nearly the same in environmental effects except for the lack of need of a con- denser and thus, condenser water/thermal discharges and pol- lution effects would be eliminated. This variation does not require as much capital investment and hence material resource depletion for equipment in that elec- trical switchgear, condenser and condensing water pumps and piping, turbine-generator and some structural components will not be needed with this alternative. Also, wastewater and blowdown can be connected to the Cabras plant sewer more readily, and water treatment equipment of Cabras would main- 20 - tain the circulation water quality. Therefore, capital in- vestment in material resources would be less. However, the technical merits of this alternative are questionable. The Cabras Units are very efficient and coorespondingly complex. Feedwater preheating is limited. Too much will upset the turbine-boiler balance, probably losing turbine efficiency at a greater loss in plant efficiency than can be saved in fuel consumption. It appears this feedwater heating "window" is too narrow to capitalize on. This technique may be more feasibile with Piti Units 4 and 5 or 2 and 3, but probably still not as feasible as Alternative A. C. Status Quo Failure to take any action will result in significant environ- mental pollution and resource waste to continue. As mentioned in the anlysis for the projected facility, the energy recovery of the MSW will be lost. Without the proposed facility, or its alternative, the environmental problems produced by land- filling, in particular those of the Ordot landfill, will continue. The Ordot landfill has, and will continue to have, occasional burning of MSW inside the landfill, producing pungent gaseous pollutants and particulate emissions. The fugutive dust produced at the landfills, and wind blown dust and debris will continue to be more than that produced with the proposed facility in operation. Ordors from the organic decay of MSW will increase at a greater rate, and this will continue to offer a habitat for flies, roaches and rodents and other scavaging animals. MSW is not a natural habitat for wildlife. 21 - Although, the Ordot landfill is not listed as a water pollu- tion source, its runoff and percolation produce wastewater entering the river valley below. Flying debris will continue to litter the roadway to the landfill through Ordot village including past the church and school. Greater wildlife and habitat disturbance is made by the Ordot landfill operation than the proposed facility would. Most important, each and every year without the proposed facility in operation, the IWPS power plants will continue to burn about 2,750,000 gallons of high sulfur residual fuel oil to produce about 35,640,000 KWH, spending more than $3,000,000 to produce this energy. These numbers and wastage will in- crease at a rate of 3% per year as additional MSW is gene- rated. 22 - SECTION FIVE CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Consultations and coordination efforts required before implementing construction of the proposed facility have been identified in the first Section of this assessment. This Section describes the primary environ- mental clearances required. A. State Historic Preservation - September 14, 1984 conversation with Mr. Richard Davis, Historic Preservation Officer, Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation. Once the site has been iden- tified by parcel and lot in accordance with Department of Land Management policies, a letter describing the site must be sent to the Department of Parks and Recreation denoting any pre- vious disturbance of the proposed site and including a des- cription of the present condition of the site. The developer will then receive a written clearance after site inspection by a representative of the Section. B. Fish and Wildlife Coordination - September 14, 1984 conver- sation with Mr. Anderson, Aquatic and Wildlife Division, Department of Agriculture. Developer must send a letter to Mr. Harry Kami, Chief of Aquatic and Wildlife Division, iden- tifying site and proposed project. After site inspection, written comments will be given to the developer identifying precautions, if any, which need to be taken. C. Endangered Species Clearance - September 14, 1984 conversation with Mr. Anderson. Actions to take are same as in Item B. In 23 - addition, clearance is required from U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, due to the fact that many of Guam's bird species are now on the U.S. Endangered Species List. D. Coastal Zone Management - September 14, 1984 conversation with Mr. Mike Hamm, Coastal Zone Manager, Bureau of Planning. The CZM clearance application form must be completed by the de- veloper prior to construction. Coastal Zone Manager will then provide written comments on procedures to be complied with. E. Aquifer Clearance - September 13, 1984 conversation with Mr. Gary Stillberger, Guam Environmental Protection Agency. The proposed site is not in the Northern aquifer area. Therefore, no clearance is required. F. Guam Air and Water Pollution Control Permits - September 14, 1984 meeting with Mr. Gary Stillberger. Air and Water Pollu- tion Control Permits must be obtained before initiating con- struction. Developer must complete and submit permit appli- cation forms which can be obtained from the GEPA office in Harmon. There are other clearances, permits and licenses required of the de- veloper prior to initiating construction and/or operation. These re- quirements have been briefly outlined in Section One. -24 - SECTION SIX FINDINGS It is the finding of this Environmental Assessment that the proposed facility would result in a significant environmental improvement over the present action of landfilling of MSW. Particulate emissions pose the greatest environmental concern from the proposed facility, but the planned use of a baghouse with ash removal will mitigate this potential pollution source. Planned conformance of the facility to the GEPA permit conditions will not result in any significant adverse environ- mental impact. Overall, when compared with the reduction in landfill environmental pollution caused by the operation of the proposed faci- lity, a significant environmental quality improvement will be achieved by the operation of the proposed facility. Therefore, in conformance with the requirements of the National Environ- mental Policy Act and the regulations governing Environmental Assess- ments, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) has been made for the proposed facility, both for Alternative A and B of the proposed project as listed in Section Two of this Environmental Assessment. Alternative A appears to be more feasible than Alternative B when con- sidering the technical aspects of coupling into an existing steam plant of the IWPS. 25 - RECOMMENDED REFERENCES by Title Beverage Container Report, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, May 1984. City Currents, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington D.C., September/ October 1983 and 1984 issues. Guam Air Pollution Control Standards and Regulations, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, adopted November 18, 1971. Guam Solid Waste Management Plan, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, December, 1981, revised May 1984. Hotline, Consumat Systems Inc., Richmond Virginia. Municipal Solid Waste Energy Conversion Study for Guam and American Samoa, Barrett, Harris and Associates, Inc. in associa- tion with Gibbs and Hill, Inc. , Honolulu, Hawaii, March 1984. Solid Waste Management and Resources Recovery Feasibility Study For The Territory of Guam, Dames and Moore, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 1978. Solid Waste Management In The Territory of Guam, Harry R. Little, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1969. Solid Waste Status Report, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, January 1975. 