THE 2014 ERC DIRECTORY OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES
THE ENERGY RECOVERY COUNCIL IS THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING COMPANIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ENGAGED IN THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES.
BY TED MICHAELS
aste-to-energy is a proven technology used globally to generate clean, renewable energy from the sustainable innovation W management of municipal solid waste (MSW). Progres- sive communities around the world employ strategies to reduce, re- advanced green use, recycle, and recover energy from waste. With approximately 29 renewable electricity jobs percent of America’s waste being recycled, 7.6 percent processed at waste-to-energy facilities and 63.5 percent landfilled, MSW is an power abundant, valuable, and underutilized source of domestic energy. By energy recovery WTE sustainable processing this material, waste-to-energy facilities: MSW waste-to-energy Produce renewable, baseload energy
Reduce greenhouse gases thermal technology Create good-paying, green jobs baseload Operate with superior environmental performance EfW Complement and enhance recycling goals energy CHP recovery avoid GHG Eighty-four waste-to-energy facilities in 23 states have the capacity to process more than 96,000 tons of waste per day with a baseload conversion electric capacity of 2,769 megawatt hours. Due to superior opera- fuels tional reliability, the nation’s waste-to-energy facilities process in clean excess of 30 million tons of trash per year, sell more than 14.5 mil- lion megawatt hours to the grid, and recover more than 730,000 tons resource of ferrous metals for recycling. In addition, many facilities sell steam directly to end users offsetting the use of fossil fuels to make that energy.
renewable energy from waste
1
Table of Contents
Articles Page Charts/Graphs Page Facility Quick List 3 WTE Capacity 4 Waste-to-Energy Capacity 4 WTE Production 5 Waste-to-Energy Production 5 Lifecycle Assessment of WTE GHG Reductions 7 Waste-to-Energy Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions 7 Disposition of MSW in U.S. States 19 Waste-to-Energy is a Renewable Resource 8 Disposition of MSW in Various Countries 21 Nationwide Economic Benefits of the WTE Sector 9 Materials and Energy Recovery vs. Landfilling 23 EPA Memo Regarding WTE MACT Compliance 10 Facility Owners 60 Update of Findings from Public Health and Environmental Facility Operators 60 Studies of WTE Technologies 12 Facility Technology Type 60 WTE, an Essential part of Sustainable Materials Management 14 Facility Offtake 60 A Compatibility Study: Recycling and WTE Work in Concert 16 The Global WTERT Council 18 Discussions Page WTE in Corporate Sustainability Efforts 22 Renewable Energy Generation in the United States 27 Workplace Health & Safety—A WTE Priority 24 EfW Can Help Curb GHG Emissions ERC Membership 25 (Center for American Progress) 29 WTE Directory: Key Terms 26 EIA Electric Generating Capacity Outlook 29 Waste is a Valuable Domestic Energy Resource (infographic) 32 World Economic Forum—Green Investing 32 Facilities (by State) Page American Chemistry Council’s Chemistry to Energy Alabama 27 Campaign 37 California 28 Recent Capacity Additions 37 Connecticut 30 Growth in Canada—Durham York Energy Center 38 Florida 33 Confederation of Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP) 39 Hawaii 38 International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) 40 Indiana 39 Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 40 Iowa 40 North American Waste-to-Energy Conference (NAWTEC) 42 Maine 41 Waste Conversion Technologies 42 Maryland 43 U.S. Congress Relies on WTE 44 Massachusetts 45 Maryland Recognizes WTE as a Tier 1 Renewable 44 Michigan 48 WTE Carbon Offsets 47 Minnesota 50 Energy Recovery Council Membership 47 New Hampshire 54 ASME Facility Recognition Awards 49 New Jersey 55 WTE as CHP Delivers Green Steam 49 New York 57 QRO—Qualification for WTE Operators 53 North Carolina 61 Ramsey/Washington Resource Recovery Facility 53 Oklahoma 62 European WTE Markets 61 Oregon 63 Prescription for Safety Program (Rx4Safety) 62 Pennsylvania 64 Metal Recovery and Recycling 65 Utah 67 WTE By the Numbers 66 Virginia 68 Democratic Governors’ Association Report on Opportunities Washington 70 to Increase and Diversify Domestic Energy Resources 67 Wisconsin 71 The Four R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover) 70
Maps Page WTE Plants in the United States 6 States Defining WTE as Renewable 6 Waste Feedstocks Track Population Density 20
2
Quick List of WTE Facilities (by state)
Alabama 46) Pope/Douglas Waste-to-Energy Facility (Alexandria) 1) Huntsville Waste-to-Energy Facility (Huntsville) 47) Red Wing Resource Recovery Facility (Red Wing) 48) Xcel Energy - Red Wing Steam Plant (Red Wing) California 49) Xcel Energy-Wilmarth Plant (Mankato) 2) Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility (Commerce) 3) Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (Long Beach) New Hampshire 4) Stanislaus County Resource Recovery Facility (Crows Landing) 50) Wheelabrator Claremont Company, L.P. (Claremont) 51) Wheelabrator Concord Company, L.P. (Concord) Connecticut 5) Bristol Resource Recovery Facility (Bristol) New Jersey 6) CRRA Hartford Trash-to-Energy Plant (Hartford) 52) Covanta Camden Energy Recovery Center (Camden) 7) Southeastern Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility (Preston) 53) Covanta Warren Energy Resource Company Facility (Oxford) 8) Wallingford Resource Recovery Facility (Wallingford) 54) Essex County Resource Recovery Facility (Newark) 9) Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. (Bridgeport) 55) Union County Resource Recovery Facility (Rahway) 10) Wheelabrator Lisbon Inc. (Lisbon) 56) Wheelabrator Gloucester Company, L.P. (Westville)
Florida New York 11) Bay County Waste-to-Energy Facility (Panama City) 57) Babylon Resource Recovery Facility (West Babylon) 12) Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Facility (Tampa) 58) Covanta Hempstead (Westbury) 13) Lake County Resource Recovery Facility (Okahumpka) 59) Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility (Poughkeepsie) 14) Lee County Resource Recovery Facility (Ft. Myers) 60) Huntington Resource Recovery Facility (East Northport) 15) McKay Bay Refuse-to-Energy Facility (Tampa) 61) MacArthur Waste-to-Energy Facility (Ronkonkoma) 16) Miami-Dade County Resource Recovery Facility (Miami) 62) Niagara Resource Recovery Facility (Niagara Falls) 17) Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility #1 (West Palm Beach) 63) Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility (Jamesville) 18) Pasco County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility (Spring 64) Oswego County Energy Recovery Facility (Fulton) Hill) 65) Wheelabrator Hudson Falls L.L.C. (Hudson Falls) 19) Pinellas County Resource Recovery Facility (St. Petersburg) 66) Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P. (Peekskill) 20) Wheelabrator North Broward Inc. (Pompano Beach) 21) Wheelabrator South Broward Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale) North Carolina 67) New Hanover County-WASTEC (Wilmington) Hawaii 22) Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture—HPOWER (Kapolei) Oklahoma 68) Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility (Tulsa) Indiana 23) Indianapolis Resource Recovery Facility (Indianapolis) Oregon 69) Marion County Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility (Brooks) Iowa 24) Arnold O. Chantland Resource Recovery Plant (Ames) Pennsylvania 70) Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy (Conshohocken) Maine 71) Delaware Valley Resource Recovery Facility (Chester) 25) ecomaine (Portland) 72) Lancaster County Resource Recovery Facility (Bainbridge) 26) Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation (Auburn) 73) Susquehanna Resource Management Complex (Harrisburg) 27) Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (Orrington) 74) Wheelabrator Falls Inc. (Morrisville) 75) York County Resource Recovery Center (York) Maryland 28) Harford Waste-to-Energy Facility (Joppa) Utah 29) Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility (Dickerson 76) Davis Energy Recovery Facility (Layton) 30) Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P. (Baltimore) Virginia Massachusetts 77) Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Facility (Alexandria) 31) Haverhill Resource Recovery Facility (Haverhill) 78) Hampton-NASA Steam Plant (Hampton) 32) Pioneer Valley Resource Recovery Facility (Agawam) 79) Harrisonburg Resource Recovery Facility (Harrisonburg) 33) Pittsfield Resource Recovery Facility (Pittsfield) 80) I-95 Energy/Resource Recovery Facility (Lorton) 34) SEMASS Resource Recovery Facility (West Wareham) 81) Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc. (Portsmouth) 35) Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. (Millbury) 36) Wheelabrator North Andover Inc. (North Andover) Washington 37) Wheelabrator Saugus Inc. (Saugus) 82) Wheelabrator Spokane Inc. (Spokane)
Michigan Wisconsin 38) Detroit Renewable Power (Detroit) 83) Barron County Waste-to-Energy & Recycling Facility (Almena) 39) Jackson County Resource Recovery Facility (Jackson) 84) Xcel Energy French Island Generating Station (LaCrosse) 40) Kent County Waste-to-Energy Facility (Grand Rapids) Italicized facilities represent inactive capacity. These facilities are not Minnesota currently operating. 41) Great River Energy - Elk River Station (Elk River) 42) Hennepin Energy Resource Center (Minneapolis) 43) Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility (Rochester) 44) Perham Resource Recovery Facility (Perham) 45) Polk County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility (Fosston)
3
Waste-to-Energy Capacity Status of WTE Facilities in the U.S. Operating Facilities 80 aste-to-energy facilities produce clean, renewable energy through the thermal conversion of municipal solid waste. The most com- Inactive Facilities 4 W mon energy products produced at these facilities are steam and Total Facilities in the U.S. 84 electricity. There are 84 total facilities in the United States today, including 80 that are currently operating, and 4 that are currently inactive but may re- Facilities Under Construction 1 turn to active service at a future date. One additional facility is under con- struction and will be placed in service in 2015. Many others are in various stages of development. WTE Facilities in the U.S. (by Technology) Mass Burn 64 Sixty-four facilities (76.2%) employ mass burn technology which allows MSW to be combusted without pre-processing. Thirteen facilities (15.5%) Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) 13 utilize refuse derived fuel (RDF) which is pre-processed municipal solid Modular 7 waste. Seven facilities (8.3%) utilize modular combustion units which are similar to mass burn, but are typically smaller and pre-fabricated. WTE Facilities in the U.S. (by Energy) The 84 facilities produce a combination of energy products. Sixty-two fa- cilities (73.8%) produce electricity for sale to the grid as the only energy Electricity Generation 62 product. Four facilities (4.8%) export steam without any electric genera- Steam Export 4 tion. Eighteen facilities (21.4%) are cogeneration—or combined heat and power—facilities, which export steam to end users and also have the ability Combined Heat & Power 18 to generate power.
The daily throughput capacity of the nation’s waste-to-energy facilities in WTE Capacity 2014 is 96,249 tons of MSW per day. The gross electric generating capaci- Daily Throughput (tpd) 96,249 ty of these facilities is 2,554 megawatts. When the energy value of the ex- ported steam is factored in and expressed in megawatts, the nation’s 84 Gross Electric Capacity (MW) 2,554 facilities have a equivalent generating capacity of 2,769 megawatts. Equivalent CHP Capacity (MW) 2,769
4
Waste-to-Energy Production
apacity represents potential and production is that potential realized. Waste-to-energy operators are ex- tremely proud of their ability to process waste and generated energy 24 hours per day, seven days per week, C all year long. Their technological and operational expertise allow facilities to achieve high availability so they may provide baseload electricity to the grid and steam to their customers. While the primary purpose of a waste-to-energy facility is to manage municipal solid waste, energy production is a valuable part of the equation in order to maximize energy efficiency, environmental benefits, greenhouse gas mitigation, and economic revenue.
The graph below illustrates that waste-to-energy facilities are extreme- ly stable and reliable. In 2012, the waste-to-energy sector processed WTE Production more than 30.2 million tons of waste and generated over 14.5 million 2012 MSW Throughput (tons) 30,211,120 megawatt hours (or 14.5 billion kilowatt hours) of net electrical gener- ation. This is the amount of electricity sold to the grid and does not 2012 Net Elec. Generation (MWh) 14,565,467 include electricity that was used internally to operate the facility. In addition to the amount of net electrical generation, 22 facilities export steam to local users. This energy is used for heating and cooling or for use in industrial processes and displaces the use of fossil fuels to make that energy.
These incredibly reliable facilities have operated in this capacity for decades. This is a testament to maturity and reliability of the technol- ogy. While some units eventually close, and some new units have been added, waste-to-energy facilities have a proven track record of operational availability, reliability. Challenging market conditions in the energy and waste markets have served as an impediment to con- structing more facilities and recovering energy from more of the 250 million tons of post-recycled waste that is sent to landfills each year.
(data in 000s)
5
6
Waste-to-Energy Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ccording to U.S. EPA, life cycle emission analysis show that waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases expressed as CO2 equivalents (GHGs or CO2e) in the atmos- A phere by approximately 1 ton for every ton of municipal solid waste (MSW) combusted. (http:// www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/wte/airem.htm#7)
U.S. EPA scientists, in a prominent peer reviewed paper, concluded WTE facilities reduce GHG emissions rel- ative to even those landfills equipped with energy recovery systems. In addition, many other governmental and nongovernmental organizations have formally recognized WTE for its role in reducing world-wide GHG emissions including the: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) called WTE a “key GHG mitigation technology”, World Economic Forum (WEF) which identified WTE as one of eight renewable energy sources expected to make a significant contribution to a future low carbon energy system, European Union, , U.S. Conference of Mayors, which adopted a resolution in 2005 endorsing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which identifies WTE as a clean, alternative energy source which can help reduce GHG emissions. As of January 1, 2014, 1,060 mayors have signed the agreement. Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, Voluntary carbon markets, and Center for American Progress.
Lifecycle Assessment of WTE GHG Reductions WTE GHG reductions are quantified using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach that includes GHG reduc- tions from avoided methane emissions from landfills, WTE electrical generation that offsets or displaces fossil -fuel based electrical generation, and the recovery of metals for recycling. The GHG reductions associated with these three factors more than offset WTE fossil-based CO2 emissions from combustion of plastics and other fossil fuel based MSW components. Using national averages as inputs, a LCA results in an approximate one ton reduction in GHG emissions for every ton of MSW combusted as was estimated by the U.S. EPA.
7
Waste-to-Energy is a Renewable Resource
aste-to-energy (WTE) meets the two basic criteria for establishing what a renewable energy resource is—its fuel source (trash) is sustainable and indigenous. Waste-to-energy facilities recover valuable W energy from trash after efforts to “reduce, reuse, and recycle” have been implemented by households and local governments. Waste-to-energy facilities generate clean renewable energy and deserve the same treatment as anyother renewable energy resource. Federal Statutes and Policies Establishing WTE Trash Would Otherwise go to a Landfill. Waste- as Renewable (as of 12/31/13) to-energy facilities use no fuel sources other than the waste that would otherwise be sent to landfills. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 State Renewable Statutes Already Include WTE. Emergency Economic Stabiliza on Act of 2008 31 states, the District of Columbia, and two terri- tories have defined waste-to-energy as renewable Tax Relief and Healthcare Act of 2006 energy in various state statutes and regulations, Energy Policy Act of 2005 including renewable portfolio standards. American Jobs Crea on Act of 2004 Communities with WTE Have Higher Recycling Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 Rates. Studies have demonstrated that average recycling rate of communities served by waste-to- Public U lity Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 energy is higher than the national average. Federal Power Act
WTE Emissions Comply with EPA’s Most Strin- Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conserva on Act gent Standards. All waste-to-energy facilities Internal Revenue Code (Sec on 45) comply with EPA’s Maximum Achievable Con- trol Technology (MACT) standards. After analyz- Execu ve Orders 13123, 13423, and 13514 ing the inventory of waste-to-energy emissions, Presiden al Memorandum on Federal Leadership on Energy EPA concluded that waste-to-energy facilities pro- Management (12/5/13) duce electricity “with less environmental impact Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions Regula ons than almost any other source of electricity.” (18 CFR.Ch. I, 4/96 Edi on, Sec. 292.204)
WTE Has a Long History as Renewable. Waste- to-energy has been recognized as renewable by States Defining Waste‐to‐Energy as Renewable the federal government for nearly thirty years un- in State Law (as of 12/31/13) der a variety of statutes, regulations, and policies. Alabama Maine Oklahoma Many state have recognized as renewable under state statutes as well. The renewable status has Arizona Maryland Oregon enabled waste-to-energy plants to sell credits in Arkansas Massachuse s Pennsylvania renewable energy trading markets, as well as to the federal government through competitive bid- California Michigan Puerto Rico ding processes. Colorado Minnesota South Carolina
Connec cut Missouri South Dakota Renewable Designations Benefit Many Local Governments and Residents. The sale of renewa- Dist. of Columbia Montana Utah ble energy credits creates revenue for local gov- Florida Nevada Virginia ernments that own waste-to-energy facilities, helping to reduce a community’s cost of pro- Hawaii New Jersey Washington cessing waste. The U.S. Conference of Mayors Indiana New York Wisconsin has adopted several resolutions supporting waste- to-energy as a renewable resource. Iowa N. Mariana Islands Louisiana Ohio
8
Nationwide Economic Benefits of the Waste-to-Energy Sector By Eileen Brettler Berenyi, PhD, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc.
