Waste-to-Energy
Design Proposal for
Red Hook, Brooklyn
Senior Design Project (EAEE 3999), Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University
Engineers: Zak Accuardi, Micah Babbitt, Rex Chen, Esther Lee, Tim Mayo, Elizabeth Rice, and Kelly Westby
Junior Advisor: Ranjith Annepu Advisors: Profs. Castaldi and Themelis
Client: John Quadrozzi, Gowanus Industrial Park, Red Hook, Brooklyn Draft: Final
Submitted: 5/6/2011
Abstract This project was part of the Senior Design course (EAEE E3999; 2010-2011) of the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering of Columbia University. A Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility was designed for the 13-acre Gowanus Industrial Park owned by Mr. John Quadrozzi in Red Hook, Brooklyn, New York. The design utilizes space located near the Gowanus Canal that currently houses an abandoned grain silo and provides storage for stone, salt, cement, and storage containers. The placement of a mass burn municipal solid waste combustion power plant on this site would process 949,000 tons of New York City municipal solid wastes (MSW) annually and generate 72 MW of electricity plus 14,160 million Btu/day of heat to be used for adjoining industrial processes or for distribution as district heating. This process would additionally minimize waste volume transported out of the Red Hook area of Brooklyn. By transporting 2,600 tons per day of post-recycling MSW directly from households and businesses to the WTE facility instead of to the existing nearby Waste Transfer Station on Hamilton Avenue, the Transfer Station could be closed and the amount of waste exported out of New York City by truck, train or barge to out-of-state landfills would be reduced by 15%. The installation of state-of-the-art emission control technologies at the facility would reduce gaseous emissions well below standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through the use of metals recovery and ash handling systems, the facility would recover approximately 143 tons per day of metals and a large fraction of the WTE bottom ash could potentially be used beneficially for construction purposes. Due to significant emission of pollutants from past incineration facilities in the United States, there has been opposition to the construction of WTE facilities, even though modern WTE facilities produce emissions far below EPA regulations. This opposition has been considered throughout the report and the environmental impacts of WTE were quantified and compared with the existing alternatives of landfilling. The report also identified various economic and environmental benefits that the proposed facility will provide to the Red Hook community and to the City of New York.
1.1 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Table of Contents .................................................................................................... 3
1.2 List of Figures ......................................................................................................... 4
1.3 List of Tables .......................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Engineers in Charge ................................................................................................ 5
2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Client and Site ......................................................................................................... 6
3 Design and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Preparation and Feed............................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Policies and Procedures ................................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Current Waste Holding Facilities................................................................... 10
3.1.3 Composition ................................................................................................... 13
3.1.4 Contaminant Removal ................................................................................... 14
3.1.5 Transportation ................................................................................................ 16
3.1.6 Tipping Floor ................................................................................................. 18
3.1.7 Waste Storage ................................................................................................ 19
3.2 Combustion and Power Generation ...................................................................... 19
3.2.1 Grate ............................................................................................................... 19
3.2.2 Boiler.............................................................................................................. 20
3.2.3 Turbine ........................................................................................................... 22
3.2.3 Electricity Transmission ................................................................................ 25
3.2.4 Waste Heat Recovery & Distribution ............................................................ 26
3.3 Pollution Control ................................................................................................... 27
3.3.1 Air Pollution................................................................................................... 27
3.3.2 Ash Treatment/Disposal................................................................................. 35
3.4 Economics ............................................................................................................. 40
3.5 Community Integration ......................................................................................... 41
4 Synthesis and Recommended Design .......................................................................... 44
4.2 Future Work .......................................................................................................... 44
4.3 Potential Risks ...................................................................................................... 45
5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 46
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 47
A1 Permits ................................................................................................................. 47
A2 NYC MSW Composition Details ......................................................................... 51
A3 Boiler .................................................................................................................... 58
A3.1 Detailed Description of the Boiler ................................................................. 58
A3.2 Boiler Capacity .............................................................................................. 58
A3.3 Grate Sizing.................................................................................................... 59
A3.4 Combustion Air .............................................................................................. 59
A4 Turbine Calculations ............................................................................................ 60
A5 Air Pollution Control ......................................................................................... 61
A6 Overall Material Flow Diagram ........................................................................ 62
A7 Economic Data .................................................................................................. 63