26 - I I I APPENDEX I I I Resource Recovery Activities Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 27 - I C773 C-f. Ci _1U-S AS EtTERGY PRODUCERS Sr-_-TE.V3EFL/OK_-TOBER l9e_3 Report on Lf@ Semiannual Survey: This issue of City Currents is devoted to the "Resource largest is a 3000 TPD plant. Of the facilities that are now Recovery Activities" report, giving the results of the semi- operating or in shakedown, 40 fall into the size range of less annual survey of resource recovery projects conducted by the than 500 TPD. Seven are in the medium-size category, between U.S. Conference of Mayors. This survey reports a total of 98 500 and 1000 TPD, while 10 have design capacity of 1000 TPD facilities in the 11nited States that are operating, in shakedown, or more. A breakdown according to status reveals 52 facilities under construction or nearing construction. Five plants are operating, 5 in shakedown, 11 under construction, and 22 near- reported operating in Canada. ing construction stages. In addition, the report lists 90 com- These resource recovery facilities vary widely in size; the munities that are in earlier planning stages for resource smallest listed processes seven tons per day (TPD), while the recovery projects. The listing also includes eight facilities that have suspended operations for a variety of technical and economic reasons. Tax Legislatio About half of these facilities are expected to resume opera- Semite Committee Reports tions in the future. In terms of processing capacity, the plants that are now operating and in shakedown have a combined design capacity Leasirig Bill; House Partel of about 27,000 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day. The facilities under construction and nearing construction Restricts Use of IDBs stages will add another 31,000 TPD of design capacity. Using On October 31, 1993. the Senate Finance Committee the EPA estimate of 150 million tons of MSW per year reported out S.2062, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1983. generated in the U.S., this combined total of 58,000 tons per This omnibus bill includes the provisions of S.1564, the Senate day is roughly one-eighth of the estimated daily MSW genera- leasing bill. Sections 131-132 of the bill include restrictions of tion in the United States. tax benefits that before were available for property used by The second section of Resource Recovery Activities reports tax-exempt entities. These provisions, by redefining the distinc- on projects to recover methane-containing gas from existing tion between a "lease" and a "service contract," would have landfills. This gas, which is about half methane and half car- severely restricted traditional urban waste-to-energy develop- bon dioxide, can be used as-is, often to power electrical ment. Working with the Senate Finance staff, the U.S. Con- generators, or it can be cleaned to pipeline quality and used ference of Mayors and the National Resource Recovery Asso- as a substitute for natural gas. Landfill gas recovery began ciation devised a special rule for solid waste disposal facilities, in California about 1975; most of the projects are still located cogeneration and alternative energy facilities, clean water there, but the practice has begun to spread to other parts of gas projects and energy mariagement services. The special rule will the country in recent years. This issue reports 26 landfi. allow private firms to continue their development of these recovery projects in the United States and one in Canada. (For projects for public entities and to retain tax benefits that are more information on landfill gas recovery, see an article in the essential for their economic feasibility. July/Aug-ust issue of City Currents.) In order for a facility to qualify as a service contract, and This semiannual report is made possible by the continuing thereby retain tax benefits, the tax-exempt entity cannot: cooperation of the project managers, solid waste officials, � operate the facility; equipment suppliers, systems contractors, consultants and � bear any significant financial burden if there is non- others who respond to our inquiries. The Conference of Mayors performance under the contract (other than for reasons is grateful for their cooperation. We welcome comments on beyond the control of the'service provider); Resource Recovery Activities and we invite information on any � receive any significant financial benefit if operating costs projects that may have been omitted, so that we may include of the facility are reduced as the result of technological them in future issues. changes or other effeciencies introduced by the service provider; or � have an option to purchase, or be required to purchase, NEW TELEPHONE NUMBER all or a port of the facility at a fixed and determinable price (other than at fair market value). The Conference of Mayors is installing a new tele- phone system. Beginning on November 21, 1983, all calls A tax-exempt entity, however, still has the right to inspect the facility, exercise its sovereign power, and to'act in the event should go through the Conference's main number: (202) of a.breach of contract. Furthermore, cities will be able to 293-7330. receive revenues from energy sales without jeopardizing the Until November 21, calls dealing with City Currents, facilities' status under this special rule. resource recovery, and other programs of the Office of S-2062 was also reported out of the Budget Committee Development Programs should continue to use (202) S" LEGISLATION page 20 293-7520. v@,T@m@@ c-rjtq-rc@ --)c wiAvr@ oc . -C28X-V 'ZMr@`r M %AF 1A;Av;4wr_,TnN T-) (- --A@ A- LL@ N dw Resource Recovery Activities, a reporl on resource recovery facilities in the United States and Canada, is compiled twice a year by the United States Conference of Mayors and is published in City Currents in the March/April and September/October issues. The report is broken into three segments: (1) facilities that are operating, under contruction or nearing construction stages to recover materials and energy from municipal solid waste; (2) projects that recover methane gas from municipal solid waste landfills; and (3) jurisdictions that report being committed to some form of resource recovery, with facilities in various planning stages. The list does not include the growing number of communities that conduct source separation programs and/or magnetically separate ferrous metals from mixed refuse. Although every effort has been made to ensure that the report is complete and current, the status of many of the projects can change at any time. For clarification or additional information on a specific facility, we suggest that you write directly to the source given for that listing. If you are aware of any planned or operating facilities that are not lisled'in this reporl, we would welcome information for inclusion in future reports. The Conference of MaVors is grateful for the contributions and cooperation of each project representative, as well as stale and local officials and industry representatives who have helped us to compile this information. Materials and Energy Recovery Facilities Location and Capital Major Products & Capactty* Costs Participants Processes Uses lions per day) IS millions) Status Source ALABAMA Huntsville Mass burning in modular Steam for heating & 50 3.2 In shakedown Jimmy Stevens (Redstone Arsenal) incinerator process Resident Engineer's U, S Army: Redstone Office A,senal (owner & U.S. Army Corps ol ozierator), Sanders & Engineers Inomas. Inc (designer) P.O. Box 8162 IMir Kelley Co Redstone Arsenal, Ala 35808 Tuscaloosa Mass burning in modular Steam for process & 300 8.5 Under construction: start- Charles Orr Tuscaloosa Solid Waste incinerator heating by B.F. Goodrich up expected in 1/84 Almon Associates Authority: Consumai Co P.O. Drawer 2729 Systems. Inc Tuscaloosa, Ala 35403 wesigneri. Almon & Associates (mfr Consumat) ARKANSAS Batesville Mass burning in modular Steam D-50 1 2 Opetationat since 5/81 Jim Shirrell, Mayor City incinerator 7-41. Municipal Bldg (Mfr- Consurnau 170 S. Forth Sl Batesville, Ark. 75201 'D = Design cat3actiy. 7 Actual throughput (recent average) -2T Lo:aiion and caprIal Malor Procucts & c3pacity, Costs Panicipants Processes Uses (tons per day) (S millions) Stalull Source ARKANSAS (cont'd) r' North Little Roch Mass burning in modular Steam !or use Uy Kop- D-100 45 since 9/77 Gene Green Cay (owner)* incinerator pers Cc (wood trealing) T-100 Consumat Systems, In., U.S Recycl@ Corp.@ P.O. Box 3457 Consumal Systems, North Lillie Rock. Ark Inc. (operator) 72117 (Mtr: Consumal) Osceola Mass burning in modular Steam for heating & pro- D-50 1.2 Operational since 1/80 R.E. Prewin, Mayor City (owner); Consumal incinerator cess at Crompton Osceola T-48 City Hall Systems, Inc. Co. (textile mfg) Osceola, Ark. 72370 (operator) (Mir: Consumal) CALIFORNIA r Sussinville Ma:s burning of Steam & electricity for 96 4.1 Under construction; start- Dr. Warren Sorensen use by College: excess up expected in early President Lassen Community 141, municipal waste and lege@ Lassen County; wood chips: electricity electricity sold to utility, 1984 Lassen Community Lahontan Alternative generation excess steam sold to College Energy Systems (proj- industry P.O. Box 3000 ect mgr); Koepf & Lang Susanville. Calif. 