Summary the several regional and national firms that own and The WTE sector creates $5.6 billion of gross econom- operate waste-to-energy facilities and local govern- ic sales output, encompassing nearly 14,000 jobs and ment personnel dedicated to plant oversight and nearly $890 million of total labor compensation. maintenance. The WTE sector also creates an addi- 5,350 employees servicing 85 plants in the United tional 8,600 jobs outside of the sector. States earning $459 million in wages, salaries and benefits Employees at waste-to-energy plants are technically 8,557 additional full time equivalent jobs created skilled and are compensated at a relatively high aver- in the U.S. sector outside the WTE sector, earning age wage. For the purposes of this study a national an additional $429 million in wages, salaries and average salary of $85,700 (inclusive of fringe bene- benefits fits) was used. Employees in the waste-to-energy in- dustry receive about $460 million in annual salary and benefits. The effect of this direct spending on he WTE sector serves three main functions: 1) employee compensation generated another $429 mil- managing post-recycled waste; 2) recycling lion of compensation for workers across various as- T post-consumer metals; and 3) producing ener- sociated industries. gy. The revenues, employment, and Conclusion labor earnings de- The waste-to-energy sector provides significant eco- rived from these nomic value in the communities in which these facil- activities are the ities operate. In addition to the revenues generated direct economic by the sector, waste-to-energy facilities provide sta- benefits of waste-to ble, long-term, well-paying jobs, while simultaneous- -energy. In addi- ly pumping dollars into local economies through the tion, these activities purchase of local goods and services and the pay- generate indirect ment of fees and taxes. In addition to the opportuni- impacts as well as ties to provide baseload renewable electric genera- induced impacts. These impacts were calculated us- tion, recover metals for recycling, and reduce green- ing multipliers from the U.S. Bureau of Economic house gas emissions, these facilities significantly Analysis RIMS II Handbook. contribute to the green economy in the communities in which they operate. Total Gross Sales Output Total gross sales numbers were used to approximate the economic output of the sector. Gross sales of the industry encompass revenues generated from: 1) tip fees—amounts paid to the WTE plant to dispose of refuse; 2) energy sales revenues; 3) recycling sales revenues. Total output (sales revenues) was $3.2 bil- lion. The total national economic impact of these rev- enues is $5.6 billion, including the initial $3.2 billion produced by the waste-to-energy sector directly. Eve- ry dollar of revenue generated by the waste-to-energy industry puts a total of 1.77 dollars into the economy through intermediate purchases of goods and services and payments to employees.
Employment and Wage Earnings The waste-to-energy industry employs about 5,350 people nationwide. This number includes all workers at 85 specific sites, as well as off-site employees of
9
Placeholder for
Walt Stevenson
Emissions memo
10
11
Update of Findings from Public Health and Environmental Studies of Waste-to-Energy Technologies
large amount of information American WTE facilities. These stud- about the potential public ies show that emissions from modern A health and environmental im- WTE plants can meet health-based pacts of waste-to-energy (WTE) plants benchmarks and that adverse public has become available since 2000, health impacts are not anticipated from when the U.S. National Research exposure to emissions from these facil- Council (NRC) published its seminal ities. report, Waste Incineration & Public Health. This information includes four Environmental monitoring studies rely different types of studies that can be on measurements of chemicals poten- used to evaluate WTE plants: risk as- tially associated with WTE in the sur- sessments, epidemiological studies, rounding natural environment to assess environmental monitoring studies, and potential impacts. The most recent By biomonitoring studies. Together, the comprehensive review of environmen- current database of these studies sup- Sarah Foster tal monitoring studies was conducted ports the conclusions of the NRC that in 2009 as part of the Durham/York and modern WTE facilities, designed and WTE project. This review evaluated Paul Chrostowski, operated in accordance with current 50 environmental monitoring studies Ph.D. regulations in North America and the published from 1991 – 2008 and con- EU, do not adversely impact human cluded that modern WTE plants are health or the environment. unlikely to impact the surrounding en- CPF Associates, Inc. vironment, although some old plants In the U.S., human health risk assess- with high emissions and poor air pollu- ments (HHRAs) are highly standard- tion controls may have impacted the ized and widely-accepted procedures environment immediately surrounding for evaluating the probability and na- the facility. The Durham/York study ture of health effects associated with also concluded that environmental existing or proposed emissions. The monitoring in the vicinity of a modern results of these studies, which address WTE plant is not justified based on the both cancer and non-cancer health ef- negligible potential for environmental fects, are usually compared to bench- impacts and because continuous and mark levels developed by regulatory periodic emissions monitoring required agencies to be protective of public under current regulations can ensure health. Ten HHRAs have been con- protection against health and environ- ducted in the past decade for North mental impacts. An extensive environ-
12
Update of Findings from Public Health and Environmental Studies of Waste-to-Energy Technologies (con’t)
“Modern WTE fa- cilities, designed and operated in accordance with current regula- tions in North America and the EU, do not ad- versely impact human health or the environment.”
mental monitoring program conducted for a WTE In general, these studies fail to present conclusive plant, at the Montgomery County, Maryland facility, evidence of a link between WTE emissions and hu- confirms these conclusions. This 14-year environ- man illness. mental monitoring program involved collection of samples from a wide variety of environmental media Biomonitoring studies analyze human tissues or ex- before and many times after the plant began operat- creta for evidence of exposure to chemical substanc- ing in 1995. The data provide no indication that fa- es. These studies can measure internal exposure to cility operation has measurably impacted the envi- compounds, but they do not necessarily indicate ronment. whether there may be a health effect. They also re- flect total exposure to a person, so do not provide Epidemiologic studies investigate how health prob- information about the possible sources of exposure. lems are distributed in groups of people and what The 2009 study conducted as part of the Durham/ factors contribute to these health problems. Essen- York project evaluated 25 biomonitoring studies tially, these studies try to determine if there is a dif- from 1998 – 2008 and found no correlation between ference in disease between people potentially ex- WTE emissions and those measured in biomonitor- posed to WTE emissions compared to the general ing studies. A more recent study of a new WTE population or those not exposed. These studies must plant built in 2005 in Spain shows no increase in in all cases be evaluated cautiously – they can indi- dioxin-like compounds or heavy metals among peo- cate whether there is a statistical association be- ple living near the plant. tween exposure and disease, but they cannot indi- cate whether a specific facility is the cause of report- In summary, available studies show that modern ed results. Many factors must be considered before WTE facilities, designed and operated in accordance one can leap from association to causation. Numer- with North American or EU regulations, do not ad- ous epidemiologic studies have been conducted for versely impact human health or the environment. A combustion facilities over the past two decades but weight of evidence approach can be used to evaluate most of these have examined old facilities, plants WTE using different types of studies, but the useful- accepting mixtures of different types of waste, or ness of each study type can vary depending on the mixtures of WTE plants plus other types of sources. project needs.
13
Waste-to-Energy, an Essential Part of Sustainable Materials Management
ritics of the use of waste-to- erally meant to convey preferred waste energy (WTE) as an integral management priorities, with source C component of municipal solid reduction and direct reuse as the most waste (MSW) management in the U.S., desired actions by communities, and the European Union, and Asia often land disposal without treatment as the focus on its impact on recycling rates, least desired. Overall, the hierarchy its cost, and its effect on other renewa- recognizes the degree of positive envi- ble energy sources. The problem with ronmental and social benefit of the these arguments is that they are predi- available waste management options cated on the belief that the municipal and helps communities integrate them solid waste stream can be handled by in a cohesive strategy that meets the recycling alone. History shows this is needs of the communities themselves. not a practical solution. A waste man- agement strategy that combines all MSW is a valuable energy resource tools available to manage this waste is Under any practical definition, energy needed. Pro- recovered from ponents take MSW is re- the position newable ener- that WTE pro- gy and should vides an essen- be legally de- By tial service to fined as such municipalities by policymak- Rick Brandes that must con- ers seeking to and stantly manage establish and those materials maintain re- Eileen Brettler that are not, or newable ener- Berenyi, Ph.D cannot, be re- gy portfolios. cycled or re- In a fundamen- covered. tal and realistic WTE's primary sense, MSW is purpose, there- constantly fore, is to capture from materials value available and continuously replenished that would otherwise be lost if buried. the very definition of the basic concept of "renewable energy." Pitting recycling against energy recov- ery draws public focus away from the Post-consumer, post-recycled munici- real issue: what to do with the more pal waste is, and will be in the foresee- than 260 million tons of waste this able future, generated in huge vol- country sends to landfills each and umes. Post-recycled waste will not go every year. away by idealistically visualizing a society where no waste is created. WTE as Part of Sustainable Materials Forty years of intense focus on recy- Management cling and source reduction have suc- Integrated materials management fol- ceeded in raising recycling rates but lowing the reduce, reuse, recycle, com- those efforts have not eliminated the post and energy recovery hierarchy is generation of MSW. With the waste proven to work and is embraced by that is left over after efforts to reduce, most developed countries. Energy re- reuse, and recycling, sustainable and covery from waste is a key component valuable opportunities to manage this to achieve MSW diversion and carbon material must be found. WTE facili- reduction goals. The hierarchy is gen- ties can create that value by extracting
14
Waste-to-Energy, an Essential Part of Sustainable Materials Management (con’t)
extracting 500 to 700 kilowatt hours of power for various materials flowing through a consumer socie- each ton of waste they process. By contrast, landfills ty, each to be managed in such a way as to recover can only capture about 100 kilowatt hours per ton by the highest value possible. In this paradigm, waste-to burning the methane captured. Additionally, WTE -energy has a central role to play along with recy- facilities provide continuously available baseload cling. Consistent with the waste management hierar- power at the local level, augmenting intermittent re- chy, this approach embodies the core principles of newable energy sources, such as wind and solar. sustainable materials management and should be in- centivized in renewable and clean energy standards, Recovering energy from MSW has a very desirable greenhouse gas programs, and other progressive poli- carbon emissions impact because the positive carbon cies. balance of WTE is significant. EPA's models for cal- culating GHG emissions reductions from the various Rick Brandes is former chief of the Energy Recovery MSW management techniques show that on average and Waste Disposal Branch, Office of Resource Con- one ton of carbon equivalents can be avoided per ton servation and Recovery, of the U.S. Environmental of MSW processed by WTE facilities. The carbon Protection Agency. Eileen Berenyi, Ph.D is Presi- emissions savings accrue from a combination of en- dent of Governmental Advisory Associates. ergy offsets from the displacement of fossil electrici- ty, GHG benefits of metals recovery from waste-to- energy ash, and avoiding methane generation from landfills.
Conclusion Waste management in the United States is evolving from a focus solely on the disposal of waste inexpen- sively to a focus on solid waste as a composite of
15
A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy Work in Concert, 2014 Update By Eileen Brettler Berenyi, Ph.D
Executive Summary Key Findings:
This study updates similar analyses conducted in 2008 • The study covers 80 waste-to-energy facilities in and 2009. Their purpose was to answer the question: 21 states serving about 30% of the population of Does a community’s use of a waste-to-energy plant to those states. Recycling data was obtained from dispose of its waste impact the level of recycling in 700 local governments, including 601 cities, towns that community. The 2008 study answered that ques- and villages and 98 counties, authorities or districts tion with a resounding no. The means of disposal had In addition, statewide data was obtained for each no impact on the level of recycling; in fact, many of the 21 states. The population of these states communities which sent their waste to a waste-to- comprises about 56% of the U.S. population. energy plant had higher levels of recycling than aver- ages that prevailed across their state. This current pa- • As reported by the U.S. EPA the national recycling per, updates the study, using 2012 data as much as rate as of 2011 was 34.7%. The recycling rate for possible. In an examination of recycling rates of 700 communities, using WTE plants is at 35.4%. In- communities in twenty-one states, which rely on waste terestingly, the average recycling rate for the 21 -to-energy for their waste disposal, it was again states surveyed is 34.9%. Figure ES-1 below demonstrated that this means of disposal had no im- shows these rates graphically. Only tenths of a per- pact on recycling. In fact, overall communities using cent separate the three averages, indicating that waste-to-energy had a slightly higher level of recy- waste-to-energy as a disposal method has no im- cling than that observed across their states and across pact on the level of recycling in a community or a the nation. state.
16
A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy Work in Concert, 2014 Update By Eileen Brettler Berenyi, Ph.D
All communities using waste-to- energy as a disposal option, are energy provide their residents an a key influence on local recy- WTE Supports High Quality Jobs opportunity to recycle and most cling behaviors and rates. have curbside collection of recy- The waste-to-energy sector clables. In fact, some of these In conjunction with the graph provides significant economic communities are leaders in the above, Table ES-1 below indi- value in the communities in adoption of innovative recycling cates how individual community which these facilities operate. programs, such as single stream recycling rates mirror the over- In addition to the revenues collection and food waste col- all state rate. In 16 of the 21 generated by the sector, waste- lection and composting. The states which rely on waste-to- to-energy facilities provide coincident nature of recycling energy facilities, individual stable, long-term, well-paying programs and waste-to-energy communities using these facili- jobs, while simultaneously in each community is evidence ties have a slightly higher recy- pumping dollars into local that these two waste manage- cling rate than the overall state economies through the pur- ment strategies easily exist side average. In total, rates have ris- chase of local goods and ser- by side. They often complement en since 2009, with additional vices and the payment of fees each other, in that a waste-to- communities adopting single and taxes. In addition to the energy plant is often the largest stream curbside recycling and opportunities to provide base- recycler of post-consumer metal more communities moving to load renewable electric genera- in the state. curbside organics collection. tion, recover metals for recy- cling, and reduce greenhouse In most cases, recycling rates in The author is the president of Gov- gas emissions, these facilities waste-to-energy communities ernmental Advisory Associates, Inc. significantly contribute to the closely track the statewide recy- in Westport, CT. The 2014 Update green economy in the commu- cling rate in the state where they of this report builds upon reports nities in which they operate. are located as shown in Figure she published on this topic in 2008 ES-2. State solid waste policies and 2009. and programs, not whether a community relies on waste-to-
17
The Global Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (www.wtert.org) By Prof. Nickolas J. Themelis, Director of Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University (EEC)
tarting in 1995, the Earth Engineering Center (EEC) of Columbia University has researched various aspects of S existing and novel technologies for the recovery of mate- rials and energy from “wastes" and disseminated the results of these studies by means of publications, presentations and the web. The guiding principle of EEC research is that “wastes” are resources and must be managed on the basis of science and best available technology and not on ideology or economics that exclude environmental costs. The general principles of Information to the Public on sustainable waste management are illustrated in the EEC Hier- Sustainable Waste Management archy of Waste Management (Figure 1). The EEC resources are its Research Associates and the graduate students who pur- Each year, WTERT-U.S. and its sister sue degrees on sustainable waste management. organizations receive many requests for information on WTE and waste manage- One of the EEC activities is the periodic Survey of Waste Man- ment practice, in general. The principal agement in the U.S. The 2013 Survey was just completed and means of communication between showed (see Table below) that landfilling remains at about WTERT and the general public are the 64% (247 million short tons) of the total U.S. MSW. In con- various national web pages that, world- trast, several nations, including Austria, Denmark, Germany, wide, continue to be the premier source Japan, Netherlands, and Singapore have practically eliminated of up-to-date information on advances landfilling by a combination of recycling/composting and in managing “wastes”. Also, in 2012- waste-to-energy (WTE). It is interesting to note that some U.S. 2013, GWC contributed chapters to states, e.g. Connecticut, are much more advanced with regard three books and half a volume to the to managing their MSW. The main reason that the U.S. lags Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science behind other developed nations is that there is no government and Technology (Springer). In 2013, policy on integrated waste management. EEC published the WTE Guidebook for Latin America and the Caribbean, under In recognition of the fact that there was not enough academic the sponsorship of the InterAmerican research and training on sustainable waste management, in Development Bank. 2003 EEC co-founded, with the Energy Recovery Council of the U.S., the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Coun- cil. WTERT brings together scientists, engineers, and manag- ers concerned with advancing sustainable waste management in the U.S. and worldwide. During the first ten years of its ex- istence, WTERT has sponsored many academic research stud- Figure 1. The EEC hierarchy of waste management ies and published over one hundred papers on all means of waste management, including waste reduction, recycling, aero- bic and anaerobic composting, waste-to-energy, and landfill gas recovery. By now WTERT has sister organizations in Bra- zil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Ja- pan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the U.K. All these organizations are part of the Global WTERT Council (GWC).