A8 Facility Layout ................................................................................................... 64
Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 65
1.2 List of Figures
Figure 1: Waste Management Hierarchy ............................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Facility and Transfer Station Location .............................................................. 11
Figure 3: Waste Transfer Stations in NYC ....................................................................... 12
Figure 4: VLN Process Diagram (NOx Values at 11% O2) ............................................. 21
Figure 5: Distance from WTE Site to Transmission Station ............................................ 25
Figure 6: Project Development Plan for Grid Connection ................................................ 26
Figure 7: Influence of Temperature on NOx Reduction ................................................... 31
Figure 8: Ash Treatment - Conventional VS Innovative Methods ................................... 37
Figure A3-1: Schematic for a Hopper and Grate Design……………………………….. 58 Figure A6-1: Overall Process Flow Diagram…………………………………………... 62 Figure A8-1: Sketch of Facility Layout……………………………………………….... 64
1.3 List of Tables
Table 1: Composition of NYC Waste Stream................................................................... 13
Table 2: Hazardous Chemicals in Waste Stream ............................................................. 14
Table 3: Trommel Screening Battery Removal Efficiency............................................... 15
Table 4: Chlorine Content in Various MSW Components ............................................... 16
Table 5: MSW Exports from NYC ................................................................................... 16
Table 6: Environmental Impact of Waste Transportation................................................. 17
Table 7: Emissions from Truck Transport to Out-of-State Landfills ............................... 17
Table 8: Boiler Parameters ................................................................................................ 22
Table 9: Turbine Parameters ............................................................................................. 24
Table 10: District Heating Parameters .............................................................................. 27
Table 11: Standard for HAPs from HWCs ....................................................................... 28
Table 12: Average Emissions of 87 US WTE facilities ................................................... 29
Table 13: Operating Parameters and costs for denitrification systems ............................. 30
Table 14: Typical A/C Ratios for Particulate Fabric Filters ............................................. 34
Table 15: Maximum Concentration of Toxic Contaminants (the D List) ........................ 36
Table 16: Simple Economic Analysis of Multiple Ash Disposal Scenarios ..................... 38
Table 17: WES-PHix Design Specifications .................................................................... 39
Table A2-1.1: NYC Waste Characterization and Composition Analysis………………. 52 Table A2-1.2 NYC Waste Characterization and Composition Analysis……………….. 53 Table A2-1.3: NYC Waste Characterization and Composition Analysis………………. 54 Table A2-2: Ultimate Analysis of Combustible Components in MSW………………... 54 Table A2-3: Composition of a Sample of MSW Ash…………………………………... 54 Table A2-4: Calculating the Heating Value of NYC MSW……………………………. 54 Table A2-5: Determining Molecular Formula for NYC MSW…………………………. 55 Table A2-6: Chemical Composition of NYC’s Waste…………………………………... 56 Table A3-1: Flue Gas Composition…………………………………………………….. 59 Table A7-1: IRR Calculation…………………………………………………………… 63
1.4 Engineers in Charge
Zak Accuardi: Economic analysis & community integration Micah Babbitt: Waste storage pit design, electric transmission, waste heat recovery and distribution, and recommended design Rex Chen: Air pollution control technology design Esther Lee: Ash treatment and recovery Tim Mayo: Steam turbine design Elizabeth Rice: Permitting requirements, waste transportation, waste composition and heating value, pre-combustion processing, and facility deposit logistics Kelly Westby: Boiler and grate design
2 Introduction Increases in population and also in per capita consumption have led to a dire need for improved waste management strategies. With a total production of 389 million tons per year of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the U.S., or a per-capita generation rate of 6.9 lb/day,1 an array of waste management methods must be employed. There should be a focus on source reduction and recycling, but overall US recycling and composting rates remain low at 24.1% of the total waste stream. In fact the percentage of MSW that is landfilled appears to have increased in recent years.2 Furthermore, it has been conclusively shown3 that communities that employ WTE as an option for managing post-recycle wastes have a higher recycling rate compared to communities without WTE facilities. While recycling rates of some materials, e.g. car batteries and paper fiber are quite high, plastic recycling has remained below 10% of the total plastic wastes generated in the U.S.4 In the absence of a substantial change in American lifestyles, other solutions must be developed to sustainably manage the 69.3% of MSW that is now sent to landfills. Moreover, while reduction of the waste stream, recycling and composting should be priorities, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to achieve 100% recycling and reuse. Given constraints on space, demand for energy, and the opportunity to eliminate unnecessary transportation of waste, especially in urban areas, WTE is the next best
option for post-recycling MSW, even with recent improvements in landfilling technology.5 There are many environmental and human health benefits from utilizing WTE technology. The combustion of waste generates needed electricity and heat, reduces the volume of waste sent to landfills by as much as 90%, and represents a carbon negative process when compared with landfill disposal, avoiding as much as 1 ton of CO2-equivalent emissions per ton of MSW combusted.6 However, there remain several barriers to the development of WTE technology in the US. While WTE has recently expanded and flourished in the European Union (EU) and also in Japan and other developed countries, the U.S. has seen a dearth of new WTE development in the past 15 years. In fact, there were no new WTE plants between 1996 and 2007. The primary barriers to development are high capital cost and community opposition, which may be addressed with careful financial planning and outreach efforts, respectively. Both of these barriers will be discussed further in the Economics and Community Integration sections of this paper. The US continues to lag behind other nations such as the European Union, where the landfilling rate is at 38% overall and WTE combustion accounts for 20% of the total waste stream. According to the most recent Eurostat report, some countries, such as Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, have entirely eliminated landfilling of MSW.7 The discrepancy between US and European landfilling rates is in part due to superior source separation and community awareness in Europe, as these are necessary components of an effective waste disposal system alongside federal and local government support in building