96130 (omesigner); Bruun & Sorensen CONNECTICUT Bridgeport Shredding, air classifica- Eco-FuelQ 11 (powdered 1800 53 Plant is closed due to Lynn C. Healey Conn. Resources tion, wagnetic separation, fuel) for use in utility CEA's financial dif- Executive Assistant Recovery Aulh.,. Oc- Eco-FuefO -11 production boiler. ferrous metals ficulties: negotiations Conn. Resources cidental Petroleum process with Occidental concluded Recovery Authority Corp. and Combustion unsuccessfully: presently 179 Allyn St. Equipment Assoc. in arbitration Hartford, Conn. 06103 (aesigner/operalor); Greater Bridgeport Regional Solid Waste Commission Windham Mass burning in modular Steam D-108 4.125 Operational since Nov. Louise Guarnaccia' Town of Windham incinerator T-125 1981: steam was used First Selectman (Mir: Consurnal) by Kendall Co.: Kendall Town of Windham plant closed in Summer Town Office 1983: negotiations 979 Main St. proceeding with new Willmanlic, Conn. 06226 energy customer DELAWARE Wilmington Shredding, air classifir-a- RDF. ferrous & nonfer- 1,000 too 72.3 Construction completed: Pasquale S. Canzano Delaware Solid Waste lion, magnetic separation, rous metals: glass, municipal solid undergoing functional Chief Engineer Authority (owner); EPA: froth flotation. other hurnus* waste co-pro- testing: lull operation ex- Delaware Solid Waste Raytheon Service Co. mechanical separation: cessed with pecled in 1/84 Authority Idesi,neirloperatoir, aerobic digestion 350 tpd of P.O. Box 455 20% solids di- Dover. Del. 19901 gested sewage sludge FLORIDA Dade County HydraspoSaITM (Wet Electricity for sale to ulili. D-3000 165 Operalional since 1182 Dennis Carter, Asst JDadis County Solid pulping), magnetic and ly, ferrous metals. T-3000 County Manager Waste Resource other mechanical aluminum & other nonfer- Room 911 Recovery Plant) separation rous metals Dade County County (owner): Par- Courthouse sons & Whittemore. 73 W. Flagler St. Inc. (designer): fie- Miami, Fla. 33130 sources Recovery (Dade County). Inc. (sub- sidiary of Parsons & Whittemore) (operator) 30 U -ocation and Caphal airT Ploaucis Capacfty* Costs miciparils Processes Uses (tons per day) IS millions) Status Source ORIDA (rcont'd) o County Phase 1-materLais Phase I-lerrous metals, 750 4 (Priase 1) Phase I operating:Phase Peter M. Hoca0p (Banyan-Dade recovery & shrMaing aluminum. colof-sorled 10 (Phase 11 to be consiructed in Chief Mech. Enpr. Resource Recovery, Phase I I -gasification 'of glass, corrugated: Phase 11) 1984 Banyan Resource Ltd.) RDF to produce low Btu II-electricity, for sale to Recovery, Inc, Cade County: Banyan gas to fuel engine/ Fla. Power & Light Co. Suite 711 Resource Recovery, generators (8-9 MW) 7515 Greenville Ave. Inc. (develop, manage, Dallas, Texas 75231 design); Banyan-Dade Resource Recovery, Ltd. (own/operale) Lakeland Shredding. magnetic Steam to produce elec- D-3DO 5 Operational. processing Jack A. Libey City (operator and joint separation, burning ADF Incity for use by City of T-200 (for waste all of Lakeland's MSW Director, Power owner with Orlando with cut Lakeland and Orlando processing (approx. 200 tpd) Production Utility Commission), Utility Commission. ler- plant) Dept. of Electric & Water C.T. Main, Inc. (power rous metals Utilities plant designer): Homer IDOO E. Parker St. Slildn, Inc, (waste processing plant Lakeland, Fla. 33801 designer) 11airpor, Nml S tartion Mass burning Steam to, use by base 11-1 TPH 2,1 Ope,alional Mike McVann U.S. Navy (owner); and ships T-120 tons Code N43 Southem Technologies. per week (5 Naval Station Inc. (operator) days) Mayport, Fla. 32228 orange counly Stagging joyrolysis in- High temperature hot 100 15 Testing completed on Cad P. Gertz (Waft Disney World) cineration (Andco-Torrax) water for beating and simulated nuclear wastes Project Manager U.S. Dept. of Energy, cooling at Waft Disney and municipal waste: not U@S. Dept. of Energy klaho Operations Office, World operating due to untavor- 550 Second St. J d Creek Utilities able economics Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 (owner/ operator): dcy, Inc. Pinellas County Mass burning, Electricity for use by Fla. 2000 160 Fully operational since Don F. Acenbrack County; UOP, Inc. frechan" separation of Power Corp.. ferrous & 5/83; plans for expan-, Director, Solid Waste (owner/operator) metals after burning nonferrous metals Sion to 3000 tpd now Mgmt. Dept. underway, with construc- Pinellas County tion scheduled for early 2800 110 Ave. No. 1984 St. Petersburg, Fla. 33702 Pompano Beach Shredding, rnagnetic and Methane gas. carbon 50-100 3.65 Operational (demonstra- H.T.D. Sjoberg Waste Management, other mechanical separa- dioxide tion plant) Dir. of Resource Recovery Inc.: U.S. Dept. of lion, anaerobic digestion Waste Management, Inc. Energy: Jacobs of light traction with 10008 N. Dale Mabry Hwy. Ingineering Co. sewage sludge Suite 115 (designer) Tampa, FL 33618 Tampa Mass burning Electricity for use by 1000 63.5 (1981 Financing completed, Richard D. Garrity City (owner): Waste Tampa Electift Co. dollars) bonds sold: construction Urban Environmental Management, Inc, began in 4/83 with Coordinator (design/con- operation expected in City Hall Plaza struct/operate) 1986 5 North Tampa, Fla. 33602 HAWAII Honolulu Firing of RDF or mass Steam or electricity 1800 150-200 Contract negotiations Frank We, Chief ly and County of buming of MSW for underway with two Div. of Fteluse Collection nolulu generation of Steam or proposers Disposal eliectrictty -Dept. of Public Works City & County of Honolulu Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 31 _Dcation and capilai iV Procucts & Capacity' Costs a: liciparill pmesses Usei (tons per day) (S millions) Slatus Source .H 0 Bannock County Mass burning in modular Eiectricity for Idaho 2 DO Groundloreaking scheo. Ory Wilmot or 'ouniy, partnership of water-wall incinerators Power Corp: steam for uled for late 1983 with Paul Warner vVIDJAC Corp. and process use by FMC sianup in 1984 WIDJAC Corp. osier & Marshall/ Corp. 10604 N.E. 381h Place American Express Suite 222 Kirkland, Wash. 98033 ,owner/ operator) (boiler mfr: Detroit Stoker/Keeler Boiler) Burley Mass burning in modular Steam for J.R. Simplot D-50 1.5 Operational since 1/82 Doyle Cahoon Cassia County: Thermal Incinerator Ca (potato processing) T-50 Thermal Reduction Co.. eduction Co. Inc. (operator) P.O, Box 548 (Mir: Consumat) Heyburn, Idaho 83336 R ILLINOIS Chlu,o Mass burnIn, in water* Steam for process use D- 1100 13 Operational Emil N i,ro (Northwest Waste-bii- wall Incinerators. ferrous on-site and by Brach T-1250 Coordinating Engineer Energy FacMty) recovery from ash Candy Co., ferrous Dept. of Streets & Sanitation City; Metcalf & Eddy, (intermittent) metals Inc. (designer) Room 700, City Hall Chicago, Ill. 60602 chicage Shredding, air classdica- ROF for use by utility; 1000 19 Off-stream to review ex- (Sam as previous X outhwest Supple- tion, magnetic separation ferrous metals perience and evaluate listing) lentary Fuel Pro@ luture operations; deci- cessing Facgity) sions pending City'. Ralph M. Parson, Co. and Consiper. Townsend & Assoc. (designer) IOWA Ames Baling waste paper, RDF for use by utility, D-200 6.3 Operational since 9/75 Arnold Chantland. Dir. City; (owner/operalor); shredding, magnetic baled paper. ferrous T-180 Dept. of Public Works Gibbs, Hill. Durham & separation, air classifica- metals and aluminum City Hall Richardson. Inc. tion, screening. other 51h and Kellog St. (designer) mechanical separation Ames, Iowa 50010 KENTUCKY Csirinipbellsviflis Mass burning In modular Steam for process use by 100 4 (appx.) Construction to begin in Jim Cravens City (owner): combustion units Union Underwear Co. fall 1983, with start-up Deputy Executive Consurnal Systems, Inc. expected 1/85 Director (builder/operator) Campbellsville Housing (Mir: Consurnal) & Redevelopment Authority P.O. Box 459 Campbellsville. KY 42718 Knox Mass burning in modular Steam for healing & air 40 1-9 ConstrucWn completed, Paul E. Frye, Jr. J.S. Army (owner) incinerator conditioning at hospital but modifications needed Master Planner (Mir: Bumzol) before full-scale opera- ATZK-EH-PS tions can begin Ft. Knox, Ky. 40121 32 cr: 3"0 r, Capital 4110' Products Capacfty* Cests P a !If I @ a P..'s Processes Uses (ton& per day) (S millIons) Status Source a UISIANA Now Orleans Shredding, air classifica. Ferrous metals, D-770 9.1 Stiredoing.liariehinric and ClifforC Scineaux. Dir City@ Waste Manage- lion, magnetic and other aluminum, glass T-650 ferrous recovery opera- Dept. of Sanitation irrierl, Inc. (owne,1 mechanical separation tional: aluminum recovery City Hall optralor)@ National in shakedown: glass New Orleans, U. 70112 Center for Resource recovery discontinued Recovery, Inc. (ciesigner) MAJNE Aulurn Mass burning In modular Steam for lea, and pro- D,200 1,11 Operaliorial since 1111 Robert Bell City (owner); Consumal incinerator cess at Pioneer Plastics T-170 Public Works Systems, Inc. Auburn City Hall (operator) 45 Spring St. (Mtr: Consumat) Auburn, Maine 04210 MARYLAND Baltinion Mass burning in water- Electricity for sale to 2010 185 Construction (demolition Michael Gagliardo (Southwest Resource wall furnace. electricity Baltimore Gas & Electric (including of pyrolysis plant) began Northeast Maryland Recovetry Facility) generation, ferrous Co; ferrous metals escalation 11/82; revenue bonds Waste Disposal City: Baltimore County; recovery from ash during con- sold 1/83: operation ex- Authority Northeast Md- Waste struction pected 4/85 Redwood Center Disposal Authority; period) Suite 503 Baltimore Refuse 131 E. Redwood St. Energy Systems Co. (a Baltimore, Md. 21202 Signal RESCO partner- -pip) (owner/operator/ ?signeT) Battimore County Shredding. magnetic and RDF, ferrous metals, D- 1200 11.0 Operational; recovering Kenneth Cramer County: Maryland En- other mechanical glass T-850 ferrous metals and glass. Teledyne National vinonrrvental Service: separations producing shredded