Disposition of U.S. MSW in 2011 (2013 EEC National Survey) Percent Percent Percent Percent Recycled Composted Combusted Landfilled 22.6 6.3 7.6 63.5
18
Disposition of MSW in U.S. States (EEC study, 2013)
19
Waste is everywhere. With almost 250 million tons of waste landfilled Waste is everywhere. almost With from each year,recover valuable energy and materials opportunities to of waste The average American generates nearly 7 pounds abound. indicator of is an excellent waste per day. density Therefore, population where waste feedstocks are concentrated. Waste Feedstocks Track Population Density Track Feedstocks Waste
20
Disposition of MSW in various countries (EEC study, 2013)
21
WTE in Corporate Sustainability Efforts
ompanies in the United States and around the world have identified zero waste practices as a sound man- agement practice in pursuit of sustainability, environmental achievement, and economic efficiency. C Companies that have pledged to eliminate waste from landfills rely on waste-to-energy facilities for waste that cannot be recycled. Homogenous waste streams in industrial settings yield higher recycling rates than can be achieved on the residential curbside, but residual waste remains which must be managed in a waste-to- energy facility. The electricity that can be generated by a waste-to-energy facility is a feedstock in most indus- trial manufacturing settings, which allows the energy from the residual waste to be fed right back into the indus- trial process.
“We are proud of our role as stewards of the environment and of our progress in eliminating waste from our op- erations,” said Terence O’Day, Senior Vice President of Global Operations at The Hershey Company in 2013 as two more facilities achieved zero waste to landfill status. “We achieved zero waste to landfill at these facilities through a rigorous process of eliminating waste, recycling and converting waste to energy. Our employees un- derstand the importance of sustainability across our company and are working together to reach our reduction goals.”
General Motors The Hershey Company Proctor & Gamble GM is commi ed to waste reduc on The Hershey Company has six U.S. plants Procter & Gamble announced in 2013 that throughout its opera ons. Currently, more that no longer dispose rou ne waste into 45 of their facili es have achieved zero than half of GM’s manufacturing facili es landfills. To achieve zero waste to landfill manufacturing waste to landfill. Through are landfill‐free, bringing the total count status, Hershey’s manufacturing facili es quality assurance, packaging reduc on, to 85. On average, 97% of the waste gen‐ have both reduced their overall waste compac on and recycling efforts, the erated from everyday manufacturing op‐ streams and increased recycling rates to company now ensures that 99% of all ma‐ era ons at these plants is recycled or re‐ approximately 90 percent. All remaining terials entering P&G plants leaves as fin‐ used, and 3% is converted to energy at waste is sent to nearby waste‐to‐energy ished product or is recycled, reused or waste‐to‐energy facili es. plants, which also reduces overall reliance converted to energy at waste‐to‐energy on fossil fuels. facili es.
Subaru Toyota Unilever The Subaru of Indiana Automo ve (SIA) Toyota’s target is to achieve near‐zero In 2013, Unilever United States and Cana‐ manufacturing plant in Lafaye e, Indiana, waste to landfill (measured annually as a da announced that all 26 of its manufac‐ became the first auto manufacturing plant 95% or greater reduc on in waste to land‐ turing and non‐manufacturing headquar‐ to achieve a zero landfill status. All of the fill, averaged across our North American ter facili es are now zero waste to landfill plant’s manufacturing waste goes is recy‐ plants). Their zero landfill metric is driven (ZLF). The key driver for this achievement cled and reused or sent to waste‐to‐ by the Toyota Produc on System, where in both North America manufacturing and energy. the elimina on of waste in all aspects of non‐manufacturing headquarter facili es business is a main objec ve. For example, is the elimina on of waste. Where reduc‐ SIA recycles 99.3 percent of its of excess to avoid sending nonhazardous waste to a on of waste is not sufficient, the compa‐ steel, plas c, wood, paper, glass and other landfill, waste from our design centers in ny’s facili es reuse, recycle, or recover materials. The remaining 0.7 percent is Michigan is sent to a waste‐to‐energy fa‐ energy from waste to reach zero waste to shipped to the Indianapolis waste‐to‐ cility. landfill. energy facility where it is converted to energy for the downtown steam loop.
22
Materials and Energy Recovery (EEC study, 2013)
23
Workplace Health & Safety — A Waste-to-Energy Priority
he Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) sets standards for America’s workers to ensure employees are safe and their health is protected. Waste-to-energy facilities, like T all other workplaces, must meet these tough standards. However, waste-to-energy facilities takes tremendous pride in their health and SAFETY: DO IT FOR LIFE safety programs, which often goes beyond what is required by law. Great importance is placed on developing and implementing suc- Created under an ERC-OSHA Alliance cessful programs that protect the people working in the plants. Agreement, ERC and its members have celebrated “Hauler Safety Day” at their OSHA has recognized the stellar accomplishments of 48 waste-to- facilities to educate public and private energy facilities with the designation of STAR status under the Vol- waste haulers, municipal and private untary Protection Program (VPP). VPP STAR status is the highest owners and operators, and facility em- honor given to worksites with comprehensive, successful safety and ployees about best health & safety prac- health management systems. STAR sites are committed to effective tices to ensure a safe and healthy work- employee protection beyond the requirements of federal standards place. ERC member companies have and participants develop and implement systems to effectively iden- coordinated the event by developing tify, evaluate, prevent, and control occupational hazards to prevent and utilizing a unified campaign with injuries and illnesses. The keys to health and safety success under posters, stickers and “12 Rule” cards to VPP are the employee engagement and ongoing involvement in on- get the message out regarding health site health and safety program development combined with long- and safety on waste-to-energy tipping term commitment and support from management. VPP-level recipi- floors. Our goal is to ensure that every- ents routinely incur injury and illness rates that are at or below the one who conducts business at or visits a state average for their specific industry. waste-to-energy facility will return home safe and sound at the end of each Impressively, 48 of the 84 waste-to-energy facilities have earned and every day. VPP STAR status. Less than 0.02 percent of all worksites in the United States are enrolled in VPP, yet more than 57 percent of U.S. waste-to-energy facilities are have achieved STAR status. This illus- trates the commitment of this sector is superior attention to health and safety.
24
ERC Membership
Waste-to-Energy Owners/Operators
Covanta Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. 445 South Street 4 Liberty Lane West Morristown, NJ 07960 Hampton, NH 03842 (862) 345-5000 (800) 682-0026 www.covanta.com www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Green Conversion Systems, LLC 411 Theodore Fremd Ave. Suite 102 Rye, NY 10580 (914) 925-1077 www.gcsusa.com
ERC Municipal Members ERC Associate Members
Bristol (CT) Resource Recovery Facility Operating Cmte. C&I Boiler Repair, Inc. City and County of Honolulu, HI Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers City of Alexandria/Arlington County (VA) Energy Answers International City of Ames (IA) Resource Recovery System Gershman, Brickner, and Bratton, Inc. City of Long Beach, CA Great River Energy City of Tampa, FL Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLC Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority HDR, Inc. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, CA Helfrich Brothers Boiler Works, Inc. Dade-Miami County, FL Hitachi Zosen Inova USA Delaware Solid Waste Authority ecomaine INASHCO North America Inc. Fairfax County, VA Jansen Combustion & Boiler Technologies, Inc. Hennepin County (MN) Dept. of Environmental Services Martin GmbH Kent County Department of Public Works Minnesota Resource Recovery Association Lancaster County (PA) Solid Waste Management Authority Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP Lee County (FL) Solid Waste Division New England Mechanical Overlay Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority PERC Holdings LLC Olmsted County (MN) Plasma Power LLC Onondaga County (NY) Resource Recovery Agency Plattco Corporation Pinellas County (FL) Utilities Powerhouse Technology, Inc. Pope-Douglas (MN) Solid Waste Management Ramboll Prairie Lakes Municipal Solid Waste Authority (MN) Renewable Resource Consultants LLC Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (FL) Resource Recovery Technologies, LLC Southeastern CT Regional Resources Recovery Authority RRT Design & Construction Spokane (WA) Regional Solid Waste System Southern Recycling Town of Wallingford (CT) Valmet Inc. Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority Wasatch (UT) Integrated Waste Management District Zampell Refractories, Inc. York County (PA) Solid Waste Authority
25
Waste-to-Energy Directory: Key Terms
City: The city in which the facility is physically locat- No. of Boilers: The number of boilers (or units) in use ed. at the facility.
County: The county in which the facility is physically Gross Electric Capacity (MW): Expressed in gross located. megawatts, the nameplate capacity of the turbine gener- ators located at the facility. This figure represents the U.S. Congressional District: The U.S. congressional largest amount of gross electrical output that can be district in which the facility is physically located in the achieved. 113th Congress (2013-2014). Gross Steam Capacity (lbs/hr): The gross amount of Owner: The current owner of the facility is listed. steam that can be generated. For combined heat and Whether the owner is a private or public entity is noted power facilities, this amount represents the typical parenthetically. amount of steam exported expressed in pounds per hour, in addition to electric generation. Operator: The current operator of the facility is listed. Whether the operator is a private or public entity is not- Full-time Employees: The approximate number of full- ed parenthetically. time employees that work at a facility. This number is an estimate and fluctuates over time. Project Startup: The actual year in which commercial operation began. Serves Waste Needs of (People): Indicates the number of individuals that are served by the facility in the Operating Status: Indicates whether the facility is oper- “waste catchment area”. ating, inactive, or under construction in 2014. Certifications: Indicates whether the facility has Technology: Indicates whether the facility is mass burn, achieved STAR status under the U.S. Occupational modular, or refuse derived fuel (RDF). Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) or is ISO certified. Throughput Capacity (TPD): Expressed in tons per day, the throughput capacity is the aggregate trash capacity for all units located at a facility.
State Based Information
WTE Facilities: The number of facilities located in that state. Energy Produced by WTE in a State is enough to power (#) homes: The figure is derived by expressing energy capacity (electric and Total Waste Capacity: The aggregate trash capacity of all facilities steam) in megawatts and dividing it by EIA’s estimate that each located in that state. household uses 1.24 kilowatts of capacity per hour (10,837 kwh Total Electric Capacity: The aggregate gross electric capacity of all per year). facilities located in that state. Recycling Rate of WTE Communities: The aggregate recycling rate Total Steam Capacity: The aggregate gross steam capacity typical- of all WTE communities in the state, as reported by Eileen ly exported (expressed in lbs/hr) of all facilities located in that Berenyi’s 2014 Recycling compatibility report. state. Jobs at WTE Facilities: The aggregate FTE jobs at facilities in the Population in 2010: The population of the state as reported in the state listed in the directory. 2010 census by the U.S. Census Bureau. Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Created by WTE: The MSW Managed in 2011: The total amount of MSW processed at total number of direct, indirect, and induced jobs created by WTE all facilities in the state in 2011, as reported by the 2013 Colum- in the state, as reported by Eileen Berenyi in the 2013 National bia University EEC Survey. WTE Economic report. % of MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: The percentage of the Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE: The state’s waste processed by WTE in 2011, as reported by the 2013 total number of direct ,indirect and induced economic output Columbia University EEC Survey. created by WTE in the state, as reported by Eileen Berenyi in the 2013 National WTE Economic report. WTE as % of Non-Hydro Renewable Elec. Generation in 2012: WTE electricity, expressed as a percentage of all non-hydro re- State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Citation of a state law newable electricity, generated in that state in 2012. defining WTE as renewable. In some states, more than one refer- ence to WTE as renewable may exist, but may not be listed here.
26
ALABAMA Huntsville Waste‐to‐Energy Facility City: Huntsville, AL WTE Facili es: One County: Madison US Congressional District: 5th Total Waste Capacity: 690 tons per day Owner: City of Huntsville Solid Waste Disposal Authority (public) Operator: Covanta Huntsville, Inc. (private) Total Steam Capacity: 178,620 Lbs/Hr Project Startup: 1990 AL Popula on in 2010: 4,779,736 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn MSW Managed in AL in 2011: Design Capacity (TPD): 690 5,395,280 tons No. of Boilers: 2 % of AL MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 178,620 Full‐ me Employees: 38 3.3 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 277,000 Energy Produced by WTE in Alabama is Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Enough to Power: 11,551 homes
Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in AL: Websites: www.swdahsv.org 27.2 percent www.covanta.com
Jobs at WTE Facili es in AL: Notes: The Huntsville facility sells steam 38 FTE to the U.S. Army’s Redstone Ar‐ senal, which for more than 50 Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ years has been the Army’s cen‐ ated by WTE in AL: 109 FTE ter for rocket and missile pro‐ grams. Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in Alabama: $47,100,000 Renewable Energy Generation in the United States State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: ALA §40‐18‐1 In 2012, U.S. power plants used renewable energy sources — water (hydroelectric), wood, wind, waste-to-energy, geothermal, and sun — to generate about 12% of do- mestic electricity.
The availability of renewable re- sources can vary. Hydroelectric generation increases in some years and decreases in others, primarily due to variation in the amounts of rainfall and melting snowfall occur- ring in watersheds where major hydroelectric dams are located. The availability of biomass, waste, and geothermal energy is generally con- sistent over the short term as is the generation from these resources. The availability of wind and solar energy has daily and seasonal pat- terns, so resulting generation fluc- tuates widely.
The U.S. Energy Information Ad- ministration (EIA) tracks electric generation from all sources in de- tail. For updated information, see www.eia.gov.
27
CALIFORNIA Commerce Refuse ‐to‐Energy Facility City: Huntsville, Commerce, AL CA| County: Madison | US Congressional District: 4th WTE Facili es: Three County:Owner: City Los ofAngeles Huntsville Solid Waste Disposal Authority (public) USOperator: Congressional Covanta District:Huntsville, 40th Inc. (private)
Total Waste Capacity: 2,540 tons per Owner: Commerce Refuse‐to‐Energy Authority (public) Project Startup: 1987 day Operator:Technology: Sanita on Districts ofMass Los Burn Angeles County (public) Design Capacity (TPD): 690 Total Electric Capacity: 70.4 MW ProjectNo. of Boilers: Startup: 2 1987 OperaElectric Capacityng Status: (MW): 45 Opera ng CA Popula on in 2010: 37,253,956 Technology:Annual Throughput (tons): 101,547 (2010)Mass Burn DesignNet Elec. Capacity Produced (TPD): (MWh): 450,000 (2010)360 MSW Managed in CA in 2011: No.Fe Metal of Boilers: Recovered (tons): 14,000 (2010) 1 66,299,346 tons GrossNon‐Fe Elec. Metal Capacity Recov’d (MW):(tons): 300 (2010) 12 Full‐ me Employees: 52 Full‐ me Employees: 39 % of CA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Cer fica ons: VPP STAR 1.3 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,115,000 Notes: The Huntsville facility sells steam to the U.S. Army’s Redstone Arsenal. WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Websites: www.covanta.com Genera on in CA in 2012: Websites: www.lacsd.org/solidwastewww.swdahsv.org 1.0 percent Notes: The original goal of the Com‐ Energy Produced by WTE in California is merce facility was to demon‐ Enough to Power: 56,907 homes strate that refuse‐to‐energy is a viable alterna ve method of Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in CA: solid waste management in the 50.5 percent South Coast Air Basin, where air pollu on requirements are the Jobs at WTE Facili es in CA: toughest in the world. 146 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in CA: 503 FTE Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF) City: Long Beach, CA Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & County: Los Angeles Induced) by WTE in California: US Congressional District: 47th $139,800,000 Owner: Southeast Resource Recovery Facility Authority (public) State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Operator: Covanta Long Beach Renewable Energy Corp. (private) CA Public U lity Code §399.12 Project Startup: 1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,380 No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 36 Full‐ me Employees: 60 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 500,000
Websites: www.lacsd.org/solidwaste www.covanta.com
Notes: As a public service, this facility began destroying narco cs in 1992. Since its incep on, the pro‐ gram has successfully destroyed an average of 17,000 pounds of narco cs each month.