WTE capacity. However, possibilities for incentivizing improved source separation exist in the US, including private efforts like RecycleBank® and policy changes. Notably, WTE is already defined as a renewable energy source by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions Regulations, and 25 states.8 Action is often most efficiently taken on the state level. WTE is currently being considered for tier 1 renewable status in Maryland,9 and, whether or not successful, hopefully other states will soon follow. A final obstacle specific to this project is that no WTE plant has ever been constructed in New York City, although half a million tons of Manhattan MSW is combusted with energy recovery at the Essex County WTE in New Jersey. While several WTE plants exist very close to New York City, in Long Island and New Jersey, WTE can be particularly useful in areas with high population densities. With greater attention being called to WTE technology, it is hoped that new and more responsible means of waste management will be employed in the dense, urban areas that have strongly opposed WTE projects in recent years.10
2.1 Client and Site
The client, Mr. John Quadrozzi, owner of the Gowanus Industrial Park, expressed a desire to explore the possibility of WTE development on his property in Red Hook,
Brooklyn. The option of constructing a MSW WTE unit developed as Mr. Quadrozzi was searching for technologies to assemble as an Eco-industrial park. Other renewable energy technologies have also been explored, and WTE is only one of several possibilities for development. Due to its potential for heat and electricity generation, paired with a need to provide a more sustainable waste management option to the Red Hook area (and to New York City more broadly), WTE is an optimal solution. This 13-acre plot currently houses an abandoned grain silo and provides storage space for stone, salt, cement and storage containers. Additionally, the site is used as a parking lot by private bus companies. The proposed WTE plant would be built on a 150,000 square foot (~3.5 acre) section of this site, which is currently a large parking lot. Electricity and heat generated can be used for the industrial processes developed in the future, including concrete storage and processing. The largest part of the electricity generated by the plant will be sold to the grid, and heat will be distributed through a district heating system and used by local businesses like IKEA, which has relatively constant heating needs and is located next to the plant site. Arrangements can also be made to provide hot water for district heating of the host community. Pairing multiple industrial processes on Mr. Quadrozzi's site would create an Eco-Industrial Park, and showcase New York at the forefront of sustainable waste management practices. Eco-industrial parks strive to take full advantage of symbiotic industrial processes, and provide numerous benefits to the community and the environment.11 Finally, this reduces the volume of waste being landfilled and heavy emission from truck traffic needed to do so, while moving Red Hook up the waste pyramid (see Figure 1, below). This Waste Management Hierarchy prioritizes the industry’s best practices, with source reduction and reuse favored over recycling, composting, WTE, and landfilling. Energy recovery and/or conservation are a theme throughout, as any waste reduction promotes efficiency somewhere in the disposal system. Because there are both material and practical limits to the amount of waste which can be recycled and composted, alternatives for the remainder of the waste stream must be considered after recycling, reduction, and reuse are maximized. While WTE is by no means a perfect technology, it is highly preferable to all landfilling practices and therefore should be taken seriously as a valid and beneficial means of waste disposal in the US.
Figure 1: Waste Management Hierarchy
3 Design and Analysis Now that the overall background and goals have been discussed, the next sections will detail the design process itself. This paper will go step by step through the plant, first examining the incoming waste stream, followed by combustion then pollution control and ash treatment. An economic analysis is described at the end followed by a discussion of the community impact of this facility.
3.1 Preparation and Feed
3.1.1 Policies and Procedures
A framework exists for standard tipping floor policies and procedures and it encompasses unloading location and distance requirements (e.g. the back end of trucks transporting MSW to the plant must remain at least 10 feet away from pit opening) as well as safety guidelines (e.g. locations where employees must wear safety harnesses). A distinct unloading area is required for trucks with deposits that require more than one person to help unload. Efforts are made to minimize all pedestrian traffic on the tipping floor to help minimize health and safety risks. All alarms and signals require back-up power supply, and will be equipped with lights to increase awareness of alarms during high ambient noise periods.12
3.1.1.1 Permitting Requirements
WTE facilities in New York State are subject to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s Department of Environmental Permits application standards. WTE facilities are subject to permitting in three primary areas: Solid Waste Management Facility permitting, Air Pollution Control, and Hazardous Waste Management Facility). There is a fourth permit type, Waste Hauling, that will likely be necessary for objects that the facility is not able to combust (i.e. unduly bulky or hazardous objects), and these materials will need to be transported off-site. Note that a waste hauling permit is not needed for the transportation of incinerator ash. These permits ensure that all potential emissions and waste materials produced during facility operations are accounted and below local and federal standard levels. It is therefore necessary for the responsible party to perform a full environmental impact analysis before the facility is constructed. Some of the completeness requirements for permit approval include:
• Engineering plans, reports, and specifications that comprehensively address the project in its environmental setting • Plan of operations and maintenance, contingency plans for waste control • Certified location of property boundaries • Detailed closure plans for the facility • A description of the emission units' processes and products • A list of all emission units at the facility • The type, rate and quantity of emissions in sufficient detail for the department to determine those State and Federal requirements that are applicable to the facility • Assessment of environmental impacts (required by State Environmental Quality Review Act, (SEQR)) • Proof of liability insurance
Full details of permit applicability, requirements, and fee structures are shown in Appendix 1. Although compliance and non-compliance fees and penalties are clear, the fees for permit application can vary greatly. The applications themselves do not require fees for submission, but the preparation of each permit must be completed in full (by paid employees or contractors), and permit applications and subsequent discussion or mediation with the Department of Environmental Conservation of New York State (DEC-NYS) and EPA requires legal advice. These costs will be variable depending on the amount of time taken by application and compliance monitoring.