RDF; Padonia Centre, Ste. 401 Teledyne National All products marketed 30 E. Padonia Rd. (designer/ operator) Timonium, Md. 21D93 MASSACHUSETTS Braintree Mass burning in water- Steam (half of steam pro- D-240 2.8 Operational; currently Paul Jenner, Gen. Mgr. City (owner/operator); wall furnace duced used by Art & T-180 running one locile., while Braintree Thermal Camp. Dresser & Leather Co.) making modifications to Waste Reduction Center McKee Inc. (designer) the other Ivory Street Braintree, Mass. 02184 - East Bridgew3ter Shredding; air classillica- Eco-FuelO 11 for industrial 300 tDd being 10-12 Plant has been sold by M.G. Magoulas T. City of Brockton and tion: magnetic separation; boiler; ferrous metals tandfilled, with CEA to PCN Enterprises'. Corp. Vice Pres., nearby towns: Combus- other mechanical separa- excess truck- currently operated as a Engineering tion Equipment Assoc. lion and production of ed to other landfill. but may be reac- Combustion Equipment (designer): PCIN Enter- EcD-FuelO If landfills tivated into a resource Assoc. prises (owner) recovery facility 136 East 57th St. New York, N.Y. 10022 Haverhill & Lawrence Shredding, magnetic Steam and electricity for 1300 99.5 Under construction James E. Ricci, Refuse Fuels (owner): separation, trommel industrial use; surplus operations schedul;d for Vice Pres. BE&C Engineers, Inc. screening at recovery electricity sold to utility late 1984 Refuse Fuels. Inc. (Boeing subsidiary) facility In Haverhill: burn- P.O. Box 187 'design 9 consitruc, in, RDF Ior cogeneration Bradford, Mass. 01830 lion): Cities of Haverhill of steam and electricity in & Lawrence & other Lawrence communities in service area 3-3 L0cztlon Drid Capital 1101 Froduc!s 6 Capacity* Costs ?11r'Jcipant% Processes Uses (tons per day) (S millions) Status Source A @SSA_HUSETTS (c o n Vd) North Andover Mass burning in water. Elec@ricii@ lor saie ij I 50r) 199, uncell cons!ru`@,CT. jonn F AlDis Signal RESCO@ Roy F. wali lurnace, electricity ulilily Project Mgr Weston: Mass. Bureau generation 128 Main Si of Solid Waste Dis- Norih Anoover Mass Dosal. Dept. of En- 01845 vironmental Affairs: paniciDating n c"mmu i'les Mnsfield Mass burning in modular Steam tot process & 0-240 10.8 Operational since 3/81 Joseph J. Domas, Jr., City, Vicon Recovery incinerator healing by Crane & Co. T-240 Pres. Assoc.@ (owner/ Vicon Recovery Assoc. operator/ designer) P.O. Box 100. Butler Center Butler, N.J. 07405 Rochester Shredding, magnetic Electricity for sale to 150G 136 contracts tot waste being Dr. George M. Malian Tom and several near- separation, burning PRF Cornmonwealih Electric: signed; financing being President by communities; Energy in semi-suspension ferrous and nonferrous arranged: construction Energy Answers Corp. Answers Corp. (owner); stoker-grate boiler, metals expected to begin in I Steuben Place Smlih & Mahoney, nonferrous recovery from 1984 Albany, N.Y. 12207 P.C., and Gordon L. ash, generation of Sullin Assoc. electricfty it (designers) Saugus Mass burning in water- Steam for electrical D-1500 50 Operational John M. Kehoe.Jr. Thirteen communities wall furflaces, magnetic generation and industrial T-1200 Signal RESCO including Saugus and separation use, ferrous metals Liberty Lane parl of nonhem Boston: Hampton. N.H. 03842 ESCO (owner/operator) MICHIGAN Detroft Flail milling, trommel Steam lot Detroit 3000 ISO Negotiating with Combus- Michael Brinker City', Combustion screening, secondary Edison's central heating tion Engineering prior to Dept. of Public Works Engineering, Inc. shredding, burning RDF system: electricity for contract signing: tax City of Detroit in on-site dedicated sale to Detroit Edism counsel review and per- City-County Bldg.. boilers. electricity genera- ferrous metals mit applications in pro- Rm. 513 lion in 47 Mw cess: preparing a Detroit. Mich, 48226 turho-cenerator revenue bond issue with equity participation to finance the facility MINNESOTA Collegeville Mass burning in modular Steam lot heating, elec- C-58 2.4 Operational since 11/81 Rev. Gordon Tavts St. John's University: incinerator tricity generation & other T-55 St. John's University Basic Environmental uses by university Collegeville, Minn. 56321 Engineering idesigner) (Mir: Basic) oututh Shredding, magnetic RDF. lerrous metals, 400 of MSW. 19 Refuse processing facility John Klaers Western Lake Superior separation, air classitica- steam lot heating and 340 of 20% temporanly shut down Western Lake Superior Sanitary District lion, secondary shred- coofino of plant and to solids sewage due to explosion in 7/82: Sanitary Dist. (owner/operator): Con- ding, fluidized bed in- run process equipment sludge other fuels being used to 27th Ave. West sDet, Townsend 1, cinelialion of R111 and incinerate sludge and The Waterfront Assoc. ((Jesigner) sludge produce steam Duluth, Minn. 55806 Aed Wing Mass burning in moaulai Steam for S,B_ 72 2.5 Operational since 9/82 Dean Massett City (owner /operator),, incinerator cool Tanning Co.. Council Administrator Henningson. Durham & Box 34 Richardson (designer) Red Wing, Minn. 55066 Mir: Consumal) 34 ,ccalioz anc Products & Capacliv Costs 'ticipan!s Processes Uses (ions pet day) (S millions) Status Source "A! JERSEY Essex County Mass burning for elec Electricity !or sale to utility 2250 200 Negolialing c@nvac!s @!ln Sieclieir S Passap@ Essex County. Newark, tricay generation BFI-. const-ruilon Resojr@e Pecove-Y ;ocort Authority of NY & schedule., tor spring M2na@@er "J' Browning-Ferris 1984 with s,,afi-up in Pon Aultiorily of N@ NJ industries spring 1987 *ill include 62 South intermediate processing World Trace Center facility on-sne for source New York., N.Y 10048 separated materials Ft. Dix Mass burning in rnodular Steam for heating on 80 6 Design completed, project Rene Sanliago U.S. Army: Sanders & incinerator base on hold' decision on U.S. Army Corps of 1honrial, Inc whether to proceed ex- Engineers (consulting engineer) pecteo within several New York District months 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y. 10007 Alin- NANEWME NEW YORK Albany Processing plant; shred- Processed refuse fuel D-750 tons 28.2 (11.6 Operational -Patrick Mahoney City (owner) and 13 ding, magneft separa- (PRF), steam for healing per shill processing Smith & Mahoney, P.C. lion: steam plant: burn- and cooling state offices, T-750 tons plant:. 15 79 N. Pearl St. nearby communities: Smith & Mahoney ing PRF in stoker-grate ferrous & nonferrous per shift steam plant, Albany, N.Y 12207 (designer): Aenco. Inc. boiler; ash promsing metals, boiler aggregate 1.6 ash (processing plant center: ferrous, nonfer- processing operator): N.Y. State rous & abgregate center) (steam plant recovery trorn boiler ash owner/operator) Mass burning in rnodular Steam for process at 0-112 5.5 Operational since 2/83 William White (Cattarougus County incinerator Cuba Cheese Co. T-120 Refuse Administrator flatuse-to-Erforgy Catlaraugus County Facility) 289 Center St. Catlaraugus County Salamanca. N Y 14779 (owner): Barlon & (designer) ,O,ui,ir". P'C' (Mtr: R.W. Taylor Steel Co.) Dulchess County Mass burning in O'Con- Steam lot sale to IBM 400 30 Revenue bonds to be solo Roden J Vrana County (owner): Penn- nor rotary combustor for Corp electricity to ulili- in fall 1983. construction Commissioner of Solid sylvania Engineering generation of steam and ly: ferrous metals expected to begin in late Waste Management Corp (design/ electricity: ferrous metals 1983 with-operation in Dulchess County Duil0operate) recovery 1985 22 Market St Poughkeepsie. N Y 12601 Glen Cove Mass burning in Stoker- Electricity for sewage 250 34 (22 for Operational since 8/83 Joseph P. Hurley City (owner): William F fired furnace wdh cen- treatment plant and in- mass burn- Dir. of Public Works Cosulich and Ernest Irifuged sewage sludge cineralor: excess to Long ing unit. 12 City Hall F.W. Frank (designer) island Lighiing Co for sewage Bridge St. plant) Glen Cove, N.Y 11542 L Hempstead Hydrasposallw (wet Electricity from utifity- 2000 130 Temporarily Shut down by James L. McGillin Town: Hempstead pulping). magnetic and owned turbine genera- 111.000 tons/ joint agreement between General Manager Resources Recovery other separation. burning lots. color-sairled glass. week) Town and HRRC until Hempstead Resources ,,)rp (subsidiary of of RDF in air-swept spout aluminum, ferrous metals EPA eslablishes unitorm Recovery Corp arsons & Whittemore. spreader stoker boilers standards or guidelines P.D. Box 5010 inc.) (owner/operator) for testing of dioxins Roosevelt Field Station Garden City East, N Y 11530 35 F @,cafion and capilai Irv Products & Capacity* Costs -tlcipbn%@ Processes Use% (tons Pe! doy) ($ Millions) Simus Source V YORK (cont'd) Aonroo County Shreoding. air classifica- RDFF for use Dy utility as 0-,^000 61' 2 Recovery facitoy in Howaro Crinstensen .ounty (owner): tion, troth flotation, supplemental boiler fuel. T-400 sna@edovvn. SDF receiv- Director .ay1heon service Co. magnetic and other ferrous metals. nonfer- ing/storacie facility com- Decit. o! Solict Waste nesigner /operator): separation rous metals. glass