28
Stanislaus County Resource Recovery Facility City: Crows Landing, CA County: Stanislaus US Congressional District: 10th Owner: Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. (private) Energy from Waste Can Help Operator: Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. (private) Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Matt Kasper Project Startup: 1989 April 17, 2013 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 800 [Excerpt] The United States currently generates 390 million tons of trash per No. of Boilers: 2 year, or 7 pounds per person per day. Alt- Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 22.4 hough many states have the physical space Full‐ me Employees: 47 for trash, it is environmentally unsustaina- Serves Waste Needs of (people): 521,497 ble to take garbage and bury it in the Cer fica ons: VPP STAR ground at landfills, where it decomposes and releases potent greenhouse-gas pollu- tion. Though garbage is not something we Websites: www.covanta.com tend to actively think about on a daily ba- www.stancountywte.com sis, specifically as it relates to climate change, the United States must begin de- Notes: The Stanislaus County Resource veloping policies to limit the environmen- Recovery Facility won the Solid tal consequences that result from our gen- eration of garbage. Waste Associa on of North
America's (SWANA) 2007 Waste‐ There is an alternative waste management to‐Energy Gold Excellence option that America has not significantly Award. utilized but that could help stem the flow of waste, and thus pollution emissions, in our country: energy-from-waste facilities. EIA Electric Generating Capacity Outlook According to the EPA, for every ton of garbage processed at an energy-from-
waste facility, approximately one ton of EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 2013) states that investments in electricity emitted carbon-dioxide equivalent in the generation capacity have gone through boom-and-bust cycles. A construction boom atmosphere is prevented. in the early 2000s saw capacity additions averaging 35 gigawatts a year from 2000 to
2005. Since then, average annual builds have dropped to 18 gigawatts per year from Both energy from waste and recycling and 2006 to 2011. composting efforts are a win-win-win for
the United States. Energy-from-waste gen- In the AEO 2013 Reference erates clean electricity, decreases green- case, capacity additions house gases that would have been emitted from 2012 to 2040 total 340 from landfills and fossil-fuel power plants, gigawatts, including new and pairs well with increased recycling plants built not only in the rates in states. The United States must power sector but also by begin developing national policies to deal end-use generators. Annual with the waste-management problem our additions in 2012 and 2013 country faces every day. Doing so will remain relatively high, aver- ultimately reduce emissions that cause aging 22 gigawatts per year. climate change. Annual builds drop signifi-
cantly after 2013 and remain To read the full article: below 9 gigawatts per year http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ until 2023. Between 2025 green/report/2013/04/17/60712/energy- and 2040, average annual from-waste-can-help-curb-greenhouse-gas- builds increase to 14 giga- emissions/ watts per year, as excess
capacity is depleted and the The Center for American Progress is a progressive rate of total capacity growth public policy research and advocacy organization. is more consistent with electricity demand growth.
29
CONNECTICUT Bristol Resource Recovery Facility City: Bristol, CT WTE Facili es: Six County: Har ord US Congressional District: 1st Total Waste Capacity: 7,359 tons per Owner: Covanta Bristol, Inc. (private) day Operator: Covanta Bristol, Inc. (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 195.3 MW Project Startup: 1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng CT Popula on in 2010: 3,574,097 Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 650 MSW Managed in CT in 2011: No. of Boilers: 2 3,208,768 tons Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 16.3 % of CT MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: 40 67.1 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 373,150 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in CT in 2012: 100 percent Websites: www.covanta.com www.brrfoc.org Energy Produced by WTE in Connec cut is Enough to Power: 157,869 homes Notes: In 2010, Covanta Bristol received the "The Dis nguished Business Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in CT: of the Year Award" from the 25.9 percent Central Connec cut Chambers of Commerce. Jobs at WTE Facili es in CT:
360 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in CT: 1,052 FTE CRRA Har ord Trash‐to‐Energy Plant City: Har ord, CT Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & County: Har ord Induced) by WTE in Connec cut: US Congressional District: 1st $428,000,000 Owner: Connec cut Resource Recovery Authority (public) State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Operator: NAES Corp. (private) CT §16‐1(a)(27) Project Startup: 1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 2,850 No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 69 Full‐ me Employees: 133 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,208,813
Websites: www.crra.org www.naes.com Notes: The facility includes a state‐of‐the art odor control system for the waste processing facility to thermal‐ ly destroy the odors. The system has the capacity to exchange each day the amount of air that would fill 4 Louisiana Superdomes.
30
Southeastern Connec cut Resource Wallingford Resource Recovery Facility Recovery Facility City: Wallingford, CT County: New Haven City: Preston, CT US Congressional District: 3rd County: New London Owner: Covanta Projects of Wallingford, L.P. (private) US Congressional District: 2nd Operator: Covanta Projects of Wallingford, L.P. (private) Owner: Covanta Company of South‐ eastern Connec cut (private) Project Startup: 1989 Operator: Covanta Company of South‐ Opera ng Status: Opera ng eastern Connec cut (private) Technology: Modular Design Capacity (TPD): 420 Project Startup: 1991 No. of Boilers: 3 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 11 Technology: Mass Burn Full‐ me Employees: 37 Design Capacity (TPD): 689 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 214,934 No. of Boilers: 2 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 17 Full‐ me Employees: 43 Websites: www.covanta.com Serves Waste Needs of (people): 248,233 Notes: This facility began commercial Cer fica ons: VPP STAR opera on in May 1989 and is located between Har ord and New Haven. Its renewable ener‐ Websites: www.covanta.com gy output is sold to Connec cut www.scrrra.org Light and Power Company.
Notes: The SECONN facility received the State of Connec cut DEP Green Circle Award in 2010 for promo ng pollu on pre‐ Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. ven on, waste reduc on, City: Bridgeport, CT natural resources conserva‐ County: Fairfield on and environmental US Congressional District: 4th awareness. The facility also Owner: Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. (private) received a U.S. Environmen‐ Operator: Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. (private) tal Protec on Agency New England Environmental Mer‐ Project Startup: 1988 it Special Recogni on for Opera ng Status: Opera ng outstanding efforts in im‐ Technology: Mass Burn proving New England’s envi‐ Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 ronment. No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 67 Full‐ me Employees: 74 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 815,807 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Notes: In 2013, Wheelabrator Bridge‐ port marked its 25th year of ser‐ vice, during which me it has processed 18.5 million tons of waste, generated 13 million meg‐ awa hours of electricity, and recycled nearly 400,000 tons of ferrous metals.
31
Waste is a Valuable Domestic Wheelabrator Lisbon Inc. Energy Resource and Waste-to- City: Lisbon, CT Energy is a Critical, yet County: New London Underutilized Technology US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Eastern Connec cut Resource Recovery Authority (public) Operator: Wheelabrator Lisbon Inc. (private)
Project Startup: 1995 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn 389 Design Capacity (TPD): 500 million TONS No. of Boilers: 2 of trash generated Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 15 in the US every year Full‐ me Employees: 33 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 225,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com www.ecrra.org million 247 TONS Notes: The facility is ac vely engaged in the community, suppor ng the landfilled fire department, the local school system, and the local civic group that organizes the annual Lisbon Fall Fes val. million 112 TONS recycled or composted Green Investing Towards a Clean Energy Infrastructure
In this report released in Davos, Switzerland in January At 84 WTE plants: 2009, the World Economic Forum highlighted eight energy recovery renewable energy technologies which look particularly from promising. million 30 TONS 1. Onshore Wind 2. Offshore Wind 3. Solar Photovoltaic Power Selling more than 4. Solar Thermal Electricity Generation 14.5 billion kilowatt hours 5. Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy (MSW) of renewable electricity 6. Sugar Based Ethanol Recovering and recycling 7. Cellulosic and Next Generation Biofuels more than 730,000 tons of 8. Geothermal ferrous and non-ferrous metals
GHGs—Avoiding more than
30 million tons of CO e 2 carbon dioxide equivalents
WITH SO MANY BTUs BURIED, THE NEED FOR WTE IS IMMENSE
32
FLORIDA HuntsvilleBay County Waste Waste‐to‐to‐Energy‐Energy Facility Facility City: Huntsville,Panama City, AL FL WTE Facili es: Eleven County: BayMadison US Congressional District: 5th2nd Total Waste Capacity: 19,364 tons per Owner: BayCity Countyof Huntsville (public) Solid Waste Disposal Authority (public) day Operator: CovantaEnGen, LLC Huntsville, (private) Inc. (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 532 MW Project Startup: 19901987 Opera ng Status: Opera ng FL Popula on in 2010: 18,801,310 Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 690500 MSW Managed in FL in 2011: No. of Boilers: 2 27,040,919 tons Gross SteamElec. Capacity Capacity (MW): (Lbs/Hr): 178,62015 % of FL MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: 3836 21.4 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 277,000169,560 RecyclingCer fica ons:% in Local Communi es: 35ISO 14001; ISO 18001 WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Genera on in FL in 2012: 49.7 percent Websites: www.swdahsv.orgwww.engenllc.com www.covanta.com Energy Produced by WTE in Florida is Notes: In 2009,The Huntsville Bay County facility offered sells a steamfree to the U.S. Army’s Redstone Arse‐ Enough to Power: 430,038 homes programnal. to properly dispose of American flags that were no longer Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in FL: fit for use. The WTE facility was 32.7 percent stopped, a private flag burning cer‐ emony was held, and the flags were Jobs at WTE Facili es in FL: placed directly in the combustor. 885 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in FL: 2,371 FTE Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Facility City: Tampa, FL Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & County: Hillsborough Induced) by WTE in Florida: US Congressional District: 14th $997,500,000 Owner: Hillsborough County (public) State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Operator: Covanta Hillsborough, Inc. (private) FL §366.91 Project Startup: 1987 (Units 1‐3); 2009 (Unit 4) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,800 No. of Boilers: 4 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 46.5 Full‐ me Employees: 54 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,234,010 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.covanta.com
Notes: The Hillsborough facility complet‐ ed an expansion in 2009 by add‐ ing a fourth boiler to process an addi onal 600 tons per day. The increased capacity generates carbon offsets cer fied by the Verified Carbon Standard.
33
Lake County Resource Recovery Lee County Resource Recovery Facility Facility City: Ft. Myers, FL County: Lee City: Okahumpka, FL US Congressional District: 19th County: Lake Owner: Lee County (public) US Congressional District: 10th Operator: Covanta Lee, Inc. (private) Owner: Covanta Lake, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Lake, Inc. (private) Project Startup: 1994 (Units 1&2); 2007 (Unit 3) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Project Startup: 1991 Technology: Mass Burn Opera ng Status: Opera ng Design Capacity (TPD): 1,836 Technology: Mass Burn No. of Boilers: 3 Design Capacity (TPD): 528 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 57.3 No. of Boilers: 2 Full‐ me Employees: 57 Gross Elec. Serves Waste Needs of (people): 626,502 Capacity (MW): 14.5 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Full‐ me Employees: 36 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 288,379 Websites: www.leegov.com/solidwaste Cer fica ons: VPP STAR www.covanta.com
Notes: The Lee County facility is cer ‐ Websites: www.covanta.com fied under the Verified Carbon Standard to sell carbon offsets. Notes: The Lake County Resource The facility has won numerous Recovery Facility was pre‐ awards from many pres gious sented with the William C. organiza ons since its incep on. Schwartz Industry Innova‐ on Award in 2008. This Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission McKay Bay Refuse‐to‐Energy Facility Award is presented annually City: Tampa, FL to companies from the Or‐ County: Hillsborough lando region. US Congressional District: 14th Owner: City of Tampa (public) Operator: Wheelabrator McKay Bay Inc. (private)
Project Startup: 1985 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,000 No. of Boilers: 4 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 22 Full‐ me Employees: 43 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 336,823 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com h p://www.tampagov.net/ dept_Solid_Waste/ informa on_resources/ mcKay_bay/
Notes: The McKay Bay facility under‐ went a significant retrofit project between 1999‐2001.
34
Miami‐Dade County Resource Recovery Facility Palm Beach Renewable Energy City: Miami, FL Facility #2 County: Miami‐Dade US Congressional District: 25th City: West Palm Beach, FL Owner: Miami‐Dade County (public) County: Palm Beach Operator: Covanta Dade Renewable Energy (private) US Congressional District: 18th Owner: Solid Waste Authority of Palm Project Startup: 1982 Beach County (public) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Operator: Babcock & Wilcox (private) Technology: RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 3,000 Project Startup: est. 2015 No. of Boilers: 4 Opera ng Status: Under Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 77 Construc on Full‐ me Employees: 190 Technology: Mass Burn Serves Waste Needs of (people): 2,531,789 Design Capacity (TPD): 3,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR; ISO 14001 No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Websites: www.covanta.com Capacity (MW): 96 www.miamidade.gov/ Full‐ me Employees: TBD publicworks/resources‐ Serves Waste Needs of recovery.asp (people): 1,270,000
Notes: The Miami Dade facility won the ASME Large waste‐to‐energy Websites: www.swa.org facility award in 2002. Its RDF www.babcock.com unit won the ASME Material Re‐ covery Facility award in 2003. Notes: The Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility #2 is the first greenfield mass burn waste‐ to‐energy project construct‐ Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility #1 ed in the United States in City: West Palm Beach, FL over 15 years. County: Palm Beach US Congressional District: 18th Owner: Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (public) Operator: Palm Beach Resource Recovery Corp. (Babcock & Wilcox) (private)
Project Startup: 1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 2,000 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 61 Full‐ me Employees: 221 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,270,000
Websites: www.swa.org www.babcock.com
Notes: Palm Beach REF #1 underwent a major refurbishment/ moderniza on in 2011 to extend its service life by an addi onal 20 years.
35
Pasco County Solid Waste Resource Pinellas County Resource Recovery Facility Recovery Facility City: St. Petersburg, FL County: Pinellas City: Spring Hill, FL US Congressional District: 13th County: Pasco Owner: Pinellas County (public) US Congressional District: 12th Operator: GCS Energy Recovery of Pinellas, Inc. (private) Owner: Pasco County (public) Operator: Covanta Pasco, Inc. (private) Project Startup: 1983 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Project Startup: 1991 Technology: Mass Burn Opera ng Status: Opera ng Design Capacity (TPD): 3,150 Technology: Mass Burn No. of Boilers: 3 Design Capacity (TPD): 1,050 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 75 No. of Boilers: 3 Full‐ me Employees: 70 Gross Elec. Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,000,000 Capacity (MW): 29.7 Full‐ me Employees: 40 Serves Waste Needs of Websites: www.pinellascounty.org/u li es/wte.htm (people): 439,702 www.gcsusa.com Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Notes: The Pinellas County Resource Recovery Facility is one of four Websites: www.covanta.com waste‐to‐energy facili es serving the greater Tampa Bay area. It Notes: The Pasco County Solid won the ASME Large Waste‐to‐ Waste Resource Recovery Energy Facility Award in 2004. Facility is one of four waste‐ to‐energy facili es serving the greater Tampa Bay area. The facility uses secondary sewer treatment effluent Wheelabrator North Broward Inc. from a nearby wastewater City: Pompano Beach, FL treatment plant for part of County: Broward its process water make‐up. US Congressional District: 21st In addi on, as part of the Owner: Wheelabrator North Broward Inc. (private) facility, there is a public drop Operator: Wheelabrator North Broward Inc. (private) ‐off center where local resi‐ dents can bring non‐ Project Startup: 1991 hazardous household items Opera ng Status: Opera ng for disposal. Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 68 Full‐ me Employees: 66 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 850,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Notes: Wheelabrator North Broward uses reclaimed water for cooling water purposes throughout the plant, saving an addi onal 50 million gallons of water per year that is currently pulled from the Florida Biscayne Aquifer.
36
American Chemistry Council’s Wheelabrator South Broward Inc. Chemistry to Energy Campaign City: Ft. Lauderdale, FL County: Broward The American Chemistry Coun- US Congressional District: 23rd cil's (ACC) is the trade association repre- Owner: Wheelabrator South Broward Inc. (private) senting companies engaged in the busi- Operator: Wheelabrator South Broward Inc. (private) ness of chemistry, including the manu- facturers of plastic resins. ACC has Project Startup: 1991 launched a “Chemistry to Energy” cam- Opera ng Status: Opera ng paign highlighting the role of chemistry in shale gas, energy efficiency, and ener- Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 gy recovery. No. of Boilers: 3 Chemistry: Transforming Waste into a Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 66 Valuable Energy Resource Full‐ me Employees: 72 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 850,000 Although Cer fica ons: VPP STAR recycling rates for Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com many plastics in the U.S. Notes: Wheelabrator South Broward is a are growing long‐ me supporter of SOS Chil‐ and must dren’s Village in Florida, which continue to opened in 1993. The Village allows do so, tons for brothers and sisters, who are of non-recycled plastics are buried in land- typically separated while in foster fills every day – wasting a valuable energy care, to reunite and maintain their source. Non-recycled plastics, however, are being transformed right now into alter- family connec on. native energy through advanced energy recovery technologies like waste-to-energy and plastics-to-oil. Waste-to-energy facili- ties produce clean, renewable energy in the Recent Capacity Additions form of electricity or heat from municipal solid waste, while plastics-to-oil trans- Since 2007 — 6 Expansions of Existing WTE Facilities forms non-recycled plastic into a valuable commodity, creating a reliable source for Lee County, FL (2007); Hillsborough County, FL (2009); alternative energy from an abundant, no- cost feedstock. Olmsted, MN (2010); Pope-Douglas, MN (2011), Honolulu, HI (2012); Perham, MN (2014) A 2011 study from Columbia University found that if all of the non-recycled waste Aggregate Expansion Capacity Additions: produced in the United States each year 2,540 tons per day; 54 MW electric were recovered for energy, it could power over 16 million American homes. If all of our non-recycled plastics were converted into alternative energy, rather than buried in landfills, they could power at least 6 million cars each year. And if those same non-recycled plastics were sent to waste-to -energy plants to be converted into elec- tricity, they could power over 5 million American homes annually.