3.1.1.2 Permitting Timeline
The time for a permit to be awarded is outlined in the Uniform Procedures Act, and ensures for adequate time to file and review applications (administrative burden), providing public notice, holding public hearings, and reaching final decisions. This is intended to ensure a fair and thorough review, eliminate inconsistencies in procedure, and to encourage public participation.13
If a project requires more than one DEC permit, then all applications must be filed on the same date, and each permit needs to be accompanied by:
• A list of all permits required for the project • An environmental impact assessment • Accounting for historic preservation restrictions or requirements, if applicable • A DEC coastal assessment form, if the project is on or near the coastline
Projects are also advised to have a pre-application conference with staff of the DEC to review requirements and permit applicability. After the application has been submitted, the DEC will give notice of application completeness in no more than 60 days. At this time, if the application has been accepted for review, the public notice process begins. A notice of application must be published in local newspapers, and the public is able to submit comments to the DEC within the following 30 days. The comments received will assist the DEC in deciding if a hearing must be scheduled. If there is no hearing, the DEC makes its decision on the application within the next 60 days. If a hearing is planned (by the DEC), the applicant and the public are notified within 60 days, and the hearing must occur within 90 days after the end of the comment period. After hearings are deemed complete by the DEC, a final decision is issued within 60 days.14 Overall, if there is no need for a public hearing, the process may be completed within 5 months. If the public hearing occurs, and is concluded within one session, the process may take 8 months. However, if the public review process continues for longer than one session, this process can continue much longer than 8 months. This can pose as a significant impedance to facility construction within an urban area like New York City, where both professional and public review will be performed with incredible scrutiny and conservatism, as public contact with a WTE facility would occur more frequently than if the facility was constructed in a suburban or rural area. In addition to meeting permitting requirements, the facility would need to remain in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) labor regulations, as well as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)’s standards on weighing and storage, which dictate how the weigh stations are calibrated, tested, and operated, as well as the containerization of un-combusted waste and end ash products.15 The facility and any development on site will also be required to meet permit standards for any construction project in the city and any tenets thereof, including noise and working hour restrictions for heavy construction, health and safety restrictions on sources of water and sewer connections to be used during construction, reduction of intrusion of animals and pests to the facility site, among others.
3.1.2 Current Waste Holding Facilities
About 0.6 miles from the proposed facility site is the Hamilton Avenue Transfer Station, a marine transfer station being built to serve as a future facility for the transfer of MSW from DSNY residential collection vehicles to barges that will transport the MSW to out-of-state landfills.
Upon its completion, this site will receive approximately 2600 tons per day of municipal solid waste, and an additional 1300 tons per day of commercial waste.16 Our WTE plant has been sized to accommodate the 2600 tons per day of MSW, and thus could allow for a reduced burden on the waste transfer station or perhaps a further redistribution of waste collection sheds in the Brooklyn area. This volume of processed waste (~949,000 tons/year) is capable of generating upwards of 72 MW of electricity, and approximately 590 MMBtu of heat. Furthermore, about 130,000 lbs of metal per day would be recovered for recycling and reuse. All of the MSW generated and collected within the wasteshed indicated in blue in Figure 2 below is to be aggregated at the Hamilton Avenue Transfer Station.
Google Maps: 2011
Figure 2: Facility and Transfer Station Location
Figure 3: Waste Transfer Stations in NYC17
Once at the facility, the waste is to be containerized and transferred to barges in the Gowanus Canal and subsequently carried to rail stations in New Jersey for further transport. If the proposed facility is constructed, residential collection vehicles would be diverted away from the transfer station to instead deposit their waste at the facility to be utilized for energy, and the MSW portion of the transfer station could be converted by the city for alternate productive use.
3.1.3 Composition
Multiple recent waste composition studies performed in New York City have supported the approximate composition shown in Table 1 (excluding bulk items, such as appliances):
Table 1: Composition of NYC Waste Stream18
Constituent Materials Percent in NYC waste stream
Plastic
PET 1.21
HDPE 0.99
PVC 0.03
LDP/LDPE 0.01
PP 0.19
PS 0.78
Other 10.73
Total plastics 13.94
Metal 4.92
Glass 4.49
Rubber 0.28
Leather 0.70
Textiles 5.09
Wood 3.77
Food 17.70
Yard trimmings 4.06
Newspaper 7.54
Mixed paper/cardboard 22.50
This represents an average composition, determined through combination of data collected through waste composition studies performed four times, evenly spaced throughout one year. Integration of this waste composition with elemental, moisture, and ash content analysis (detail in Appendix 2) indicates that the incoming MSW to the facility will have a moisture content of 33.4% (consistent with the national average of 25 to 40 percent)19, an average chemical composition of C6 H9.26 O3.40 N0.134 S0.00935, and a Lower Heating Value (LHV) of 8.3 Btu/ton (9.7 MJ/kg). The heating value is below the US national average of 11.7 Btu/ton20 due to the volume of paper in the waste (higher than the US national average of 23.8%21), as paper has a lower constituent heating value than other components, including rubber, plastics and wood).22 The hazardous components of the waste stream were also identified to determine if it is feasible or beneficial to remove any hazardous components before the waste is stored for combustion.