plete, lesi-burning RDF I 10 Co'fax St. H,M Hill (owner's Rochester, N.Y 14606 Wesentative) fgara 11,112 Shredding, air classAica, SIP-am to, us" 1, D*1001 III* Operational r, 1. Blasius -iooker Energy Corp. tion. magnetic separation, chemical planl@ electricity 7-1500 Plant Manager Ni' :OcboenW Chemical buming shredded refuse sold to power company Hooker Chemical Co. an.) (owner/ operator) grid; ferrous metals P,O. Box 344 Niagara Falls, N.Y. 14302 Now York Mass burning in retrac- Steam for heating and 1000 (present 5-wasle heat Electrostatic precipitator Paul Gregory (EMU Avenue tory furnace processes in-plant and throughput boiler being installed and other Pianner Incinerator) adjacent City garages 500) 1(1965)@ modifications being Dept. of Sanitation city 24-modifica- made: expect to resume Office of Resource tions (1980) 1000 tpid operation upon Recovery completion in 1983 51 Chambers St., Rm. 830 t New York. N.Y. ID007 Oceanside Mass burning in water- Steam (60,000 lbs./hr.) D-750 9 Operational At Albanese Township of Hempstead wait furnace used in-plant for T-450 Supt., Sanitation (owner/operator): electricity Township of Hempstead Charles R. Velzy 1600 Merrick Rd. (designer) Merrick. N.Y. 11566 Oneida Cou" Mass burning in modular Steam for heating, W 200 11 Under construction: Robert F. Hasemeier `1@rty (owner/operator) combustion units water & other use by operation expected in Deputy Commissioner I @si R.W. Taylor Steel Gritfis Air Force Base mid-119841 Oneida County Dept. C of Public Works Div. of Solid Waste Mgmt. 800 Park Ave., 9th fir. Utica, NY 13501 Onondaga County Mass burning, ferrous Electricity lot Niagara 1400 101 in final contract negotia- William 0. Thomas Onondaga County metals recovery Mohawk Power Corp.; tions: bond sale an- Director Resource Recovery ferrous metals licipai ed in Fall 1983: Onondaga County Agency (owner)@ UOP, construction expected to Resource Recovery Inc, (designer/ begin in Spring 1984 Project builder/ operator) 1100 Civic Center 421 Montgomery St. Syracuse, N.Y. 13202 Oyster say Mass burning, electricity Electricity for Long Island 1000 N/A Contract negotiations Url J. Leupold Town of Oyster Bay In- generation Lighting Ce. under way: construction Chairman clustrial Devellopiment expected to begin in Town of Oyster Bay Agency: Blount, 1984 with operation in Industrial Development Inc. /Blount-Fichiner, 1987 Agency Inc. (designer/ 150 Miller Place operator); Lockwood, Syosset. N.Y. 11791 Kessler & Bartlett. Inc. (consultant) Washington County Mass burning in modular Steam tot industrial use: 240 11 Negotiating steam pur- Robert Page County', Vicon Recovery Incinerator, cogeneration electricity for sale to chase agreement; con- Planning Director S,slems (design, own, of steam and electricity utility struction expected to Washington County operate) begin in 1984 County Ottice Bldg. (Mtr: Enercon) Fort Edward. N.Y. 12828 estchestar County Mass burning In water- Electricity for Con- 2250 179. Construction began 4/82@ Edward K. Davies ly(Peekskill) wall furnace, electricity solidated Edison Co.. let. start-up scheduled for Deputy Commissioner. County & 35 municipal- generation. ferrous metal rous metals 4/84 with commercial Solid Waste Mgmt ities. Signal RESCO reciavery from ash operation 7/B4 Rm@ 522, lownef/operalor) County Office Bldg. While Plains, N.Y. 10601 36 Location and Capital M &)Of Products Capacrly* costs Participants Processes Uses Itons per day) I$ millionsj Status Source NORTH CAROLINA New Hanover County Mass burning in water- Steam for use by W.Fl 200 13 (approx) Under consiruct;on, slan- Et Hilton New Hanover County wall boilers: cogeneration Grace Co (agrochemical up expecleci in Fall 1984 Director (owner); Clark-Kenith of steam and electricity mtr)- electricity for sale Engineering & Go.: Charles R. Velzy to Carolina Power & Light Facilities Assoc. (designer). New Hanover County George Campbell Assoc. 320 Chestnut St., Room 601 Wilmington. N.C. 28401 NORTH DAKOTA WMstan Mass burning: cogenera- Steam for process use by 100 4.5 Awaiting final energy Orv Wilmot City: WIDJAC Corp. tion of steam & electricity Hardy San; electricity for contracts; groundbreak- Managing Director sale to utility ing expected in 1983 WIDJAC Corp. 10604 N.E. 381h Place Suite 222 Kirkland. Wash. 98033 OHIO Akron Shredding, maignetic Steam for urban and in- D- 1000 80 Modifications and perfor- Dave Chapman City; (owner); Tricif separation. burning RDF dustrial heating and cool- T-900 mance test successfully 203 Municipal Bldg. Resources. Inc. in saml-suspension ing, ferrous metals, hot completed in 12/82: 166 South High St. (operator) stoker-grate boiler water for residential and plant is certified and fully Akron, Ohio 44308 commercial heating operational: steam and hot water being gener- ated by buming refuse Columbus Shredding, magnetic Electricity for city 2000 175 Under construction-, Henry A. Bell. P,E, City (owner/operator); separation, burning of customers (3000 peak) operation expected in Fall Superintendent Alden E. StIlson Assoc. shredded refuse with 1983 Div. of Electricity (designer) supplemental coal In City of Columbus semi-suspension stoker- 90 W. Broad St. grate boiler to produce Columbus. Ohio 43215 steam and generate electricity OKLAHOMA Miami Mass burning in modular Steam for industrial use D-108 3.114 Operational since 11/82 Steve Solomon City: (owner): Con- incinerator by B.F. Goodrich Co. T-72 Resource Recovery sumat Systems, Inc. Systems (operator): Resource 6440 Avondale Dr. Recovery Systems Suite 201 Oklahoma City. Okla. 73116 01staboms City Phase I-shreading. fer- Electricity & melhane gas 5600 tons per 29 Phase I startup testing Chester Brooks Chy; CMI Energy Con- rous & nonferrous metals for sale to Okla. Gas & week (Phases completed@ continuous CMI Energy Conversion version Systems separation; thennal Electric Co.; ferrous & I & 11) operation expected to Systems, Inc. ("ner/operator/desig- reduction (buming in nonferrous metals begin in Late 19153@ 2525 Northwest .?er) rotary drum furnace) and preparing for construction Expressway electricity generation of Phase 11 Suite 108 ftaSe 11-anerobic diges- Oklahoma City, Okla Von of organic msw & 73112 .-sewage 37 LcCatior. and Capital IV Products CaDaciry' Costs p2rTicicarils Processes Uses (tons per dayi (-, millions) Stall!s Source a@ -,?%L_AH0MA kconi'd) McCrionl Mass burning. cDoeneia Steam for sale to Tulsa 690 44 Consifuction exDec:ec lo Lester M Tuisa Authority for the I= of steam ano Refining. Inc.. electricity begin in laie 1983 w0h Alternate Energy Recovery of Energy: electricity for sale to Public Service operation in tale 19!_5 Systems, Inc Sie.am Supply Corp., Co of Okla 4425 East 31ST S! subsidiary of Alternate Suite J Tulsa, Okla 74135 Energy Systems, Inc, (owner)@ Midwesco. Inc. (designer & corillraclor, OREGON Lane County Shredding. air classilica- RDF. ferrous metals 500 2.1 Making preparations for Mike Turner County (owner),. Allis- lion. magnetic separation demolition of plant and Administrative Assistant Chalmers Corp. sale of equipment: deci- Lane County Public (oesigner)@ Western sion riot to operate based Service Div. Waste Corp. (operator) on tack of funds to Public Works Dept. develop facility and poor 125 East 81h Ave. market conditions Eugene, Ore. 97401 Marion County Mass burning in water- Electricity for local utility, 550 40(1985) Contracts signed between Randall Franke County, Trans Energy wall furnaces, magnetic ferrous metals County and Trans Board of Commissioners Systems, Inc. (owner/ separation from ash Energy, and utility and Marion County Courthouse operator/ designer) Trans Energy: construc- Salem, Ore. 97301 Wn expected to begin in early 1984 with operation in late 1986 JENNSYLVANIA Shredding. mechanical Oensified RDF for use as 150 3.7 Negotiating with 3 Wasinder S. Mokha. P.E. City: Pa. Dept. of Env. separation, air classifica- luef by local industry. potential contractors to City Engineer Resources; O'Brien & tion. densification of ROF ferrous metals. glass construct, own & operate City of Erie Gere (designer) a wasle-to-energy plant 626 State St. Erie, Pa. 16501 Harrisburg Mass burning of MSW Steam for utility-owned D-720 8.3 Operational: sludge dry- Paul W. Bricker City (owner/ operator): and sewage sludge in district heating system T-520 ing facility in lest Gannett. Fleming, Cord- Gannen, Fleming, Cord- waterwall furnace, bulky and for cily-owned sludge dry and Carpenter. Inc cry and Carpenter, Inc, waste shredding (steam Crying system, ferrous P.O. Box 1963 (designer) driven). magnetic metals Harrisburg, Pa. 17105 separation RHODE ISLAND Johnston Mass burning for genera- Eieclrcily for sale to 1500 100 Central Landfill site in Deborah Herz R.I. Solid Waste Mgmt. tion of efectreity utility Johnston selected: Public Information Officer Corp.; Blount Energy municipal contract R.I. Solid Waste Resources Corp. negotiations underway: Mgmt. Corp. (designer, contractor. construction expected to 39 Pike St. owner. operator) begin in spring 1984 Providence. R.I. 02903 SOUTH CAROLINA johnsionvIlle Mass burning