Our nation’s energy policy must harness all of America’s viable energy sources, including recovering energy from waste, to Greenfield WTE Facility Under Construction continue creating the innovative products and jobs our economy needs, strengthen West Palm Beach, FL (2015) our economy, make our domestic energy supplies go further than ever and improve Capacity Additions Under Construction: our energy security. 3,000 tons per day, 96 MW electric
37
HAWAII Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture—H‐Power City: Kapolei, HI WTE Facili es: One County: Honolulu US Congressional District: 1st Total Waste Capacity: 3,000 tons per Owner: City and County of Honolulu (public) day Operator: Covanta Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 90 MW Project Startup: 1990 (Units 1&2); 2012 (Unit 3) Opera ng Status: Opera ng HI Popula on in 2010: 1,360,301 Technology: RDF (Units 1&2); Mass Burn (Unit 3) Design Capacity (TPD): 3,000 MSW Managed in HI in 2011: No. of Boilers: 3 3,884,163 tons Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 90 % of HI MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: 161 14.1 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 907,574 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in HI in 2012: 28.5 percent Websites: www.covanta.com www.opala.org Energy Produced by WTE in Hawaii is Enough to Power: 72,751 homes Notes: The H‐Power facility completed an expansion in 2012 by adding Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in HI: a 900 tpd mass burn unit to 37.2 percent complement the 2 RDF units. H‐ Power now provides nearly 8 Jobs at WTE Facili es in HI: percent of Oahu’s electricity. 161 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in HI: 324 FTE Growth in Canada
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) Induced) by WTE in Hawaii: $143,400,000 Growth in the waste-to-energy sector is occurring in Canada with construc- tion of the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) in Ontario and continuing State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: development of waste-to-energy in Vancouver. HI §269‐91 Construction of the Durham York Energy Centre is more than halfway com- plete by the end of 2013, will begin some operations by spring 2014, and will be up and running completely by fall 2014. According to statistics from Co- vanta, 7,887 cubic meters of concrete have been poured and 2,181 tonnes of structural steel placed as of October, 2013. The facility will have 60,000 linear feet of piping, not including the boiler tubes, when it is completed.
More than 300 construction workers are currently on site at peak times. More than 40 full time permanent positions will be created to operate the facility when complete.
When it is finished, the facility will have a baseload capacity of 17.5 megawatts of electricity, powered by 140,000 tonnes of post-recycled waste annually from the Re- gions of Durham and York in Ontario. One of the unique features is a 12’x 12’ “jumbotron” which will display real-time emissions information to the public, who can also access the data online.
38
INDIANA Indianapolis Resource Recovery Facility City: Indianapolis, IN WTE Facili es: One County: Marion US Congressional District: 7th Total Waste Capacity: 2,362 tons per Owner: Covanta Indianapolis, Inc. (private) day Operator: Covanta Indianapolis, Inc. (private)
Total Steam Capacity: 558,000 Lbs/Hr Project Startup: 1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Total Electric Capacity: 6.5 MW Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,362 IN Popula on in 2010: 6,483,802 No. of Boilers: 3 MSW Managed in IN in 2011: Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 558,000 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 6.5 6,440,739 tons Full‐ me Employees: 74 % of IN MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 808,466 10.9 percent Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Websites: www.covanta.com Genera on in IN in 2012: 1.2 percent Notes: Steam exported from the facility powers the downtown hea ng Energy Produced by WTE in Indiana is loop, supplying nearly all down‐ Enough to Power: 41,339 homes town businesses, as well as Indi‐ ana University, Purdue Universi‐ Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in IN: ty's Indianapolis campus, and Eli 13.8 percent Lilly. Jobs at WTE Facili es in IN: 74 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants ated by WTE in IN: 197 FTE www.cewep.eu
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & The Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP ) is the Induced) by WTE in Indiana: umbrella association of the owners and operators of waste-to-energy plants $74,900,000 across Europe. They thermally treat household and similar waste that re- State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: mains after waste prevention, reuse and recycling by generating energy from IN §8‐1‐37.4 it. They deliver this energy (heat and electricity) to citizens and industry, re- placing fossil fuels, such as coal, oil or gas used by conventional power plants.
CEWEP aims to highlight that recycling and energy recovery are complemen- tary options in order to divert waste from landfilling. Membership of CEWEP underlines a Waste-to-Energy Plant’s commitment to ensuring high environmental standards, achieving low emissions by operating Best Available Techniques and maintaining state of the art energy production from other- wise un-reusable/recyclable materials.
CEWEP represents European Waste-to-Energy Plants at the EU level, through thorough analysis of environmental legislation, on sustainable devel- opment and by providing information on the Waste-to-Energy sector to the Commission, Council and European Parliament.
39
IOWA Arnold O. Chantland Resource Recovery Plant City: Ames, IA WTE Facili es: One County: Story US Congressional District: 4th Total Waste Capacity: 175 tons per day Owner: City of Ames (public) Operator: City of Ames (public) Total Electric Capacity: 4 MW Project Startup: 1975 IA Popula on in 2010: 3,046,355 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: RDF MSW Managed in IA in 2011: Design Capacity (TPD): 175 3,930,863 tons No. of Boilers: 1 % of IA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 4 (RDF a ributed) Full‐ me Employees: 15 1.0 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 68,898 WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in IA in 2012: 0.2 percent Websites: www.cityofames.org Energy Produced by WTE in Iowa is Enough to Power: 3,233 homes Notes: The Arnold O. Chantland Re‐ source Recovery Plant (RRP) was Jobs at WTE Facili es in IA: the first municipally operated 15 FTE waste‐to‐energy facility in the na on and was built in 1975. Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ The RRP won the 2011 ASME ated by WTE in IA: 32 FTE waste‐to‐energy facility award. Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in Iowa: $7,300,000 International Solid Waste Association www.iswa.org State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: IA §476.41 The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) is a global, independent and non-profit making association, working in the public interest to fulfill its declared mis- sion: “To Promote and Develop Sustainable and Professional Waste Management World- wide”. ISWA’s vision is an Earth where no waste exists. Waste should be reused and reduced to a minimum, then collect- ed, recycled and treated properly.
Solid Waste Association of North America www.swana.org For more than 50 years, the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) has been the leading professional associa- tion in the solid waste field. SWANA serves over 8,000 members throughout North America, and thousands more with conferences, certifications, publications, and technical training courses. SWANA’s prominent and nationally acclaimed technical conferences and training programs cover all aspects of integrated municipal solid waste management, and the Association is a major poli- cy and technical representative of solid waste management practitioners, exec- utives, companies and government organizations.
40
MAINE ecomaine City: Portland, ME WTE Facili es: Three County: Cumberland US Congressional District: 1st Total Waste Capacity: 1,470 tons per Owner: ecomaine (public) day Operator: ecomaine (public)
Total Electric Capacity: 44.7 MW Project Startup: 1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng ME Popula on in 2010: 1,328,361 Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 550 MSW Managed in ME in 2011: No. of Boilers: 2 1,412,071 tons Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 14.7 % of ME MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: 50 33.5 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 250,000 Cer fica ons: ISO 14001 WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in ME in 2012: 8.9 percent Websites: www.ecomaine.org
Energy Produced by WTE in Maine is Notes: ecomaine won the 2006 the Sol‐ Enough to Power: 36,133 homes id Waste Associa on of North America’s (SWANA) WTE Silver Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in ME: Award and the 2009 ASME Small 25.8 percent Combus on Facility of the Year Award. Jobs at WTE Facili es in ME:
153 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in ME: 615 FTE Mid‐Maine Waste Ac on Corpora on City: Auburn, ME Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & County: Androscoggin Induced) by WTE in Maine: US Congressional District: 2nd $146,600,000 Owner: Mid‐Maine Waste Ac on Corpora on (public) State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Operator: Mid‐Maine Waste Ac on Corpora on (public) ME 35‐A § 3210 Project Startup: 1992 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 200 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 5 Full‐ me Employees: 28 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 65,000
Websites: www.midmainewaste.com
Notes: MMWAC is located in Auburn and is owned by 12 municipali‐ es: Auburn, Bowdoin, Buckfield, Lovell, Minot, Monmouth, New Gloucester, Poland, Raymond, Sumner, Sweden, and Wales.
41
Penobscot Energy Recovery Company The North American Waste-to- City: Orrington, ME Energy Conference (NAWTEC) County: Penobscot US Congressional District: 2nd Co-sponsored by the Energy Recovery Owner: PERC Holdings LLC; communi es (private) Council (ERC) and the Solid Waste Operator: ESOCO Orrington, Inc. (private) Association of North America (SWANA), in partnership the Waste- Project Startup: 1988 to-Energy Research and Technology Opera ng Status: Opera ng Council (WTERT) at Columbia Uni- Technology: RDF versity, the North American Waste-to- Design Capacity (TPD): 720 Energy Conference (NAWTEC) is No. of Boilers: 2 widely recognized as the premier con- Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 25 ference and trade show focusing on Full‐ me Employees: 75 the municipal waste-to-energy sector. Serves Waste Needs of (people): 400,000
NAWTEC celebrates its 22nd Annual Meeting in 2014. Over the years, it Websites: www.percwte.com has showcased the latest business de- www.mrcmaine.org velopment, research, technology, inno- vations, and policies affecting the mu- Notes: PERC has a unique ownership nicipalities and companies involved in structure, in which PERC Hold‐ waste-to-energy. The 22nd NAWTEC ings LLC owns 73% of the facility will take place May 7-9, 2014 in and 78 local governments are Reston, VA. limited partners that together own 23% of the facility. http://www.nawtec.org
1993 – Islip, NY 1994 – Boston, MA Waste Conversion Technologies 1995 – Washington, DC 1996 – Atlantic City, NJ Energy recovery via gasification of munic- 1997 – Research Triangle Park, NC ipal solid waste (MSW) is an emerging 1998 – Miami Beach, FL conversion technology drawing increasing 1999 – Tampa, FL interest across North America for its po- 2000 – Nashville, TN 2001 – Miami, FL tential dual benefits of energy recovery 2002 – Philadelphia, PA and landfill diversion. Gasification tech- 2003 – Tampa, FL nology potentially offers feedstock flexi- 2004 – Savannah, GA bility and customization for generating a 2005 – Orlando, FL range of desirable products. Gasification’s 2006 – Tampa, FL main product is synthesis gas (syngas) that 2007 – Miami, FL is further processed into electricity, etha- 2008 – Philadelphia, PA nol, diesel, or other chemicals. 2009 – Chantilly, VA 2010 – Orlando, FL Gasification occurs in the presence of lim- 2011 – Lancaster, PA ited amounts of air (or oxygen) that allows 2012 – Portland, ME 2013 – Ft. Myers, FL partial combustion of the material and 2014 – Reston, VA leads to combustible syngas as a final product. Gasification technologies have Source: Gasification Technologies Council been successful in processing coal, pet coke, biomass, and homogeneous industrial waste products. Their ap- plication in the field of MSW processing is under development.
42
MARYLAND Harford Waste‐to‐Energy Facility City: Joppa, MD WTE Facili es: Three County: Harford US Congressional District: 2nd Total Waste Capacity: 4,410 tons per Owner: Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (public) day Operator: Energy Recovery Opera ons, Inc. (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 124.6 MW Project Startup: 1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Total Steam Capacity: 242,340 Lbs/Hr Technology: Modular Design Capacity (TPD): 360 MD Popula on in 2010: 5,773,552 No. of Boilers: 4 MSW Managed in MD in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 1.2 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 72,340 2,352,939 tons Full‐ me Employees: 43 % of MD MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 242,514 22.6 percent Cer fica ons: OSHA SHARP
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in MD in 2012: Websites: www.nmwda.org
52.0 percent Notes: The Harford facility provides Energy Produced by WTE in Maryland is about 50% of the steam needs of Enough to Power: 116,391 homes the Edgewood Area of U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in MD: Ground, which has been used for 39.7 percent the development and tes ng of chemical agent muni ons. Jobs at WTE Facili es in MD: 160 FTE Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ City: Dickerson, MD ated by WTE in MD: 458 FTE County: Montgomery US Congressional District: 6th Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in Maryland: Owner: Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (public) Operator: Covanta Montgomery, Inc. (private) $183,000,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Project Startup: 1995 MD § 7‐701 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,800 No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 63.4 Full‐ me Employees: 49 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 971,600 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.nmwda.org www.covanta.com Notes: The facility won the Solid Waste Associa on of North America Gold Excellence Award for Waste to Energy in 2005 and 2010. All waste is brought to the facility in intermodal containers via railcar thereby elimina ng truck traffic.
43
Wheelabrator Bal more, L.P. U.S. Congress Relies on WTE City: Bal more, MD County: Bal more In 2011, Congress began sending US Congressional District: 3rd approximately 90 percent of its Owner: Wheelabrator Bal more, L.P. (private) trash to a waste-to-energy facility in Operator: Wheelabrator Bal more, L.P. (private) Alexandria, VA. The Architect of Project Startup: 1985 the Capitol reported that in the first Opera ng Status: Opera ng nine months, 3,700 tons of nonre- Technology: Mass Burn cyclable solid waste from Congres- Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 sional facilities has processed by No. of Boilers: 3 waste-to-energy. "Congress has Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 60 made huge strides to improve our Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 170,000 environmental sustainability," said Full‐ me Employees: 68 then-House Administration Chair- Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,427,232 man Dan Lungren (R-Calif.). Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com The positive report is good news Notes: Wheelabrator opened the Aquacul‐ for the House Administration and ture Center in 1986 to raise threat‐ Senate Rules and Administration ened fish species. The water used in which is responsible for managing the Aquaculture Center comes from the waste generated in the U.S. the plant’s cooling water system. Capitol and congressional office Each fall, approximately five thou‐ buildings. In 2011, Rep. Jim Moran sand small fish are released into (D-Va.), the ranking member of the Maryland rivers. Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior and Environment, has praised the waste-to-energy pro- Maryland Recognizes WTE as a Tier 1 Renewable gram last October. "It's the appro- priate thing to do, burning our On May 17, 2011, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed into law a bill waste and getting energy from it," that elevated waste-to-energy from Tier 2 to Tier 1 in the Maryland renewable energy standard. he said. "We do it in my district, and it's something we studied care- In a statement, Governor O’Malley said: “Our State has an aggressive goal of gener- fully when I was the mayor of ating 20% of our energy from Tier I renewable sources by 2022 and we intend to achieve Alexandria." that goal through as much in-state energy generation as possible. This will require a diverse fuel mix including onshore and offshore wind, solar, biomass including poultry litter, and now waste-to-energy if we are to realize our 20% goal. “Marylanders generate tons of solid waste each and every day. If there is no waste-to-energy facility available, these tons of trash are simply dumped into landfills, no value is derived from the waste, and our State continues to rely on coal-fired generation to account for 55% of our energy needs. “On carbon emissions, those greenhouse gases that degrade our environment and contribute to global warming, waste to energy facilities are better for the environment than the com- bination of coal generated electricity and land filling of solid waste. It is only through a diverse, renewable fuel mix that we will be able to reach our aggressive goals, protect our precious environment, and create the economic engine to move Maryland forward.”
44
MASSACHUSETTS Haverhill Resource Recovery Facility City: Haverhill, MA WTE Facili es: Seven County: Essex US Congressional District: 3rd Total Waste Capacity: 9,490 tons per Owner: Covanta Haverhill, Inc. (private) day Operator: Covanta Haverhill, Inc. (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 256.9 MW Project Startup: 1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Total Steam Capacity: 68,000 Lbs/Hr Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,650 MA Popula on in 2010: 6,545,629 No. of Boilers: 2 MSW Managed in MA in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 44.6 Full‐ me Employees: 48 7,520,771 tons Serves Waste Needs of (people): 475,000 % of MA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Cer fica ons: VPP STAR 42.2 percent
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Websites: www.covanta.com Genera on in MA in 2012: 68.1 percent Notes: Covanta Haverhill, Inc. won the ASME Large Combus on Facility Energy Produced by WTE in Massachuse s Award in 2004. The facility sits is Enough to Power: 212,060 homes on a 147 acre area in the Ward Hill Neck sec on of Haverhill. Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in MA:
37.3 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in MA: 489 FTE Pioneer Valley Resource Recovery Facility Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ City: Agawam, MA ated by WTE in MA: 1,441 FTE County: Hampden US Congressional District: 1st Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in Massachuse s: Owner: Covanta Springfield, LLC (private) Operator: Covanta Springfield, LLC (private) $591,600,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Project Startup: 1988 MA §ch.25A § 11F Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Modular Design Capacity (TPD): 400 No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 9.4 Full‐ me Employees: 41 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 300,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.covanta.com
Notes: This facility was one of the first in the United States to successfully co‐combust wastewater treat‐ ment plant sludge and fats, oil and grease (FOG) with municipal solid waste.