The primary sources of hazardous chemicals in the waste stream and their constituent percentages in the incoming MSW (assuming standard distribution throughout daily feed) are shown in Table 2:
Table 2: Hazardous Chemicals in Waste Stream23 24 25
Sources Chemical % in waste
stream
Batteries (Automotive and Household) Lead, Cadmium, Silver, Mercury
0.20
all below all below 0.26
Fluorescent Lighting, Light Bulbs Lead, Cadmium, Mercury
Automotive Fuel Benzene, Toluene
Paint Remover, Paint Toluene, Xylene, Lead
Glues Trichloroethylene
Insecticides, Herbicides, Fungicides, Wood Preservatives
Hexachloroethane, Chlordane, Aniline
Although the distribution of these hazardous sources may not be constant throughout every ton of waste, and every day of facility operation, it is important to determine if it is practical for this facility to target these hazardous materials for removal from the incoming waste prior to combustion, and to send all waste through a processing or separation system.
3.1.4 Contaminant Removal
Batteries are shown to be the single greatest contributor to the hazardous chemical component of the incoming MSW. According to a report from the Cornell Waste Management Institute,
"...even after 80% of lead-acid automobile batteries are recovered for recycling, the remaining 20% are estimated to contribute 66% of the lead in MSW. In the U.S. Household batteries account for approximately 90% of the mercury... nickel-cadmium batteries may be responsible for up to 52% of the cadmium."
By first targeting batteries as important items to remove, the identified primary hazardous waste sources could be reduced by almost 50%. This analysis is also valuable, as it demonstrates the feasibility of size-based separation for a large incoming waste stream. A trommel screening method may be used to size-separate household batteries from the incoming waste stream, by sending waste through a rotating "trommel" drum with perforations around its periphery, so that objects smaller than the perforated openings can be separated from the main stream of MSW. Experiments performed at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology have demonstrated that the removal efficiency of batteries increases as the degree of inclination of the trommel and rotational speed decreases, increasing the residence time of the waste in the trommel. If system
parameters like feed rate, degree of inclination, and rotational speed are maximized, then recovery efficiency, especially for small batteries, can be greater than 80%.26 Sizes of the trommels range from 2.5-3.5 m in diameter and 3.5-4 m in length. While this is not prohibitively large for a WTE facility to incorporate into its incoming waste handling space, the residence time required to maximize removal is in the order of 1.2-1.8 tons of MSW per hour (depending upon target removal efficiency).27 This would require between 1600 and 2400 hours to process the incoming waste stream, which is clearly not practical. If multiple trommels were operating simultaneously, this would reduce the processing time, but the percentage of the waste that would be able to pass through the trommels each day is still far below the size of the facility’s incoming stream. Integrating ten trommels, as shown in Table 3 below (which considers both high and low ends of the residence time range); at most, a maximum of 11.9% of total batteries may be removed. The introduction of each additional trommel relays an increase of 0.79% in resultant battery removal.
Table 3: Trommel Screening Battery Removal Efficiency
Slow Process Fast Process
# Trommels Waste processed
(TPD)
Batteries Removed
(TPD)
Batteries Removed
(%)
Waste processed
(TPD)
Batteries Removed
(TPD)
Batteries Removed
(%)
1 28.8 0.05 0.79 43.2 0.07 1.19
2 57.6 0.09 1.59 86.4 0.14 2.38
3 86.4 0.14 2.38 129.6 0.21 3.58
4 115.2 0.18 3.18 172.8 0.28 4.77
5 144 0.23 3.97 216 0.35 5.96
6 172.8 0.28 4.77 259.2 0.41 7.15
7 201.6 0.32 5.56 302.4 0.48 8.34
8 230.4 0.37 6.36 345.6 0.55 9.53
9 259.2 0.41 7.15 388.8 0.62 10.73
10 288 0.46 7.94 432 0.69 11.92
This corresponds with an increase of roughly a 0.5% reduction in the lead content of the incoming waste, but the additional processing requirements to utilizing trommel screening make the process unfeasible for this facility (waste must be reduced to below 200 mm in diameter prior to screening28), and is better for materials recovery facilities (MRFs) or facilities which produce refuse derived fuel (RDF), where the incoming waste stream passes through a series of separation and/or shredding systems prior to being sold as raw material, or combusted. While producing RDF from MSW has been demonstrated to be feasible at WTE facilities throughout the U.S., the grinding, shredding, and processing technologies needed render the production of RDF from 2,600 TPD of waste largely impractical at this site, due to the limitation on available space, and processing time.
The chlorine sources in the waste have also been identified, as chlorine is a significant contributor to corrosion within the facility’s combustion system. New York City’s MSW has an average of 4.71 g/kg of chlorine (0.471%), compared to the US average of 7.26 g/kg.29 The chlorine concentration is largest in the waste components shown in Table 4:
Table 4: Chlorine Content in Various MSW Components30
Waste Component Plastics Wood Textiles Food
Chlorine Concentration (g/kg) 25 12.5 12.5 3
Since chlorine exists in many objects in the NYC MSW stream, it is not practical to decrease the chlorine content of MSW before combustion. The high organic chlorine of plastics is principally due to objects containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and the inorganic chlorine is largely contributed by sodium chloride (table salt) and chlorophyll in yard wastes, but it is not easy to separate such components from the MSW stream.