in modular Steam for process use by 0-50 2.5 Operational since 11/81, William Miles (Wellman Energy incinerator Wellman Industries T-50 60% of waste burned is Wellman industries. Plant) MSW. remainder is in- Inc. Vellmian Industries plant industrial waste P.O. Box 188 /jwner /operator): Johnsonville, S@C Williamsburg and 29555 Georgetown Counties (Mir: Consurnat) 38 Location and Capital malor Products Capacfty* Costs P6arliCipontS Processes Uses (tons per day) IS millions) Status Source TENNESSEE Dyersburg Mass burning in modular Steam lot process & heat D-100 2 Opteralional since 9/80 Alaerman Bob Kirk City (owner/operator). incinerator at Colonial Rubber Works T-82 Colonial Rubber Colonial Rubber Works, Works, Inc Inc. Dyersburg, Tenn 38024 (Mfr: Consumat) 112110L Mass burning in water- Steam for inclustrial pro- 200 10 operational since 12/81 Jerry H. Metcalf Resou Authority in wall rotary combustor for cessing and electricity lot Project Manager Sumner County (County cogeneration of Steam & sale to TVA P.O. Box 967 Cities of Gallatin and electricity Gallatin, Tenn. 37066 Hendersonville) (owner/ operator) Lewisburg Mass burning in rnodulair Steam for industrial use D-60 1.75 Operational since 1980 John D_ Lambert city incinerator by Heil-Ouaker Corp. T-35-40 City Manager (Mtr: CICO) 505 Ellington Pkwy. Route I Lewisburg, Tenn. 37091 Mass buming in water- Steam and chilled water D-720 24.5 Operational since 1974; Janxs T. Hestia Nashville Thermal wall incinerator for urban heating and T-4DO expansion to be coin- General Manager Transfer Corp. cooling pleted in late 1985. in- Nashv& Thermal (owner/operator). I.C. creasing design capacity Transfer Corp. Thomasson & Assoc.. to 1120 110 First Ave. South Inc. (designer) Nashville, Tenn. 37201 TEXAS Gstesvft Mass buming in modular Steam for kitchen D-7 2 Operational R.E. Howell (Texas 04pt. of incinerator laundry T-7 Chief, Bldg. & Eng. Corrections) Mgmt. Texas Dept. of Construction Div. Corrections Texas Dept. of (Mtr: Cansurnat) Corrections P.O. Box 99 Huntsville, Texas 77340 Palestine Mass burning In modular Steam for khchen D-28 .3 Operational (same as Galesville. (saw Unit. Texas incinerator laundry T-28 Texas) Dept. of Corrections) Texas Dept. of Corrections (Mfr: Consumat) Waxahachie Mass burning in modular Steam for industrial use D-60 2.2 Opera "lional since 7/82:- Bob SokDII City (owner/ operator): incinerator by International selling only about 10% of City Manager Synergy Systems Corp. Aluminum Extruders Steam produced due to P.O. Box 757 (Mtr: Synergy Systems) low demand by customer Waxahachie, Texas 75165 VERMONT Burlington Mass burning, ferrous Steam for district heating 120 11.5 Project on hold, under- James R. Ogden City (owner/operator): recovery from ash at U. of Vt. & Medical going review Supt. of Streets University of Vermont; Center Hospital; ferrous P.O. Box 849 Medical Center Hospital metal Burlington. Vt. C15402 of Vermont: VAlliami F. Cosulich Assoc. (con- suiting en,lneeir, Rutland Mass burning in modular Electricity 240 11 Contracts signed@ con- Jonathan Gibson Rutland County Sond incinerator struction to begin in near District Manager Waste 111strict; future. with Startup ex- Rutland County Solid Vicon Recovery pected in 11/84 Waste District System P.O. Box 965 (full-service contractor) Rutland, Vt. 05701 (Mfr: Enarm) 39 Lacat!on aric Capital majo, Pfooucts 9 Capacity' Costs Flar"Icipant: Processes Uses (tons per Day) ($ millions) status Source iRGINIA Hampton Mass burning in water- Steam for use by NASA 0-200 10 3 Operational since 9/80 Frank H. Miller, Jr City (operator); U.S. wall furnace Langley Research Center T-200 Dir. of Public Works Government owner, Hampton, Va 23669 NASA Langley Research Center; U.S. Air Force at Langley Field: J.M. Kenith Go. (designer/ builder) Harrisonburg Mass burning Steam lor heating & cook IDO 8 Operational since 12/82 John E. Driver City (owner 1, ing at James Madison Asst. City Manager operator): William F. Univ. Municipal Bldg. Cosulich Assoc. (con- 345 S. Main St. sulling engineer) Harrisonburg. Va. 22801 Newport News Mass buming in modular Steam for heating, hot D-40 1.7 Operational since 12180 John Roth (Ft. Eustis) incinerator water & cooking T-30 + Deputy Director of U,S. Army Engineering & Housing (Mtr: Consurnat) DEH Bldg. 1407 Ft. Eustis. Va. 23604 Norfolk Mass burning in water- Steam for use by 360 (two 2.2 (1967) Operational Commanding Officer (Norfolk Naval wall turnace facilities at NorfDIk Naval 180-tpd Navy Public Works Center Station) Station boilers Attn: Director of Utilities U.S. Navy (owner); operated Norfolk. Va. 23511 N,blic Works Center. alternately) t Molk Naval Station (operator) Petersburg Phase I-shredding, Phase I-ferrous and 2DOO (peak) I DO (Phase 1) Preliminary design corn- Francis B. Alcherson United Blo-Fuel in- magnetic and other nonferrous metals. glass, 1350 initial 135 (Phase 11) pitted; groundbreaking V.P. of Engineering dustries, Inc. (owner); separation. burning of electricity for sale to ulil- 136 (Phase 111) expected in late 1983 United Bio-Fuel Teledyne National RDF to, 11 MW electricity it,, steam for in-plan, with start-up 22 months Industries, Inc. (designer); Raphael generation; Phase If- use; Phase 11 & III- later for Phase I P.O. Box 1312 Katzen Assoc.: Foster ethinol production from ethanol. CO,, dried grain Richmond. Va. 23210 Wheeler Syntuels Corp. corn, 20 million gal/yr, supplement (DGS), dis- or possibly 50 tpd tiller's dried grain sup- cellulose-alcohol R&D plement (DOGS) facility; Phase III- ethanol produclion using licensed process of en- zymatic hydrolysis of cellulose to alcohol, 37.5 million gal/yr Portsmouth Mass buming in water- Steam for use by 160 4.5 Operational Commander (Norfolk Naval wall lumace facilities at Naval (two BO-tpd Norfolk Naval Shipyard Shipyard) Shipyard boilers, Attn: Public Works Officer U.S. Navy (owner). operated Portsmouth. Va. 23709 ublic Works Dept.. alternately) Norfolk Naval Shipyard (operator) p Portsmouth Shredding, air classifica- RDF for buming in new 2000 70 Contracts in approval pro- Durwood S. Curling (Southeastern Tide- tion, magnetic and other RDF/coal -augmented cess. operation projected Executive Director water Energy Project) separation power plant to be built at for late 1987 Southeastern Tidewater ,Ulheaslern Public Naval Shipyard, providing Energy Projecl -ervice Authority of steam and electricity for .16 Koger Executive Va.:.Henningson, Shipyard and ships: ter- Center. Sufte 129 Durham & Richardson rous and nonferrous Norfolk, Va. 23502 (archirlect/engineer); mews Norfolk Naval Shipyard 40 Location and Capital Major Products & capac"* Costs Participants Processes Uses Itans pet day) IS millions) Status Source VIRGINIA (cont'd) R@-_hmcnd Trammel screening, RDF burned wilri coal a, 400 2 1 TemDorariry slul ciowr, G. Carl Manter. J1 @Henrico Counly@ shredding in a pressure local manufacturing for equipment change General Partner Henrico Resource vessel, magnetic separa- plants, ferrous metals, Henrico Resource Development Partners tion. hand-picking aluminum, glass Development Partners (owner /operator) aluminum & glass 90tg Forest Hill Ave Richmo nd, VA 23235 Salem Mass bunning in mocular Steam 100 1 @9 Operational William Paxton, Jr. City incinerator City Manager (Mir: Consumal) P.O. Box 869 Salem, Va. 24153 WASHINGTON ' stoma Shredding. air classilica- RDF. ferrous metals 500 2.5 Operational: running Bill Larson, Proi. Mqr. City (owner/operator): tion.-rnagnetic separation periodically to produce Refuse Utility Boeing Engineering RDF for test burning 740 St. Helens Ave. (designer) Rm. 332 Taconria, Wash. 98402 WISCONSIN Madison Shredding, magnetic ROF burned with coal at D-400 2.5 Refuse processing & Robert Vetter City (owner/operator); separation. trammel Madison Gas & Electric T-250 bunning at Madison Gas Div. of Engineering City & M.L. Smith En- screining, secondary Co. for electricity genera- & Electric operational Rm. 115. vironmentall (designer) shredding tion; ROF burned with since 1/79@ Oscar Mayer Cily-County Bldg. coal at Oscair Mayer installation operational Madison, Wis. 53709 since 6/83 foods Corp. for steam production; ferrous f"tals Waukesha Mass burning in reirac- Steam for local industry D-175 Incinerator Incinerator operating Rodney Vanden Woven City (owner/operator); tory furnace and sewage treatment 7-140 .7 (1971) since 1971: waste heal Dir. of Public Works Donohue & Assoc. (in- plant Heal recov- recovery boiler added in 201 Delatield St. cinerator designer): ery system 1979: operating and Waukesha, Wis, 53186 Sanders 1, Thonnas, 3.9 (1979) sending steam to local in- Inc. (heal recovery dustry and sewage plant system designer) CANADA ONTARIO Hammon Shredding. magnetic Electricity for Ontario D-500 9t (1972) Operational since 1972@ Joseph Kennedy Regionail Municipality of separation. semi- Hydro, steam for In-ptani T-450 4.0 MW turbine generator Director. Resource Hannition-Wentworth suspension burning In use, ferrous metal added and operating Recovery Programs (owner): Tricil Ltd. dedicated spreader stoker since 11182 Tricil Ltd. (operator), C.L. Sutin & boilers 89 Oueensway West. Assoc. (designer) Mississauga, Ontario L5B 2V2 Toronto Shredding, air ciassifica- Ferrous metal, RDF. com- Resource 151 Operational since 3/77 Neal R. Ahlberg Ontario Ministry at the tion. secondary shred- post: hot water for plant recovery- Supervisor Environment (owner): ding. screening. mass beating 220', transfer Ontario Centre lot Browning-Ferris In- burning In modular in- tacility-600 Resource Recovery dustries (operator): cinerator with twai 35 Vanley Crescent Ubom Ltd. (designer) rewvwy. ferrous clean- Downsview, Ontario (Mir: C01131IMat) - 4no; &a transfer V,3J 267' 41 U lor, OnIC Capital @,Jof r BoaCITY, Costs -nclrarit: Processel Usell (tons per day) ($ millions) Status Source flINCE ED"'ARD '-AN D adalo Mass burning in modulat Steam lot hwingicooling. 