45
Pi sfield Resource Recovery Facility SEMASS Resource Recovery Facility City: West Wareham, MA City: Pi sfield, MA County: Plymouth County: Berkshire US Congressional District: 9th US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Covanta SEMASS, L.P. (private) Owner: Covanta Pi sfield, LLC (private) Operator: Covanta SEMASS, L.P. (private) Operator: Covanta Pi sfield, LLC (private) Project Startup: 1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Project Startup: 1981 Technology: RDF Opera ng Status: Opera ng Design Capacity (TPD): 2,700 Technology: Mass Burn No. of Boilers: 3 Design Capacity (TPD): 240 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 78 No. of Boilers: 2 Full‐ me Employees: 85 Gross Steam Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,000,000 Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 68,000 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 0.9 Full‐ me Employees: 29 Websites: www.covanta.com Serves Waste Needs of (people): 70,000 Notes: The facility won the ASME Large Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Combus on Facility Award in 2007. It processes more than one million tons of trash per Websites: www.covanta.com year.
Notes: Each year, the Pi sfield Re‐ source Recovery Facility pro‐ duces over 400 million pounds of steam as well as 3.5 million kW hours of elec‐ Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. tricity used in‐house for fa‐ City: Millbury, MA cility opera ons. On a daily County: Worcester basis, the steam generated US Congressional District: 2nd by the facility and delivered Owner: Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. (private) to Crane & Co. enables Operator: Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. (private) Crane to run its currency paper manufacturing facility Project Startup: 1987 and avoid u lizing 16,000 Opera ng Status: Opera ng gallons of oil per day. Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,500 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 46 Full‐ me Employees: 54 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 750,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Notes: Wheelabrator is strongly commi ed to suppor ng Millbury, including vol‐ unteering to help build a Victorian Garden at the senior center, restoring the “Great Room” in the historic Asa Water Mansion Museum; and work‐ ing to establish the state’s first inner‐ city wildlife sanctuary.
46
Wheelabrator North Andover Inc. WTE Carbon Offsets City: North Andover, MA County: Essex Carbon offset credits generated by US Congressional District: 6th Hillsborough County’s Resource Owner: Wheelabrator North Andover Inc. (private) Recovery Facility, in Tampa, FL Operator: Wheelabrator North Andover Inc. (private) have been approved under the Ver- ified Carbon Standard (VCS), a Project Startup: 1985 global standard for the approval of Opera ng Status: Opera ng credible voluntary offset credits. Technology: Mass Burn The credits represent reductions in Design Capacity (TPD): 1,500 No. of Boilers: 2 net greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 40 sions achieved by generating re- Full‐ me Employees: 67 newable energy from waste at the Serves Waste Needs of (people): 426,000 facility. In addition, for the credits to be approved under the standard, Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com they must also meet strict program requirements and be independently Notes: The facility shares a neighbor‐ verified by a qualified third party. hood where businesses and resi‐ The Lee County Resource Recov- den al areas are thriving and ery Facility in Ft. Myers, FL is also con nuing to enjoy growth and qualified to sell carbon offsets un- expansion. The facility also sup‐ der the Verified Carbon Standard, ports the Science Screen Report and has sold offsets on the volun- STEM educa on package for tary market. schools in the Merrimack Valley and beyond.
Energy Recovery Council Wheelabrator Saugus Inc. Membership City: Saugus, MA County: Essex The Energy Recovery Council is the US Congressional District: 6th national trade association representing Owner: Wheelabrator Saugus Inc. (private) companies and local governments en- Operator: Wheelabrator Saugus Inc. (private) gaged in the waste-to-energy sector. ERC is responsible for advocating on Project Startup: 1975 waste-to-energy issues before lawmak- Opera ng Status: Opera ng ers and regulators, promoting waste- Technology: Mass Burn to-energy to the public, policymakers, Design Capacity (TPD): 1,500 and opinion leaders, building coali- No. of Boilers: 2 tions in support of waste-to-energy, Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 38 publishing articles and educational Full‐ me Employees: 65 materials, and working as a clearing- Serves Waste Needs of (people): 850,000 house for technical information. Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Membership is available for WTE owners and operators, local govern- Notes: Wheelabrator Saugus created the ments, and companies that provides Bear Creek Wildlife Sanctuary and has goods and services to WTE owners spent more than $2.2 million in restor‐ and operators. Visit www.wte.org for ing coastal habitats, capping the landfill membership information. with na ve grassland species and pre‐ ven ng the growth of invasive plants. The sanctuary is cer fied by the Wildlife Habitat Council as a Wildlife at Work and Corporate Land for Learning site.
47
MICHIGAN Detroit Renewable Power City: Detroit, MI WTE Facili es: Three County: Wayne US Congressional District: 13th Total Waste Capacity: 4,125 tons per Owner: Detroit Renewable Energy LLC (private) day Operator: Detroit Renewable Energy LLC (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 88.8 MW Project Startup: 1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Total Steam Capacity: 271,118 Lbs/Hr Technology: RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 3,300 MI Popula on in 2010: 9,883,640 No. of Boilers: 3 MSW Managed in MI in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 68 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 228,300 13,780,212 tons Full‐ me Employees: 157 % of MI MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,000,000 7.2 percent Websites: www.detroitrenewablepower.com WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. www.gdrra.org Genera on in MI in 2012: Notes: The Detroit facility provides 9.6 percent steam to the Detroit steam Energy Produced by WTE in Michigan is loop. It will also export process Enough to Power: 89,313 homes steam that will be used to heat and cool por ons of GM’s De‐ Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in MI: troit‐Hamtramck assembly 13.7 percent plant, helping GM achieve its renewable energy goals. Jobs at WTE Facili es in MI: 196 FTE Jackson County Resource Recovery Facility Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ City: Jackson, MI ated by WTE in MI: 735 FTE County: Jackson US Congressional District: 7th Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in Michigan: Owner: Jackson County (public) Operator: n/a $185,300,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Project Startup: 1987 MI §460.1011 Opera ng Status: Inac ve Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 200 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 4 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 42,818 Full‐ me Employees: n/a
Websites: www.co.jackson.mi.us
Notes: The Jackson facility became inac‐ ve on September 30, 2013. The facility may reopen at a future date.
48
ASME Facility Recognition Awards Kent County Waste‐to‐Energy Facility Combustion Facility Winners City: Grand Rapids, MI
1994 - Commerce Refuse to Energy County: Kent 1995 - Camden Resource Recovery Facility US Congressional District: 3rd 2000 - Montenay Energy Resources of Owner: Kent County (public) Montgomery County (PA) Operator: Covanta Kent, Inc. (private) 2001 - Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility (Large WTE Project Startup: 1990 Facility) Opera ng Status: Opera ng 2001 - Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility (Small WTE Facility) Technology: Mass Burn 2002 - (tie) Huntington Resource Recovery Design Capacity (TPD): 625 SEMASS No. of Boilers: 2 Miami-Dade (Large WTE Facility) Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 16.8 2002 - Sumner County (Small WTE Facility) Full‐ me Employees: 39 2003 - McKay Bay (Large WTE Facility) Serves Waste Needs of (people): 605,213 2003 - Wallingford (Small WTE Facility) Cer fica ons: VPP STAR 2004 - Greater Vancouver Regional District (Large WTE Facility) 2004 - Covanta Haverhill, Inc. (Large WTE Facility) Websites: www.covanta.com 2004 - Pinellas County Resource Recovery www.accesskent.com/ Facility (Large WTE Facility) Departments/DPW/ 2004 - Pittsfield Resource Recovery Facility (Small WTE Facility) Notes: The Kent facility was accepted 2005 - Great River Energy, Elk River Station (Large WTE Facility) into the Michigan Clean Corpo‐ 2005 - American Ref-Fuel Company of rate Ci zen (C3) Program in Hempstead (Large WTE Facility) 2006. 2005 - Bay County Resource Management Center (Small WTE Facility) 2006 - Covanta SECONN (Large WTE Fa- cility) 2006 - Union County Resource Recovery WTE as CHP Delivers Green Steam Facility, NJ (Large WTE Facility - Honorable Mention) Under a long-term supply agreement, steam from the Wheelabrator Westchester 2007 - York Resource Recovery Center waste-to-energy plant is being piped directly to White Plains Linen’s adjacent 100,000 (Large WTE Facility) -square-foot commercial laundry facility via a newly-constructed steam line. White 2007 - Southeast Resource Recovery Facility Plains Linen is converting its natural gas-fueled laundry equipment and room heating (SERRF) (Large WTE Facility) systems to steam. Now that the conversion is completed, White Plains Linen will MacArthur Resource Recovery Facili- significantly reduce the amount of natural gas it uses to make steam and hot water, ty, NY (Small WTE Facility). from 1 million therms per year to less than 90,000 therms per year. This steep reduc- 2008- Covanta Onondaga. L.P. (Large WTE tion in natural gas usage will eliminate 4,775 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions Facility ) annually, equivalent to taking 995 passenger vehicles off the road. 2008- Pioneer Valley Resource Recovery Facility (Small WTE Facility) “Westchester County is pleased to support this innovative partnership between two 2008- MacArthur Resource Recovery Facili- of our larger industrial employers,” said Westchester County Executive Robert P. ty. (Small WTE Facility - Honorable Astorino. “It is a great example of how corporate responsibility, especially when it mention) comes to protecting our environment, is also good for business.” 2008- Covanta Bristol
2009- North County Resources Recovery Facility (Large WTE Facility) White Plains Linen is Peekskill’s largest employer and has made a multimillion dollar 2009– ecomaine WTE Facility (Small WTE investment in building a state-of-the-art, green laundry operation to serve the tri-state Facility) area’s restaurant, catering and hospitality industries. 2010- Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LP, (Large WTE Facility) 2011- Covanta Alexandria/Arlington Inc. 2011- Arnold O. Chantland Resource Recov- ery System, Ames IA 2012 - Honolulu Program of Waste Energy Recovery (H-Power). 2013 - No Recipient
49
MINNESOTA Great River Energy—Elk River Sta on City: Elk River, MN WTE Facili es: Nine County: Sherburne US Congressional District: 6th Total Waste Capacity: 4,668 tons per Owner: Great River Energy (private) day Operator: Great River Energy (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 123.2 MW Project Startup: 1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Total Steam Capacity: 183,000 Lbs/Hr Technology: RDF Design Capacity (TPD): 1,000 MN Popula on in 2010: 5,303,925 No. of Boilers: 3 MSW Managed by MN in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 29 Full‐ me Employees: 80 5,710,304 tons Serves Waste Needs of (people): 850,000 % of MN MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: 20.1 percent Websites: www.greatriverenergy.com WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in MN in 2012: Notes: The facility was retrofi ed in 5.7 percent 1989 to combust RDF. Since original construc on in the early Energy Produced by WTE in Minnesota is 1950s, the plant has used sever‐ Enough to Power: 111,422 homes al fuels, including coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear energy, re Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in MN: chips and wood chips. 47.2 percent Jobs at WTE Facili es in MN: 322 FTE Hennepin Energy Resource Center (HERC) Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ City: Minneapolis, MN ated by WTE in MN: 888 FTE County: Hennepin US Congressional District: 5th Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in Minnesota: Owner: Hennepin County (public) Operator: Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Co., Inc. (private) $193,100,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Project Startup: 1989 MN §216B.1691 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,212 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 36.7 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 20,000 Full‐ me Employees: 48 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,156,212
Websites: www.covanta.com www.hennepin.us/HERC
Notes: Through a steam line, HERC pro‐ vides steam to buildings in down‐ town Minneapolis, including Tar‐ get Field, home of baseball’s Min‐ nesota Twins.
50
Olmsted Waste‐to‐Energy Facility Perham Resource Recovery Facility City: Perham, MN City: Rochester, MN County: O er Tail County: Olmsted US Congressional District: 7th US Congressional District: 1st Owner: Prairie Lakes Municipal Solid Waste Authority (public) Owner: Olmsted County (public) Operator: Prairie Lakes Municipal Solid Waste Authority (public) Operator: Olmsted County (public) Project Startup: 1986; 2014 Project Startup: 1987 (Units Opera ng Status: Opera ng 1&2) Technology: Mass Burn 2010 (Unit 3) Design Capacity (TPD): 200 Opera ng Status: Opera ng No. of Boilers: 2 Technology: Mass Burn Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 4.5 Design Capacity (TPD): 400 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 30,000 No. of Boilers: 3 Full‐ me Employees: 15 Gross Steam Serves Waste Needs of (people): 75,000 Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 61,000 Gross Elec. Websites: www.co.o er‐tail.mn.us/prairielakes/ Capacity (MW): 9.5 Full‐ me Employees: 33 Notes: This facility is operated through a Serves Waste Needs of joint powers agreement between (people): 140,000 Becker, O er Tail, Todd, and Wade‐ na coun es. An expansion project adding a waste heat boiler, addi‐ Websites: www.co.olmsted.mn.us onal air pollu on control equip‐ ment and a material recovery facili‐ Notes: The facility expanded in 2010 ty is under construc on and will be by adding a third boiler capable completed in 2014. of processing an addi onal 200 tons per day. The OWEF pro‐ duces steam and electricity Polk County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility which is provided to 37 build‐ City: Fosston, MN ings in the Olmsted County Dis‐ County: Polk trict Energy System (OCDES). A US Congressional District: 7th public educa on program has Owner: Polk County (public) been developed and ins tuted Operator: Polk County (public) that includes a solid waste edu‐ ca on module that is included Project Startup: 1988 in many middle school environ‐ Opera ng Status: Opera ng mental resources curriculums in Technology: Modular the County. The curriculum Design Capacity (TPD): 80 typically includes a tour of the No. of Boilers: 2 OWEF. Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 21,000 Full‐ me Employees: 23 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 90,000
Websites: h p://pcphealth.org/list_departments/incinerator/index.aspx
Notes: Polk County made the decision to u lize waste‐to‐energy combus‐ tor for their solid waste manage‐ ment to comply with the State’s mandate for landfill abatement. The facility includes a material recovery facility to pre‐process the incoming waste stream.
51
Pope/Douglas Waste‐to‐Energy Red Wing Resource Recovery Facility Facility City: Red Wing, MN County: Goodhue City: Alexandria, MN US Congressional District: 2nd County: Douglas Owner: City of Red Wing (public) US Congressional District: 7th Operator: City of Red Wing (public) Owner: Pope/Douglas Solid Waste Joint Powers Board (public) Project Startup: 1982 Operator: Pope/Douglas Solid Waste Opera ng Status: Inac ve Joint Powers Board (public) Technology: Modular Design Capacity (TPD): 96 Project Startup: 1987 (Unit No. of Boilers: 2 1&2) Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 15,000 2011 (Unit 3) Full‐ me Employees: n/a Opera ng Status: Opera ng Serves Waste Needs of (people): 44,000 Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 240 No. of Boilers: 3 Websites: www.red‐wing.org/solidwaste.html Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 36,000 Notes: The Red Wing Resource Recovery Gross Elec. Facility stopped combus ng Capacity (MW): 0.5 waste in June, 2013. The facility Full‐ me Employees: 43 accepts waste which is processed Serves Waste Needs of into RDF and sent to the Xcel En‐ (people): 42,000 ergy Red Wing Genera ng Sta‐ on.
Websites: www.popedouglasrecycle.com
Notes: In 2011, a third combus on unit was added, doubling Xcel Energy—Red Wing Steam Plant the capacity of the facility. City: Red Wing, MN Steam from the facility is County: Goodhue sold to Alexandria Technical US Congressional District: 2nd & Community College, the Owner: Xcel Energy (private) 3M Manufacturing plant, Operator: Xcel Energy (private) and the Douglas County Hos‐ pital. The facility pre‐ Project Startup: 1987 processes waste through a Opera ng Status: Opera ng material recovery facility, Technology: RDF which helps remove harmful Design Capacity (TPD): 720 elements that decrease the No. of Boilers: 2 life of the equipment (such Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 24 as glass and metals). Full‐ me Employees: 28 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,280,891
Websites: h p://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/ Power_Genera on/ Red_Wing_Genera ng_Sta on
Notes: The plant located on the Missis‐ sippi River burns RDF produced at a resource recovery facili es in Newport, MN.
52
QRO— Qualification for WTE Xcel Energy—Wilmarth Plant Operators City: Mankato, MN County: Blue Earth Overview US Congressional District: 1st The waste-to-energy sector must meet Owner: Xcel Energy (private) some of the nation’s most stringent Operator: Xcel Energy (private) standards. In addition to meeting Maxi- mum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards for emissions, facility Project Startup: 1987 operators are required by regulation to be trained and certified under the Amer- Opera ng Status: Opera ng ican Society of Technology: RDF Mechanical Engi- Design Capacity (TPD): 720 neers (ASME) No. of Boilers: 2 QRO Certifica- Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 19 tion Program. It is Full‐ me Employees: 20 based on the ASME QRO-1-2005 Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Re- Websites: h p://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/ source Recovery Facility Operators. This Power_Genera on/ program consist of 3 different levels of Wilmarth_Genera ng_Sta on certification: Provisional, Site Specific Operator and Combustion System Op- Notes: The RDF burned at Wilmarth is erator. produced at resource recovery facili es in Elk River and New‐ ASME QRO Operator Certification port, MN. provides the means to comply with the requirements of 40CFR60.54b (Standards for municipal waste combus- tor operator training and certification) when there is no state certification pro- gram. Refuse Derived Fuel Processing
QRO Provisional certification is the Ramsey/Washington Resource Recovery Facility first step toward achieving full Operator City: Newport, MN certification. This level is equally applica- County: Washington ble to Shift Supervisors and Chief Facili- US Congressional District: 4th ty Operators. Owner: Resource Recovery Technologies (private) Operator: Resource Recovery Technologies (private) Operator certification (full certifica- tion) applies to a specific facility. The Project Startup: 1987 applicant is required to be the holder of Opera ng Status: Opera ng a valid Provisional certificate and docu- Technology: RDF Processing ment six months of satisfactory employ- Design Capacity (TPD): 1,200 ment in the capacity of Shift Supervisor Full‐ me Employees: 65 or Chief Facility Operator at the specific facility and pass an oral examination. Serves Waste Needs of (people): 750,000
Websites: www.rrtmn.com
Notes: The RDF produced at this facility is converted to energy by Xcel Energy at its Red Wing and Wilmarth facili es.