3.1.5 Transportation
The MSW of New York State is now exported mostly by long haul trucking, in addition to barge and rail transport, to distant locations such as South Carolina and Ohio. The distribution of landfills used by NYC and the corresponding landfill tips, excluding the
cost of transport, are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: MSW Exports from NYC 31
Receiving State Tons % of total
export
Avg. Tipping
Fee
Estimated distance
from NYC, km
Pennsylvania 2,380,000 37.1 $61.00 340
Virginia 1,520,000 23.69 $47.00 600
Ohio 1,740,000 27.12 $33.00 860
South Carolina 524,000 8.17 $35.00 1100
New Jersey 197,000 3.07 $73.00 100
Connecticut 30,700 0.48 $72.00 170
Maryland 24,000 0.37 $68.00 370
Total Exports 6,415,700 Avg. Fee and Distance (weighted)
$48.50 596.637
In Brooklyn alone, over 3800 tons of MSW are exported each day, with two-thirds traveling to Virginia, and one-third to Pennsylvania, both by 20-ton diesel trucks (which return to NYC empty and therefore are utilized for only 50% of their traveling time).32 Throughout the transport of the waste by long-haul truck, barge, or rail, analyses have shown potential for considerable damage to environmental quality and human health, in addition to notable resource and fuel consumption, as shown in Table 16.
Table 6: Environmental Impact of Waste Transportation33
Transport by Truck to Landfill Transport by Barge and Rail to
landfill
Substance Unit per ton-km Substance Unit per ton-km
Coal, 18 MJ per kg mg 335 Oil, crude g 8.45
Coal, brown, 8 MJ per kg mg 446 Coal, brown g 2.54
Benzene mg 4.96 Coal g 2.41
Carbon dioxide g 138 Carbon dioxide g 34.7
Carbon monoxide mg 757 Nitrogen oxides mg 481
Dinitrogen monoxide mg 3.34 Carbon monoxide mg 142
Methane mg 168 Sulfur oxides mg 86.1
Nitrogen oxides g 2.48 Methane mg 52.6
MNVOC mg 861 Particulates mg 21.3
Particulates mg 56.9 Chloride mg 251
Sulfur oxides mg 208 Sulfate mg 50.3
Oils, unspecified mg 56.1
Suspended substances mg 120
TOC mg 19.4
Using the above data and the average kilometers traveled by MSW to out-of-state landfills, the following calculations of annual truck emissions in transporting 949,000 tons of Brooklyn MSW from within the Hamilton Avenue Transfer Station watershed to landfills have been presented in Table 7.
Table 7: Emissions from Truck Transport to Out-of-State Landfills
Substance Emissions per year (Tons)
Benzene 3.30
Carbon dioxide 91869.25
Carbon monoxide 503.95
Dinitrogen monoxide 2.23
Methane 111.84
Nitrogen oxides 1650.98
MNVOC 573.18
Particulates 37.88
Sulfur oxides 138.47
Oils, unspecified 37.35
Suspended substances 79.88
3.1.6 Tipping Floor Although the facility will not target hazardous materials specifically for removal, the tipping floor will allow for removal of incombustible materials, including large items made of glass and metal or large appliances gathered as part of bulk item collections. By unloading trucks in a secure area (the tipping floor), and then utilizing secondary vehicles to move waste into or away from the boiler feed pit, facilities can control and normalize the distribution of size and material in the boiler feed. Although separation of metals at WTE facilities experiences success through use of magnetic separation and other post-combustion separation technologies, the tipping floor allows for removal of large and clearly identifiable sources of metals, subsequently reducing the resulting volume of ash and maximizing the heating value. Currently at mass burn facilities in the US, approximately 43% of ferrous metals, and 5% of non-ferrous metals are recovered,34 percentages which could potentially be increased if large sources were removed from the tipping floor. Waste brought to transfer stations occurs around the clock, but peaks during the second shift - between the hours of 8AM and 12 PM - as a response to density of residential collection routes and DOS collection shift scheduling.35 The tipping floor design must accommodate the peak arrival rate of DOS trucks, given that no intermediary transfer station will be used. In response to DOS scheduling, the facility needs to be open to accept waste 24 hours per day, over three shifts. During nighttime (8 PM to 8AM), when there will be fewer DOS deliveries, the facility may be able to benefit from accepting deliveries of commercial waste. This increase in number of hours for deliveries changes the number of deposit bays required and the footprint of the overall deposit bay area. The calculations to determine bay requirements are based on the following assumptions, which allow for deposit of a peak maximum rate of 4,290 TPD of waste: The facility will operate 24 hours per day, broken down into three shifts. In keeping with DSNY transfer station labor policies, weighing station and tipping floor employees will work 6.5 hours out of each 8-hour shift, to allow for shift changes and break time, so the facility will accept waste a total of 19.5 hours out of each 24-hour period. To facilitate the waste deposit that would occur at the Hamilton Avenue transfer station; the facility will need to be able to accept 270 collection trucks each day, with a peak rate of 32 trucks/hour between 9 AM and 10 AM.36 Allowing for hourly peaking factor of 150%, and seasonal peaking factor of 125%,37 this requires a maximum deposit capacity of 60 trucks per hour. Given an average unloading time of 10 minutes, 6 deposit bays will be needed. At a standard of 13 feet per bay, 50 feet width, six unloading spaces would require a total bay zone length of 78 feet, and a total bay zone area of 3900 square feet. This area represents the space requirement for unloading only, and not for transport of waste into the pit. Average weigh station waiting time per vehicle is approximately 2 minutes, so in order to meet the 60 truck per hour requirement, the facility will need two weigh stations.38
3.1.7 Waste Storage Once the MSW arrives on site and is unloaded onto the tipping floor, it will be moved into a storage pit. The storage pit is designed to hold a capacity of 9,200 tons or 400,000 cubic feet of MSW, which will allow for 3 days of storage. Although 3 days of storage is shorter than the average storage capacities of suburban WTE facilities, there is a similar MSW WTE plant in Rahway, New Jersey, which has the same storage capacity.39 The smaller storage capacity was designed to accomodate the limited space on the client’s property for the WTE facility. The dimensions of the storage bunker are 110 feet long by 60 feet wide by 60 feet high, covering 6,600 square feet. The storage pit will be operated by an overhead crane. A typical overhead crane for WTE storage pits can handle approximately 60 tons per hour,40 and can pick up approximately 1 ton of MSW per scoop. In addition to moving the waste from the storage pit into the hopper, the crane operator is also responsible to “fluff” the waste (i.e. mix the waste in the pit) in order to obtain a more homogenous stream of waste entering the combustion chamber.