108 8.21 operational since 2/83 (Same as Hamilton. nce Edward Isiand incinerator 81 hospital CDr,,Piex Ontario) =rgy Corp. (owner); --it Ltd. .:signer/operailor) JEBEC antrazil Michel Jodoin Mass burning in water- Steam used by City of- 1200 14.7t(1967) Operational since 1970: owne,/ooerator), wallturnaces lice, 6 facilities and 18 Industrial and com- Superintendent -iinion Briage-Sulzer, private customers mercial customers served Solid Waste Disposal by 7 mile pipeline; eiec- Division trostatic precipitator be- City of Montreal ing changed for micire ef- 1266 Des Carrieres ficient ones, cyclones Montreal, Ouebec added H2S 2A8 @UG.DOC Mass burning in water- Steam, used for industrial 1000 25t (1974) Operational since 1974 Michel Roux uebec Urban Conn- wall furnace process by paper mill Centro de Ricupiration munity (owner)*, Communautif Urbaine de Alonlenay. Inc. Oudwc -operator): Dominion 900 rue Industrelle 4 Bnage-Sulzer. Inc. Oubec, OAK G1J 3V9 tranadian dollars. 21 Methane Recovery from Landfills Location and majol - Output or Gas Produced: captlal Costs Participants. Million ftl/day (S millions) Sutus Source CALIFORNIA Azusa Low Btu gas; 1.7 N/A Operational F.T. Sheets III Azusa Land Reclamation Co. (wholly Azusa Land Rectarraition Co. owned sulsidary of Ile 1201 W. Gladstone St. Southwestern Portland Cement Co.) Azusa, Calif. 911702 Brea Gas to power 5300 KW N/A Operation scheduled for late William R. Taylor (OlInda Undfill) generator: electricity sold to So. 1984 Getty Synthetic Fuels. Inc. Getty Synthetic Fuels. Inc.: Cal. Edison 2750 Signal Parkway Orange County Signal Hill, Calif. 90806 Larson Medium Btu gas to power N/A Collection system complete., Joseph V. Seruto. Pres. Watson Biogas Systems: SCS generators, producing electricity operations expected in Oct. 19M Watson Blogas Systems Engineers, Inc. lor sale to So. Cal. Edison (1.7 22010 S. WIlmington Ave. Suite 207 Uw) Carson. Calif. 90745 42 Location and maiw Output ot Gas Produced, Us!, Million 111/day (S m0iiiint! Status Source CALU70FINIA (cont'd) Corona Medium Btu oas to Dowe@ N /A. Contracis sr@neo -wor. Cav and (Same as Casor,, Cai,! i ii%alson Bicicas Systems. Lockman peneralors, p-roaucing eleciricily sciumern Calif Eatson: oDeraliori and Assx, for sale to Utility (5 MW) expeclea in Ma,cri 1985 City of IndustrV Medium Blu gas for i3oiler luel al .60 Operaiional since 2/81 Bryan A. Stirral findustry HIMs Industry Hills Convention Center, National Engin-e-ring Co. Convention Conlor .5 (approx.) 255 N. Hacienca Bivo. City: National Engineering Co. Inaustry. Calif. 911744 Duarlo Medium Btu gas to power N/A Operational (Sam as Carson, Calif.) Watson Biogas Systems; Lockman generators. producing eliectricily and Assoc. for sale to utility (2.3 Mw). Lot Angeles Medium Btu gas us" as sup- N/A Operational since 9/80 Kenneth Wuesl (Bradley East Landfill) piemental fuel in steam Genstar Gas Recovery Systems, Inc. Genstar Gas Recovery generating plant by L.A. Dept. of 177 Bevel Rd., Suite 550 Systems, Inc. Water & power: 3.0. San Mateo, Calif. 94420 Marbriez Medium Btu gas used as in- N/A Operational since 4/82 (Same as Brea, Calif.) Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inc.; dustrial fuel by Contra Costa Acme Fill Corp.; Sanitation District: 2.0 Contra Costa County SantlaWn District anio Parix Phase I-Medium Blu gas used N/A Phase I-operational since 12/82 Same as Los Angeles, Calif. Genstar Gas Recovery as fuel for motor generators: Phase II-Operation expected In Systems, Inc. electricity sold to utility (1.0 8/83 MW) Phase ii-i.o mw addition to above Project Monterey Park High Btu gas ior sate to So. Cal. N/A Operational since 8/79 (Same as Brea, Calif.) Getty Synthetic Fuels. Inc.. Gas Co.@ 4.0 Operating Industries, Inc,; Southern California Gas Co. Mountain View High Btu gas; 0.5 .85 Demonstration ptant; currently Max Blanchet City of Mountain View; EPA; Pacific operating and producing 0.3 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Gas & Etectric Co.. Dept. of Energy MMSCFD of treated gas with a 245 Markel St. HHV of 850-950 Btu/SCF: ex- San Francisco. Calif. 94106 pansion of system and modern- ization of plant underway, will timoost capacity to 1.0 MMSCFD Palos Verdes High Btu Gas for sale to So. Cal. N/A Operational since 1975 (Same as Brea, Calif.) - Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inc.; Los Gas Co. @ 1.0 Angeles County Sanitation Dist.: Southem California Gas Co. San Fernando Medium Btu gas used by N/A Operational since 11/81 (Same as Brea, Calif.) Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inc.; Newhall Refinery: 1.1 Birownft-Ferris Industries: Newhall Refinery San Jose Medium Btu gas used as luel tor N/A Operation expected 10/83 Same as Los Angeles, Calif. Genstar Gas Recovery motor generator; electricity sold Systems. Inc.: to utility (2.0 MW) Browning-Ferris industries San Leandro Medium Btu gas used by Domlar N/A Operational since 7/81 (Same as Brea. Calif.) 1*11, Synthetic Fuels, Irc,: Gypsum America'. 3 1 Oakland Scavenger Co.; DDmtar Gypsum America Santa Cbra County Medium Btu gas used as fuel for N/A Operation expected 10/83 (Same as Los Angeles, Calif.) Genstar Gas Recovery Systems. motor generators; electricity sold Inc.: Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal to utility (1,5 MW) Co. 43 Out zui or G2s Procucte, carmal Costs _'!Cipants W.1hion W/dal (S millions) slaius Source LIFORNIA (cont'd) v nValloy Low Btu Gas usec as luei by 2.5 Operational WKE millef jShWdon-"ta LAndfill GS3 L.A. Dept. of Waier & Power: Senior Sanitary Engineer Recovery Prokct) 1.5 L.A Bureau of Sanitation q of Los Angeles Decariments of Room 1410, City Hall East ub)jc Works and Water & Power Los Angeles. Calif. 9DO12 "Ornington 2.5 N/A Operational (Same as Carson, Calif.) ,iatson Stogas Systems; '-@'CS Engineers, Inc. ILLINOIS Blue Isbnd Medium Btu gas used by Clark NIA Operation scheduled for 12/113 (Same as Brea. Calif.) 1.ijy@ Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inc.: Oil; 4. 0 Clark Oil & Refining Corp. Caiuw Cq High Btu gas for sate to local NIA Operational since 12/80 (Same as Brea. Calif.) Getty Synthetic Fuels. Inc.; Waste utility: 2.5 Managernent, Inc.: Natural Gal Pipeline Co. of America MICHIGAN Riverview Medium Btu gas for sale to in- N/A Contracts with city signed; ap- (Same as Carson, Calif.) Watson BiDgas Systems; SCS dustriall user@ 2.5 plications tor construction per- Engineers mits submitted: user negotiations proceeding NEW JERSEY Cinnaminson Medium Btu gas (570 BIu/SCF); N/A Operational since 8/79; modifica- Jim Pardus Sanitary Landfill (Div. of Waste 0.75 (Used in-plant by tions planned to improve service Public Service Electric & Gas Co. of Management, Inc.); Public Service Hoeganaes Corp.) reliability, gas quality and N.J. Electric & Gas Co.; Hoeganaes Corp, quantity 80 Park Plaza 7-16A Newark, N.J. 07101 NEW YORK Staten Island High Btu gas for sale to N/A Operational since 7/82 (Sames as Brea, Calif.) (Fresh Kills Landfill) Brooklyn Union Gas Co.: 5.0 Getty Synthetic Fuels. Inc.lMethane Development Corp.; City of New York: Brooklyn Union Gas Co. NORTH CAROLINA Winston-Salem Medium Btu gas used as sup- Less than Operational since 9/81 Lee Byerly city plemental fuel in dual-fuel diesel $25.000 for Supervisor engine to generate electricity for wells and Archie Elledge Wastewater sewage treatment plant pipeline Treatment Plant 2801 Griffith Rd. Winston-Salem, N.C. 27103 r)REGON '4on City Raw landfill gas (400 Btu/cf); .5 (collection Collection sys tem completed; Jack W. Parker Rossman's Landfill (owner): 2.6 system only) negollating with potential users President CH2M Hill (engineers) for the recovered gas Rossman's Landfill, Inc. 1101 17th St. Oregon Ctri. Ore. 97NS _-44 0 Dulpui or Gas Produtced@ Capital Costs Willon fl.'/oay (S millions) Status Source -RMONT nttiet@ort Gas lo power cenerators (300 0 365 Operaliona' since 8/82. acloing Louis Auoeile -Itw EnciLancn Aliernaie Fuels KW)@ electncily sold to Central more generating capacity New Englano Aliernaie Fucis Vermont Puolic Service F.0 Box 921 Brattleboro, Vt. 05301 CANADA Vlrcliiiew, Ontarta Medium Btu gas (approx. 