53
NEW HAMPSHIRE Wheelabrator Claremont Company, L.P. City: Claremont, NH WTE Facili es: Two County: Sullivan US Congressional District: 2nd Total Waste Capacity: 700 tons per day Owner: Wheelabrator Claremont, L.P. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Claremont, L.P. (private) Total Electric Capacity: 19 MW Project Startup: 1987 NH Popula on in 2010: 1,316,470 Opera ng Status: Inac ve Technology: Mass Burn MSW Managed by NH in 2011: Design Capacity (TPD): 200 1,144,568 tons No. of Boilers: 2 % of NH MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 5 Full‐ me Employees: n/a 22.0 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 73,000 WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Genera on in NH in 2012:
9.3 percent Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Energy Produced by WTE in New Hampshire Notes: The Claremont facility became is Enough to Power: 15,358 homes inac ve on September 30, 2013. Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in NH: The facility may reopen at a fu‐ 21.2 percent ture date.
Jobs at WTE Facili es in NH: 38 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in NH: 174 FTE Wheelabrator Concord Company, L.P. Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & City: Concord, NH Induced) by WTE in New Hampshire: County: Merrimack $37,400,000 US Congressional District: 2nd Owner: Wheelabrator Concord, L.P. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Concord, L.P. (private)
Project Startup: 1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 500 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 14 Full‐ me Employees: 38 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 169,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Notes: The Concord facility celebrated its 25th anniversary on May 2, 2014 at an event a ended by city and state officials. In its first 25 years, the facility processed more than 4 million tons of waste, gener‐ a ng more than 2.5 million mega‐ wa s of electricity.
54
NEW JERSEY Covanta Camden Energy Recovery Center City: Camden, NJ WTE Facili es: Five County: Camden US Congressional District: 1st Total Waste Capacity: 5,717 tons per Owner: Covanta Camden GP, LLC (private) day Operator: Covanta Camden GP, LLC (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 169.6 MW Project Startup: 1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng NJ Popula on in 2010: 8,791,894 Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,050 MSW Managed in NJ in 2011: No. of Boilers: 3 10,861,083 tons Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 34 % of NJ MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: 52 19.6 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 506,420 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in NJ in 2012: 61.2 percent Websites: www.covanta.com
Energy Produced by WTE in New Jersey is Notes: Covanta acquired the Camden Enough to Power: 137,095 homes facility in August 2013 from Fos‐ ter Wheeler, which was the orig‐ Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in NJ: inal designer, builder, owner and 40.7 percent operator of the facility.
Jobs at WTE Facili es in NJ: 274 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in NJ: 822 FTE Covanta Warren Energy Resource Company Facility City: Oxford, NJ Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & County: Warren Induced) by WTE in New Jersey: US Congressional District: 5th $496,900,000 Owner: Covanta Warren Energy Resource Co., L.P. (private) State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Operator: Covanta Warren Energy Resource Co., L.P. (private)
NJ §14:8‐2.6 Project Startup: 1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 450 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 13.5 Full‐ me Employees: 41 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 35,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.covanta.com
Notes: An integral part of the solid waste management plan for the county, the facility sells renewa‐ ble electricity to Jersey Central Power and Light, a First Energy Company.
55
Essex County Resource Recovery Union County Resource Recovery Facility Facility City: Rahway, NJ County: Union City: Newark, NJ US Congressional District: 10th County: Essex Owner: Union County U lity Authority (public) US Congressional District: 8th Operator: Covanta Union, Inc. (private) Owner: Covanta Essex Company (private) Project Startup: 1994 Operator: Covanta Essex Company Opera ng Status: Opera ng (private) Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1440 Project Startup: 1990 No. of Boilers: 3 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 42.1 Technology: Mass Burn Full‐ me Employees: 60 Design Capacity (TPD): 2,277 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 500,000 No. of Boilers: 3 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 66 Full‐ me Employees: 86 Websites: www.unioncountyu li esauthority.org Serves Waste Needs of www.covanta.com (people): 1,200,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Notes: The Union County Resource Re‐ covery Facility won Honorable Men on for the 2006 ASME Websites: www.covanta.com Large Combus on Facility Award. Notes: The Essex County Resource Recovery Facility is New Jer‐ sey's largest waste‐to‐ energy facility. The facility serves the refuse disposal Wheelabrator Gloucester Company, L.P. needs of 22 municipali es in City: Westville, NJ Essex County and the sur‐ County: Gloucester rounding region. Covanta US Congressional District: 1st Essex has partnered Owner: Wheelabrator Gloucester Company, L.P. (private) with Clean Energy Fuels to Operator: Wheelabrator Gloucester Company, L.P. (private) open an on‐site compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling Project Startup: 1990 sta on for garbage trucks Opera ng Status: Opera ng that u lize the facility. Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 500 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 14 Full‐ me Employees: 35 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 263,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Notes: Wheelabrator Gloucester has created and maintains a wildlife refuge and nature trail which have been cer fied by The Wildlife Habitat Council as a “Wildlife at Work” site. In 2014, the NJ Dept. of Environmental Protec on hon‐ ored the facility with an environmental stewardship award for its proac ve engagement in sustainability ini a ves.
56
NEW YORK Babylon Resource Recovery Facility City: West Babylon, NY WTE Facili es: Ten County: Suffolk US Congressional District: 3rd Total Waste Capacity: 11,131 tons per Owner: Covanta Babylon, Inc. (private) day Operator: Covanta Babylon, Inc. (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 285.1 MW Project Startup: 1989 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Total Steam Capacity: 548,000 Lbs/Hr Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 750 NY Popula on in 2010: 19,378,102 No. of Boilers: 2 MSW Managed in NY in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 16.8 Full‐ me Employees: 45 17,349,855 tons Serves Waste Needs of (people): 430,000 % of NY MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: 21.2 percent Websites: www.covanta.com WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in NY in 2012: Notes: This facility operates with a 30.9 percent "zero discharge" of process wa‐ ter, meaning all wastewater gen‐ Energy Produced by WTE in New York is erated on‐site is treated and Enough to Power: 265,896 homes reused.
Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in NY: 27.7 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in NY: 522 FTE Covanta Hempstead Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ City: Westbury, NY ated by WTE in NY: 1,377 FTE County: Nassau US Congressional District: 4th Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in New York: Owner: Covanta Hempstead Co. (private) Operator: Covanta Hempstead Co. (private) $726,800,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Project Startup: 1989 NY §1‐103 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,505 No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 72 Full‐ me Employees: 82 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,000,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.covanta.com
Notes: Covanta Hempstead is Long Is‐ land's largest waste‐to‐energy facility. The facility is the corner‐ stone of Hempstead's integrated waste service plan that includes an extensive curbside collec on system for recyclable materials.
57
Dutchess County Resource Recovery Hun ngton Resource Recovery Facility Facility City: East Northport, NY County: Suffolk City: Poughkeepsie, NY US Congressional District: 3rd County: Dutchess Owner: Covanta Hun ngton, Inc. (private) US Congressional District: 18th Operator: Covanta Hun ngton, Inc. (private) Owner: Dutchess County Resource Re‐ covery Agency (public) Project Startup: 1991 Operator: Covanta Hudson Valley Re‐ Opera ng Status: Opera ng newable Energy LLC (private) Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 750 Project Startup: 1987 No. of Boilers: 3 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 24.3 Technology: Mass Burn Full‐ me Employees: 45 Design Capacity (TPD): 450 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 345,000 No. of Boilers: 2 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 9.8 Full‐ me Employees: 44 Websites: www.covanta.com Serves Waste Needs of (people): 293,562 Notes: The facility began commercial Cer fica ons: VPP STAR opera on in December 1991, serving the towns of Hun ngton and Smithtown. The facility is Websites: www.dcrra.org the cornerstone of an integrated www.covanta.com solid waste management sys‐ tem. Notes: The Dutchess facility can process approximately 160,000 tons of municipal solid waste annually. The MacArthur Waste‐to‐Energy Facility facility generates enough City: Ronkonkoma, NY electricity to power approxi‐ County: Suffolk mately 10,000 homes per US Congressional District: 2nd year, which is equivalent to Owner: Islip Resource Recovery Agency (private) saving about 160,000 barrels Operator: Covanta MacArthur Renewable Energy, Inc. (private) of oil per year. The facility recovers and recycles ap‐ Project Startup: 1990 proximately 6,000 tons of Opera ng Status: Opera ng ferrous metal per year. Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 486 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 12 Full‐ me Employees: 42 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 301,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR; ISO 14001
Websites: www.covanta.com www.toirra.com
Notes: The MacArthur Waste‐to‐Energy Facility won the 2007 ASME Large Combus on Facility Award.
58
Niagara Resource Recovery Facility Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility City: Jamesville, NY City: Niagara Falls, NY County: Onondaga County: Niagara US Congressional District: 24th US Congressional District: 26th Owner: Covanta Onondaga, L.P. (private) Owner: Covanta Niagara Company Operator: Covanta Onondaga, L.P. (private) (private) Operator: Covanta Niagara Company Project Startup: 1995 (private) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Project Startup: 1980 Design Capacity (TPD): 990 Opera ng Status: Opera ng No. of Boilers: 3 Technology: Mass Burn Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 39.2 Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 Full‐ me Employees: 44 No. of Boilers: 2 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 470,000 Gross Steam Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 470,000 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 32 Websites: www.covanta.com Full‐ me Employees: 87 www.ocrra.org Serves Waste Needs of (people): 900,000 Notes: The Onondaga facility was Cer fica ons: VPP STAR named Top Renewable Plant by ISO 14001 POWER Magazine in 2008, won the ASME Large Combus on Facility Award in 2008 and won Websites: www.covanta.com the SWANA Waste‐to‐Energy Opera ons Gold Award in 2012. Notes: The facility sells steam to adjacent chemical facili es and electricity to the New Oswego County Energy Recovery Facility York State power grid. Facil‐ City: Fulton, NY ity upgrades consis ng of a County: Oswego new steam line and a new US Congressional District: 24th natural gas steam boiler will Owner: Oswego County (public) provide steam for the new Operator: Oswego County (public) Greenpac paper mill project, as well as enhance steam Project Startup: 1986 genera ng capacity for ex‐ Opera ng Status: Opera ng is ng businesses. A new rail Technology: Modular spur to be built on remediat‐ Design Capacity (TPD): 200 ed land will significantly re‐ No. of Boilers: 2 duce the number of trucks Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 4 accessing local roadways Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 60,000 reduce associated diesel Full‐ me Employees: 28 emissions. Serves Waste Needs of (people): 126,000
Websites: www.oswegocounty.com/dsw
Notes: The facility was completely retro‐ fi ed in 1999‐2000. A state‐of‐the‐ art emissions control system was put in place. The ERF was upgraded 2009 to recover and recycle ferrous metals.
59
Wheelabrator Hudson Falls L.L.C. City: Hudson Falls, NY County: Washington US Congressional District: 21st Owner: Wheelabrator Hudson Falls L.L.C (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Hudson Falls L.L.C (private)
Project Startup: 1991 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 500 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 15 Full‐ me Employees: 37 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 345,966 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Notes: The facility generates clean, re‐ newable energy by processing waste from Washington and Warren coun es, while pursuing opportuni es to enhance envi‐ ronmental educa on in the com‐ munity.
Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P. City: Peekskill, NY County: Westchester US Congressional District: 17th Owner: Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P. (private)
Project Startup: 1984 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,250 No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Capcity (MW): 60 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 18,000 Full‐ me Employees: 68 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 855,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: wheelabratortechnolgies.com
Notes: Under a long‐term supply agree‐ ment, steam from the Wheelabra‐ tor Westchester facility will be piped directly to White Plains Lin‐ en’s commercial laundry facility, reducing the laundry’s carbon foot‐ print by 90%.
60
NORTH CAROLINA New Hanover County — WASTEC City: Wilmington, NC WTE Facili es: One (Inac ve) County: New Hanover US Congressional District: 3rd Total Waste Capacity: 500 tons per Owner: New Hanover County (public) day Operator: New Hanover County (public)
Total Electric Capacity: 10.5 MW Project Startup: 1984(Units 1&2); 1991 (Unit 3) Opera ng Status: Inac ve NC Popula on in 2010: 9,535,483 Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 500 MSW Managed in NC in 2011: No. of Boilers: 3 9,137,435 tons Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 10.5 % of NC MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: n/a 0 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 200,000
Websites: www.nhcgov.com
Notes: The WASTEC facility in New Han‐ over County became inac ve in 2010. Opera ng permits remain ac ve, and the facility may reopen at a future date.
European WTE Markets
The Amager Bakke waste-to-energy facility, now under construction in Copenha- gen, is the most recent high-tech, high profile WTE facility in Europe demon- strating panache. When finished in 2017, it will produce heat for 160,000 house- holds and electricity for 62,500 residences, but will be renowned for its aesthetic design, and the ski slope that descends from its stack. Environmentally progres- sive cities all around Europe employ state-of-the-art waste-to-energy facilities, convinced that producing megawatts is better than placing trash in landfills. The value of waste-to-energy was reemphasized in Europe in 1999, with a Euro- pean Union directive requiring member states to greatly reduce the amount of garbage going to landfills. As of 2010 (the most current year for which statistics are available), there were 451 WTE facilities in Europe, up from 390 in 2001, according to the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP). The plants annually process 73 million metric tons of waste, producing 44 million megawatt-hours (MWH) of electricity and 61 million MWH of heat, or enough power to keep 13 million people wired and another 13 million warm. And more waste-to-energy projects are starting up, or are on the way. One market research firm says the EU's tightening standards on waste are a key driver behind world growth in WTE that it says will ac- celerate in the next five years, with 250 new plants and installed capacity on track to increase 21 percent by 2016.
61
OKLAHOMA Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility City: Tulsa, OK WTE Facili es: One County: Tulsa US Congressional District: 1st Total Waste Capacity: 1,125 tons per Owner: Covanta Tulsa Renewable Energy, LLC (private) day Operator: Covanta Tulsa Renewable Energy, LLC (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 16.8 MW Project Startup: 1986; 2011 (CLEERGAS retrofit) Opera ng Status: Opera ng Total Steam Capacity: 80,000 Lbs/Hr Technology: Mass Burn (Units 1&2); CLEERGAS® (Unit 3) OK Popula on in 2010: 3,751,351 Design Capacity (TPD): 1,125 MSW Managed in OK in 2011: No. of Boilers: 3 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 16.8 4,778,966 tons Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 80,000 % of OK MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: 42 4.3 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 388,300
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Websites: www.covanta.com Genera on in OK in 2012: 0.2 percent Notes: In 2012, Covanta Tulsa received the Henry Bellmon Sustainability Energy Produced by WTE in Oklahoma is Award. A Covanta CLEERGAS® Enough to Power: 18,754 homes gasifica on demonstra on unit has operated successfully at the Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in OK: Tulsa facility since 2011. 9.8 percent
Jobs at WTE Facili es in OK: 42 FTE Prescription for Safety Program (Rx4Safety) Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in OK: 123 FTE When flushed down the drain or disposed of in landfills, medications enter waterways and contaminate surface waters, having an adverse effect on drink- Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & ing water and the environment. Typical waste water treatment plants are not Induced) by WTE in Oklahoma: designed to remove drugs from drinking water, resulting in a negative impact $20,700,000 upon aquatic organisms, fish and other wildlife State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: when these pharmaceuticals are disposed of im- OK §17‐801.4 properly. In addition, unused medication in the household may contribute to growing rates of prescription drug abuse among Americans, particularly teenagers.
In support of national efforts to alleviate these issues, Covanta developed the Prescription for Safety Program (Rx4Safety) to provide safe, free disposal of medications collected at community sponsored drug take-back programs. Waste-to- energy facilities provide safe, environmentally sound destruction that protects water resources and reduces the risk of drugs reaching unauthorized users.
Since the program’s launch in 2010, Covanta’s facilities have destroyed more than one million pounds of unwanted medications from United States col- lection events held by municipalities, community groups and law enforcement agencies.