3.2 Combustion and Power Generation
Preprocessing of waste can increase combustor efficiency and can make a more homogeneous waste stream, which increases combustion stability, and decreases maintenance costs of the boiler. On the other hand pre-processing of waste increases capital costs and can use a significant amount of energy upfront. Due to the size constraints of the site, extensive preprocessing of waste into refuse derived fuel was not feasible. Because fluidized bed combustors require preprocessing of waste stream, they were not considered for our site.41 Removal of particularly hazardous components of the waste is sometimes useful for decreasing emissions and the cost of pollution control equipment, but as discussed above, the benefits of hazardous component removal proved negligible for this particular facility.
3.2.1 Grate
A moving grate system was considered instead of a stationary grate system so that waste could be moved continuously through the combustion chamber because of the large volume of waste that must be processed. The grate moves the waste through the burner/boiler to be combusted. The grate continues moving the ash through the system to be quenched, and the ash is then transported by a conveyor to ash treatment units or to storage where it can then be shipped off site. Grate systems are typically designed to move in either a reciprocating or reverse reciprocating direction. Reciprocating grates move in the direction of waste flow, primarily to move waste along, while reverse reciprocating grates move against the flow of MSW to increase the mixing of the waste and help facilitate complete combustion.42 Our design utilizes reverse reciprocating grates because of the enhanced burnout. Another concern with grates is their ability to withstand high temperatures. High temperature can be destructive to the grate, thus it must be cooled by either water or air. Water-cooled grates are needed for waste with higher energy content (10-30 MJ/kg) as
the grate will become much hotter, but they are more costly and more difficult to design and operate. Air-cooled grates can be used for lower energy content fuels (6-14 MJ/kg) and can be designed and operated more easily. NYC MSW has an energy content of about 9.67 MJ/kg, thus the air-cooled grate will work well in this design. An air-cooled grate pulls in primary combustion air over the waste storage pit and pushes this air through the grate to cool the grate and then combust the waste. The process needs 12 tons of air per ton of waste based on the stoichiometric air needed and the optimal combustion conditions of 80% excess air (see Appendix 3 for details).
3.2.2 Boiler
See Appendix 3 for a detailed description of the boiler. Computerized Fluid Dynamics (CFD) programs have contributed to significant progress in the field of WTE boiler design.43, 44 Boiler modeling programs assist in the analysis of the profiles of temperature, velocity and concentrations of gaseous components and they allow for analysis of the boiler under various conditions without making costly physical models. Although the complexity and detail required by these programs exceeded the scope of this project and were not available to the engineers working on the project, they can be used to determine techniques for optimization of boiler conditions and key parameters on which to focus. These modeling programs can also help identify key areas of concern for issues like corrosion, boiler wall melting or deformation, incomplete burnout and NOx formation.
3.2.2.1 Corrosion
One of the most important concerns within the boiler is corrosion. While corrosion is also a concern in typical coal boilers it is a much bigger problem in waste boilers because of the high level of fuel variation and contaminants in MSW, particularly chlorine. Corrosion is significantly impacted by temperature. It may be a surprise that low temperature corrosion can occur in the boiler due to condensation, but there is actually a large temperature gradient across the boiler and acidity in the flue gas causes it to condense at higher temperatures. High temperature corrosion is typically caused by a series of reactions of chlorine with iron and iron chloride with oxygen resulting in sublimation of some of the tube wall as iron chloride or oxidation of the tube wall. In order to minimize both types of corrosion, adequate mixing is necessary to avoid large temperature gradients. This is aided by a Very Low NOx (VLN) process discussed below which increases turbulence with flue gas recirculation. VLN processes will be implemented in this facility. Additionally, high temperature corrosion can be avoided by keeping boiler tube temperatures below 570oF and superheater tubes below 840oF. Additionally, refractory lining can be used on the lower half of the boiler where the gas temperatures are most severe, Iconel 625 plasma sprayed coating can be used on the boiler tubes that do not have refractory lining and TiO2 – Al2O3/625 cement can be applied using a thermal spray to the superheater tube walls where high steam temperatures lead to high metal temperatures, which are particularly susceptible to corrosion.45 There have also been some recent attempts to recirculate sulfur from the APC units to help mitigate effects of chlorine.46
3.2.2.2 Complete Burnout
Complete burnout is also a major concern in WTE boilers due to health hazards from gaseous emissions after incomplete combustion and the environmental and economic cost of hauling excess ash. Burnout is optimized when there is enough oxygen supplied to exceed the combustion demands, but when excess oxygen is minimized because too much oxygen can cool the boiler to the point of flame destabilization. To ensure complete burnout, secondary air and VLN gas (described below) are added above the grate to increase turbulence and mixing. Additionally, the boiler must be tall enough to ensure that the gas will stay at 1560oF for 2 seconds as required by law.