39 .53 Phase I complete but not John Pawley &epiorial Municipality of Waterloo MM 111/year) for use as boiler operating continuously due to Drector of Engineering lowner): Besipipt, Div. of Laxe On- fuel by Bestpipe poor gas production from lanalill Operations tano Comm Lld.@ Federal Govern- she; Phase 11 construction In* Regional Municipality of Waterloo rmnt of Cariaoa@ Province of Ontario doubt Marstand Centre Waterloo. Ontario N2J 4G7 Manned Resource Recovery Facilities ALASKA GEORGIA MISSISSIPPI PENNSYLVANIA Shka Savannah Pascagoula ftliadsiphis CALIFORNIA INDIANA MISSOURI PUERTO RICO Alameda Indianapolis Kansas CRY Caguas Berkeley Valparaiso St. Louis San Juan CRY of Commorca resno MONTANA TENNESSEE j KENTUCKY 115'roks Laoriol Chattanooga Cardona Middlesboro Long Beach NEBRASKA TEXAS Los Angeles MAINE Lincoln Cleburne Richmond Bangor/Brewer Lubbock San 01090 Wh-Brunswick Arw NEW HAMPSHIRE San Francisco Biddeford/Sato Nashua UTAH San Leandro Lowlston Davis County Solms Portland NEW JERSEY Stockton Rockland/Rockport VIRGINIA Ttl-Cfts Waterville/Winslov Camden County Galax East Brunswtk (Fremont, Union Chy, Newark) Middlesex County Hopewell Uwh MARYLAND Ocean County James City County Ventura County Harford County Union county Richmond Wilmington MASSACHUSETTS WASHINGTON CONNECTICUT Boston NEW YORK Bellingham Hartford Fitchburg Babylon Sequlm Naugatuck Franklin County Broome County Spokane Wow Britian langston Now York Now Haven Millbury Worth Hampstead Worth Havvin Plat"Ills (128 West) Oswego County Norwalk SpringUld St. Lawrence County Southbury Wallingford MICHIGAN Waterbury Filat NORTH CAROLINA Grand Rapids Burke County FLORIDA Menominee Boca Raton Muskegon Broward County OHIO Escambis County' MINNESOTA Cleveland Hilliborough County Ramsey Washington Counties Montgomery County 45 I I I APPENDIX II I I Cabras Island Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 46 - I OPTIMAL LAND-USE PLAN FOR CABRAS ISLAND AND SURROUNDING AR Map no. 4 11sw PHILIPPINE SEA POWER OTEC POWE P L A V PLAN LUMINAO REEF ORAL RE U.S. COAST GUARD 0..),& WILLIAMS SEAPLANE RAMP CAeRAS UEACH 14"ANNE P UNDERWATER HISTORIC SITE U.S. NAVY OUTER APRA HARBOR -SMS CORMORAN- FUEL DEPOT TIDAL FLA r 0 Q., 0V LAr F TIDAL 00,@@2 CK LEGEND ef - I I CORAL :PROPOSED ROAD RELOCATION COMMERCIAL PORT PArCH REEF$ FACILITIES -'WATER-DEPEFIDENT SA SA BAY 'PORT-RELAT ED INDUSTRY INDUSTRY PORT-RELATED LIGHT LIGHT-HEAVY PORT-ASSOCIATED 'INDUSTRY 'POWER PRODUCTION FACILITIES ,,mo 0-11 :MILITARY OPERATIONS :CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT FISHERY RESOURCES r"@ L U M I NA C RECREATION CONSERVATION OF WETLANDS I I I APPENDIX III I I GEPA Air Pollution Control Standards I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 48 - I CHAPTER NINE CONTROL OF PARTICULATE EMISSION FROM INCINERATOR: DESIGN AND OPERATION 9.1 This regulation applies to any incinerator used to dispose to dispose of refuse by burning or the processing of salvageable material by burning. Nothwithstanding definitions in other regulations, rubbish, trade wastes, leaves, salvageable material and agricultural wastes. the word "incinerator" , as used in this regulation , includes incinerators, and other devices , structures , or contrivances used to burn refuse or to process refuse by burning. 9.2 No person shall cause or permit to be emitted into the open air from: any incinerator, particulate matter in the exhaust gases to exceed 0.20 pounds per 100 pounds of refuse burned. 9.3 Emission tests shall be conducted at maximum burning capacity of the incinerator. 9.4 The burning Capacity of an incinerator shall be the manuf acturer' s or designer's guaranteed maximum rate of such other rate as nay be determined by the Administrator in accordance with good engineering practices. In case of conflict, the determination made by the Administrator shall govern. 9.5 For the purposes of this regulation, the total of the capacities of all furnaces within one system shall be considered as the incinerator capacity. 9.6 No residential or commercial single-chamber incinerator shall be used for the burning of refuse for a period in excess of eighteen (18) months after the adopted date of this regulation. I 49 9.7 All new incenerators and all existing incinerators within eighteen (18) months after adopted date of this regulation small be multiple-chamber incimerators, provided that the Adminstrat may approve any other type of incinerator if it is demonstrated such design provides equivalent performance. 9.8 Incinerators shall be designed and operated in such manner as is necessary to prevent the emission of objectionable odors. 9.9 No person shall burn or cause or permit the burning of refuse in any installation which was designated for the sole purpose of burning fuel. 50 CHAPTER FIFTEEN STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 15.1 GENERAL (a) The Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (40-CFR, Part 60) designated in Part 15.2 are incorporated by reference as they exist on the date of adaption and promulgation by the Board into those Regu- lations as amended by the word or phrase substitutions given in Part 15.3. References for specific documents coutaining the complete text of subject regulations are given in Appendix A. (b) In the event any conflict between the Regulations contained in this Chapter and Regulations contained in other chapters, the Regulations of Chapter 15 will take precedence for standards of performance for new stationary sources, unless the existing Regulations are more stringent. (c) DEFINITION - For purposes of this Chapter, the defi- nitions listed in Section 60.2 Subpart A, Part 60, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations will apply. 15.2 Designated Standards of Performance. 15.2.1 Subpart D - Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators (units of more than 250 million BTU per hour heat input). 15.2.2 Subpart E - Incinerators (units of more than fifty (50) tons per day charging rate). 15. 2 . 3 Subpart F - Portland Cement Plants (kiln, clinker cooler, raw mill system, finish mill system, raw mill dryer, raw material storage, conveyor transfer points, bagging and bulk loading and unloading systems). 51 15.2.4 Subpart G - Nitiric Acid Pi-znts (T,--* tric 2cid, P@IOCILICt un@ ts) - 15 . 2 .5 Subpart 11 - Sulfuric Acid Plants (sulfuric ar-i@ pro@u tion u-,its). 15.2.6 Subpart I - Asphalt Concrete Plants (dryers, systems for screenirg, handling, storing, and weighing hot aggregate, systems D C> for loading, transferring, and storing mineral fAiller; systems for mixing asphalt concrete; and the loading, transfer and storage systems associated with emission control systems). 15.2.7 Subpart J - Petroleum Refineries (fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators, fluid catalytic cracking unit ncinerator waste heat boilers and fuel gas combustion devices). 15.2.8 Subpart K - STORAGE - Storage vessels for Petroleum Liquids (storage vessels with a capacity greater than 40,000 gallons). 15.2..9 Subpart L - Secondary Lead Smelters (pot furnaces of tore than 550 pounds ebarving 'Capacity, blast (cupola) furnaces and reverberatory furnaces). 15.2.10 Subpart M Secondary Brass and Bronz e Ingot Production Plants (reverberatory and electric furnaces of 2,205 pounds or greater production capacity and blast (cupola) furnaces of 550 Pounds per hour or greater production capacity). 15.2.11 Subpart N Iron and Steel Plants (basic oxygen process furnace). 15.2.12 Subpart Sewage Treatment Plants (incinerators which burn the sewage produced by municipal sewage treatment facilities). 15.2.13 Subpart P - Primary Copper Smelters (dryer, roaster, smelting furnace, and copper converter). 15.2.14 Subpart Primary Zinc Smelters (roaster and sintering --52 CHAPTER TWO AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 2.1 The following air quality standards are the desirable levels of ambions air quality for the Territory of Guam. Based on present knowledge. these levels are not expected to produce health hazards or impairment, injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to or deterioration of property, and hazards to air and ground transportation, or in any manner, interfere with the protection of the public welfare. P 0 11 'L: an Level nct t-o excee6, S U f-u r 0 x i -a s b c ro7mr amn s / n 3 (0.02 ppm. a L .-K 0 . 12, T) 7, b '5 T- I , SOD c-.' @--ams /M 3 0. 5 e -ki c C-50 I! --o' raMS/M (0.4 c Particulate matter 60 microzrams/m"' -15C) -b 350 mi cz-ofTrans /M Carbon nonoxide 10 m illigrramshri3 (9 ppm) d 40 inilliFrams/n 3 (35 ppm) e Photochemical oxidants 260 ricrogramshnBAD.08 ppn) IiN, drocarbons -160 nicrograr"Ls/n3' (0.24 ppm) f Fitrop-en oxides 100 micrograns/O (0.05 -D--I) a *These stanc@ards are the same as the existnr- 'Tational Secondary A=',ient Quality STandaards except as othenzise noted. C-anEE.Ir-z 150 he exceeded nore than 24-@-cu- not tc) d ML%ira6 6-hour concentration not to be exceeded mre than once a year e I.Iaxinsum -1-ho=r concentration not to be exceeded 7nore -than once a year f haximum S-bour concentratilonmot 'to be exceeded -more -than once a ye:,- Maximum 4-.-our concentration not to be exceeded nore than once a year 53 0 0 . . 1 0