62
OREGON Marion County Solid Waste‐to‐Energy Facility City: Brooks, OR WTE Facili es: One County: Marion US Congressional District: 5th Total Waste Capacity: 550 tons per day Owner: Covanta Marion, Inc. (private) Operator: Covanta Marion, Inc. (private) Total Electric Capacity: 13.1 MW Project Startup: 1987 OR Popula on in 2010: 3,831,074 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn MSW Managed in OR in 2011: Design Capacity (TPD): 550 3,945,093 tons No. of Boilers: 2 % of OR MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 13.1 Full‐ me Employees: 38 4.6 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 314,866 WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Genera on in OR in 2012: 1.2 percent Websites: www.covanta.com
Energy Produced by WTE in Oregon is Notes: SInce its incep on and through Enough to Power: 10,589 homes 2013, the Marion facility has pro‐ cessed approximately 5 million Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in OR: tons of MSW, while recovering and 51.2 percent recycling approximately 100,000 tons of metals, the equivalent Jobs at WTE Facili es in OR: amount of steel used to build more 38 FTE than 80,000 cars. Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in OR: 116 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in Oregon: $31,800,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: OR §469A.020
Energy Comes in All Shapes and Sizes
Don’t Waste It
63
PENNSYLVANIA Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy City: Conshohocken, PA WTE Facili es: Six County: Montgomery US Congressional District: 13th Total Waste Capacity: 8,748 tons per Owner: Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, L.P. (private) day Operator: Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, L.P. (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 267.9 MW Project Startup: 1992 Opera ng Status: Opera ng PA Popula on in 2010: 12,702,379 Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,216 MSW Managed in PA in 2011: No. of Boilers: 2 14,135,701 tons Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 32 % of PA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: 46 21.8 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 421,786 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR; ISO 14001 WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in PA in 2012: 32.9 percent Websites: www.covanta.com Notes: The facility received the 2008 Energy Produced by WTE in Pennsylvania is Governor’s Award for Safety Enough to Power: 216,555 homes Excellence and has twice been Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in PA: recognized as the American Soci‐ 35.5 percent ety of Mechanical Engineers Sol‐ id Waste Processing Division’s Jobs at WTE Facili es in PA: “Large Waste‐to‐Energy Facility 354 FTE of the Year.” (2000 and 2010).
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in PA: 1,114 FTE Delaware Valley Resource Recovery Facility City: Chester, PA Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & County: Delaware Induced) by WTE in Pennsylvania: US Congressional District: 1st $586,000,000 Owner: Covanta Delaware Valley, L.P. (private) State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Operator: Covanta Delaware Valley, L.P. (private) PA 73 P.S. §1648.2 Project Startup: 1992 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 2,688 No. of Boilers: 6 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 87 Full‐ me Employees: 106 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,000,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR
Websites: www.covanta.com
Notes: The Delaware Valley facility is the largest waste‐to‐energy facility in Pennsylvania, serving the waste and electrical needs of Delaware County and the greater Delaware Valley region.
64
Metal Recovery and Recycling Lancaster County Resource Recovery Facility City: Bainbridge, PA Despite attempts to recycle materials County: Lancaster through curbside collection and US Congressional District: 16th dropoff programs, many ferrous and Owner: Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (public) non-ferrous metals end up in the trash Operator: Covanta Lancaster, Inc. (private) that is sent to landfills and waste-to- energy facilities. If waste is sent to a Project Startup: 1991 landfill, the metals contained within Opera ng Status: Opera ng are buried. If waste is sent to a waste- Technology: Mass Burn to-energy facility, metals can be recov- Design Capacity (TPD): 1,200 ered post- No. of Boilers: 3 combustion. Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 33.1 Full‐ me Employees: 47 More than Serves Waste Needs of (people): 420,000 730,000 tons of Cer fica ons: VPP STAR ferrous and non- ferrous metals are recovered annual- Websites: www.lcswma.org ly from waste-to-energy facilities in the www.covanta.com U.S. Today the price levels for metals are good and are likely to increase in Notes: The facility is a "zero discharge" fa‐ the future due to the growing global cility, meaning that all the demand for raw materials. wastewater generated on‐site is treated and reused in the waste After energy is recovered from the management process. It also uses waste, metals are recovered from the secondary sewage treatment efflu‐ ash. Ferrous metals are extracted mag- ent for all of its process water. netically, and non-ferrous metals are sorted using eddy current separators. Susquehanna Resource Management Complex Recovered metals are sold into the City: Harrisburg, PA secondary materials market. County: Dauphin
US Congressional District: 11th Waste-to-energy plants and recycling Owner: Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (public) facilities are the keystones in modern Operator: Covanta Harrisburg, Inc. (private) waste management systems. Due to the extra quantities of raw materials Project Startup: 1972; 2006 (retrofit) recovered from bottom ashes, waste- Opera ng Status: Opera ng to-energy plants contribute further to Technology: Mass Burn an environmentally sound recycling Design Capacity (TPD): 800 society and thus help to improve re- No. of Boilers: 3 source efficiency, using unavoidable Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 20.8 waste as a valuable resource wherever Full‐ me Employees: 47 possible. Serves Waste Needs of (people): 100,000
Websites: www.lcswma.org/srmc www.covanta.com
Notes: In 2009, Covanta Harrisburg was named a Top Plant by Power Magazine. The facility was pur‐ chased by the LCSWMA on De‐ cember 23, 2014 to secure fu‐ ture waste processing capacity and ini ate a regionalized ap‐ proach to managing MSW.
65
WTE By The Numbers Wheelabrator Falls Inc. City: Morrisville, PA County: Bucks US Congressional District: 8th In the U.S. Operating in Owner: Wheelabrator Falls Inc. (private) Operator: Wheelabrator Falls Inc. (private) 84 23 Project Startup: 1994 WTE facilities States Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,500 No. of Boilers: 2 Recovering more than Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 53 Full‐ me Employees: 56 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 550,000 730,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR tons of metals
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Generating Notes: Wheelabrator Falls is a Wildlife Habitat Council Wildlife at Work 14,565,467 and Corporate Lands for Learning cer fied facility. megawatt hours of renewable electricity in 2012
And exporting steam York County Resource Recovery Center (thermal energy) at the rate of City: York, PA County: York 2,600,000 US Congressional District: 4th Owner: York County Solid Waste Authority (public) pounds per hour Operator: Covanta York Renewable Energy LLC (private)
Project Startup: 1989 Enough total energy to power Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 1,344 2,250,000 No. of Boilers: 3 homes Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 42 Full‐ me Employees: 52 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 450,000 Cer fica ons: VPP STAR; ISO 14001 Avoiding
30,211,120 Websites: www.ycswa.org tons of CO2 equivalents www.covanta.com
in 2012, based on EPA Notes: This publicly owned facility is the data that, on average, cornerstone of the county's inte‐ 1 ton of CO2e is avoided grated waste management campus, for every 1 ton of MSW which also includes an educa on processed by WTE center, a yard waste transfer facili‐ ty, and a recycle drop‐off center.
66
UTAH Davis Energy Recovery Facility City: Layton, UT WTE Facili es: One County: Davis US Congressional District: 1st Total Waste Capacity: 420 tons per day Owner: Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District (public) Operator: Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District (public) Total Steam Capacity: 105,000 Lbs/Hr Project Startup: 1988 Total Electric Capacity: 1.6 MW Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn UT Popula on in 2010: 2,763,885 Design Capacity (TPD): 420 No. of Boilers: 2 MSW Managed by UT in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 1.6 2,535,552 tons Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 105,000 % of UT MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: 40 5.0 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 217,000
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in UT in 2012: Websites: www.wiwmd.org 0.9 percent Notes: On Feb. 15, 2013, the Davis Energy Produced by WTE in Utah is Enough Energy Recovery Facility pro‐ to Power: 8,083 homes cessed its 3 millionth ton of waste. The facility exports ap‐ Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in UT: proximately 450 million pounds 11.7 percent of steam to nearby Hill Air Force Base. Jobs at WTE Facili es in UT: 40 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in UT: 159 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in Utah: $9,600,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Opportunities to Increase and Diversify Domestic Energy UT §54‐17‐601 Resources: A Path Forward for States to Create and Retain Jobs September 8, 2012
Waste-to-energy "often brings greenhouse gas mitigating, baseload renewable energy and significant jobs through both the construction and operation of plants," according to the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA). In a paper entitled, "Opportunities to Increase and Diversify Domestic Energy Resources: A Path Forward for States to Create and Retain Jobs", DGA rec- ognizes that trash is converted into energy at facilities throughout the U.S. and serves as a sustainable baseload renewable energy resource, adding to our fuel diversity. The boost to the local economy provided by waste-to-energy is illustrated in the report by the expansion of the HPOWER facility in Hawaii, which “created 400 construction jobs and will employ 34 full-time employees, as well as contribute millions in direct and indirect spending to the local econ- omy.”
For the entire report, please go to www.democraticgovernors.org.
67
VIRGINIA Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Facility City: Alexandria, VA WTE Facili es: Five County: n/a US Congressional District: 8th Total Waste Capacity: 6,415 tons per Owner: Covanta Arlington/Alexandria, Inc. (private) day Operator: Covanta Arlington/Alexandria, Inc. (private)
Total Electric Capacity: 177.5 MW Project Startup: 1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Total Steam Capacity: 445,000 Lbs/Hr Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 975 VA Popula on in 2010: 8,001,024 No. of Boilers: 3 MSW Managed in VA in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 22 Full‐ me Employees: 48 15,359,820 tons Serves Waste Needs of (people): 600,000 % of VA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Cer fica ons: VPP STAR 13.3 percent Websites: www.covanta.com WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in VA in 2012: Notes: The Alexandria facility is situated 34.9 percent on a 4 acre site, the smallest Energy Produced by WTE in Virginia is footprint of any operated by Enough to Power: 172,258 homes Covanta. The Alexandria facility processes all the post‐recycled Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in VA: waste generated in the U.S. Cap‐ 36.2 percent itol and House and Senate office buildings. Jobs at WTE Facili es in VA: 356 FTE Hampton‐NASA Steam Plant Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ City: Hampton, VA ated by WTE in VA: 1,010 FTE County: n/a US Congressional District: 2nd Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & Induced) by WTE in Virginia: Owner: NASA & City of Hampton (public) Operator: City of Hampton (public) $423,600,000
State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: Project Startup: 1980 VA §56.576 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn Design Capacity (TPD): 240 No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 66,000 Full‐ me Employees: 38 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 180,000
Websites: www.hampton.gov
Notes: The Hampton/NASA Steam Plant generates energy for NASA’s Langley Research Center by processing trash from Hampton, NASA Langley, Lang‐ ley Air Force Base and the Newport News shipyard. The facility won a 2012 Federal Energy and Water Management Award.
68
Harrisonburg Resource Recovery I‐95 Energy/Resource Recovery Facility (Fairfax) Facility City: Lorton, VA County: Fairfax City: Harrisonburg, VA US Congressional District: 11th County: n/a Owner: Covanta Fairfax, Inc. (private) US Congressional District: 6th Operator: Covanta Fairfax, Inc. (private) Owner: City of Harrisonburg (public) Operator: City of Harrisonburg (public) Project Startup: 1990 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Project Startup: 1982; Technology: Mass Burn 2004 (retrofit) Design Capacity (TPD): 3,000 Opera ng Status: Opera ng No. of Boilers: 4 Technology: Mass Burn Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 93 Design Capacity (TPD): 200 Full‐ me Employees: 75 No. of Boilers: 2 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,651,647 Gross Steam Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 57,000 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 2.5 Websites: www.covanta.com Full‐ me Employees: 31 Serves Waste Needs of Notes: Fairfax is the largest waste‐to‐ (people): 122,000 energy facility in Virginia, serving a popula on of more than one mil‐ lion people in the Washington, D.C. suburbs of Fairfax County. It is the Websites: www.harrisonburgva.gov/ first Covanta facility to have a non‐ resource‐recovery‐facilty ferrous metal recovery system.
Notes: The Harrisonburg facility creates steam to heat and cool the James Madison Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc. University (JMU) cam‐ City: Portsmouth, VA pus. To keep up with the County: n/a growing trash flow from the US Congressional District: 3rd area and changing environ‐ Owner: Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc. (private) mental regula on, the City Operator: Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc. (private) decided to increase the pro‐ duc on capacity of the facil‐ Project Startup: 1988 ity from 100 tons a day to Opera ng Status: Opera ng 200 tons a day in 2004. This Technology: RDF also helped the City keep up Design Capacity (TPD): 2,000 with the steam needs of No. of Boilers: 4 JMU's rapidly expanding Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 60 campus. Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 322,000 Full‐ me Employees: 164 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 1,127,790
Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com
Notes: Wheelabrator Portsmouth has been an ac ve supporter of and par cipant in the non‐ profit Elizabeth River Project (ERP), which has brought industry and government together to restore the river. The facility has received ERP’s highest recogni on in its voluntary envi‐ ronmental program and has earned ERP’s Sustained Dis nguished Performance award.
69
WASHINGTON Wheelabrator Spokane Inc. City: Spokane, WA WTE Facili es: One County: Spokane US Congressional District: 5th Total Waste Capacity: 800 tons per day Owner: City of Spokane (public) Operator: Wheelabrator Spokane Inc. (private) Total Electric Capacity: 26 MW Project Startup: 1991 WA Popula on in 2010: 6,724,540 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Mass Burn WA MSW Managed in 2011: Design Capacity (TPD): 800 8,801,350 tons No. of Boilers: 2 % of WA MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 26 Full‐ me Employees: 40 3.1 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 423,347 WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Cer fica ons: VPP STAR Genera on in WA in 2012:
1.7 percent Websites: www.wheelabratortechnologies.com Energy Produced by WTE in Washington is Notes: The Spokane facility won the Enough to Power: 21,017 homes Solid Waste Associa on of North Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in WA: America's (SWANA) 2013 Waste‐ 54.7 percent to‐Energy Gold Excellence Award. Jobs at WTE Facili es in WA: 40 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ ated by WTE in WA: 119 FTE
Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & The Four R’s Induced) by WTE in Washington:
$74,900,000 Solid waste hierarchies adopted by governments around the world rec- State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: ognize the benefits of the four “R’s” of waste management. After you WA §80.28.025 reduce, reuse, and recycle what you can, you should recover energy from waste. BTUs are too valuable to throw away.
70
WISCONSIN Barron County Waste‐to‐Energy & Recycling Facility City: Almena, WI WTE Facili es: Two County: Barron US Congressional District: 7th Total Waste Capacity: 490 tons per day Owner: Barron County (public) Operator: ZAC, Inc. (private) Total Electric Capacity: 30 MW Project Startup: 1986 Total Steam Capacity: 10,000 Lbs/Hr Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: Modular WI Popula on in 2010: 5,868,986 Design Capacity (TPD): 90 No. of Boilers: 2 MSW Managed in WI in 2011: Gross Steam Capacity (Lbs/Hr): 10,000 5,650,450 tons Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 2 % of WI MSW Managed by WTE in 2011: Full‐ me Employees: 18 1.3 percent Serves Waste Needs of (people): 75,000
WTE as % of Non‐Hydro Renewable Elec. Genera on in WI in 2012: Websites: www.barroncountywi.gov 1.1 percent www.zacincorporated.com/home
Energy Produced by WTE in Wisconsin is Notes: The Barron County facility ex‐ Enough to Power: 24,897 homes ports steam energy to the Sa‐ puto USA Cheese. In 2010, the Recycling Rate of WTE Communi es in WI: facility added a condensing 19.4 percent steam turbine generator and sells electricity to Xcel Energy. Jobs at WTE Facili es in WI: 50 FTE
Total Jobs (Direct, Indirect, & Induced) Cre‐ Xcel Energy—French Island Genera ng Sta on ated by WTE in WI: 139 FTE City: LaCrosse, WI County: LaCrosse Total Economic Output (Direct, Indirect & US Congressional District: 3rd Induced) by WTE in Wisconsin: Owner: Xcel Energy (private) $15,700,000 Operator: Xcel Energy (private) State Law Defining WTE as Renewable: WI §196.378 Project Startup: 1988 Opera ng Status: Opera ng Technology: RDF (co‐fired 50‐50 with coal) Design Capacity (TPD): 400 (RDF) No. of Boilers: 2 Gross Elec. Capacity (MW): 28 (a ributed to RDF) Full‐ me Employees: 32 Serves Waste Needs of (people): 250,000
Websites: www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/Power_Genera on/ French_Island_Genera ng_Sta on
Notes: Older fossil fuel‐fired boilers were converted to fluidized bed boilers to process a blend of wood waste and RDF. These were the first fluidized bed boil‐ ers in the US to be used for com‐ mercial power produc on.
71
The Energy Recovery Council is the national associa- tion representing companies, organizations, and local governments engaged in the waste-to-energy sector in the United States. For more information about waste-to -energy, please visit www.eneryrecoverycouncil.org. Copyright © 2014 Energy Recovery Council May, 2014
72