3.2.2.3 NOx
NOx is a significant pollutant of concern, but it can be controlled by maintaining a lower air to fuel ratio in the hotter sections of the boiler and by injecting urea towards the top of the first boiler pass before the entrance to the superheater. The chemistry of NOx reduction in this process (referred to as selective non-catalytic reduction, SNCR) will be discussed below in the air pollution control section. The Very Low NOx process designed by Martin Gmbh will be used at this facility.47 This process involves drawing off “VLN gas” at the back of the grate and reintroducing it below the urea injection point. See the VLN Process Diagram below.
Figure 4: VLN Process Diagram (NOx Values at 11% O2)
There are many benefits of this system: 1. Oxygen poor conditions are created in the lower section of the furnace due to the
VLN gas draw off, which promotes NOx reduction conditions and reduces NOx formation.
2. Reinjection of the VLN gas leads to a decrease in flue gas temperature and an increase in turbulence and mixing, which leads to increased efficiency of the SNCR process.
3. This increase in turbulence and cooling creates a barrier which blocks flames and unreacted particles. The barrier is expected to reduce the corrosion in the top portion of the boiler.
4. The residence time of the flue gas in the burner is increased because the mass flow rate of the flue gas is decreased when the VLN gas is removed. This increases burnout and decreases fly ash production.
5. The VLN system also reduces the necessary excess air rate which yields a cost reduction for the steam generator and flue gas cleaning system and improves the efficiency of the steam generator.
3.2.2.4 Boiler Parameters
At this facility there is too much waste for one individual boiler to process and it is optimal to have multiple boilers to accommodate for times when one is down for maintenance, the others can still operate. This facility will utilize 3 boilers. The table below has specification for the boilers and Appendix 3 shows the methodology for obtaining each of these values. The length of the grate was chosen to ensure complete burnout of the ash. The height of the boiler is based the residence time needed to ensure complete burnout of the flue gases: by regulation the flue gasses must remain in the boiler at 1560oF for 2 seconds.
Table 8: Boiler Parameters
# of Boilers 3
Capacity of each boiler (TPD) 964
Length of grate (ft) 30
Width of grate (ft) 36
Height of boiler (ft) 67
Total mass of air added to the boiler (TPD) 11,682
Mass of combustion exhaust (TPD) 12,424
Mass of bottom ash (TPD) 193
Mass of Fly Ash 29
3.2.3 Turbine
The heat in the combustion gases is transferred through the water-cooled wall of the combustion chamber to water that evaporates. The steam is then superheated in the
superheater tubes. The generated high pressure and high temperature steam is sent to a steam turbine where it expands and causes the turbine to rotate and produce mechanical work, which is then converted to electricity. The steam parameters at the turbine outlet depend on turbine operation mode, which is the main design decision regarding the turbine. .
3.2.3.1 Turbine Operation Mode
The two modes of operation are backpressure (BP) and reheat-condensing (R-C). A backpressure turbine expands the high pressure and high temperature steam to a specified temperature and pressure at which the steam can still be used for another process. After the process, the steam is condensed, pumped to high pressure and returned to the boiler to complete the closed loop cycle. On this site, the exhaust steam from the turbine may be used for a district heating process to produce hot water for internal use and sale. The reheat-condensing turbine also expands the high pressure and high temperature steam to produce electricity, but it does not send the steam to process afterward. Instead, after the steam is expanded in the high-pressure stages of the turbine, it is extracted and sent back to the boiler to be reheated to its initial temperature. Then, low pressure, high temperature steam is readmitted back into the turbine at the low-pressure stages and expanded further for more electricity generation. At the low-pressure turbine exit, the steam enters a vacuum condenser, which increases the pressure drop across the system.48 Therefore, the R-C cycle maximizes the electrical efficiency of the turbine; but, since it does not allow for process heat recovery, the overall efficiency is much lower than a BP operation. In order to decide between the two modes of operation, one needs to consider how much of the recovered heat can be used on site or sold, and the economic viability of each option. In order to make a decision on the mode of operation, power and district heating output details need to be calculated for each mode. For backpressure mode, a power output of 700 kWh per ton of waste (the Energy Recovery Council states that “up to 750 kWh/ ton” can be achieved)49 was assumed. A low-end value for isentropic efficiency was assumed to be 85%50. A hydrogen-cooled generator will be used, which is becoming increasingly common with steam turbines, because it maximizes efficiency51. Typically a large unit like this can expect a hydrogen-cooled generator efficiency of 99%, but a conservative generator efficiency of 90% was used in the calculations. Given that the combustion in the boilers and heat transfer to the working fluid can produce a minimum 400˚C steam, the steam parameters could then be calculated to produce 700 kWh of electricity per ton of waste. Once the parameters were determined, they were compared with actual steam turbine operation criteria to validate that the turbine would operate within the feasible limits. Finally, the amount of hot water that can be produced for district heating by sending the exhaust steam to a heat exchanger can also be calculated. (See Appendix 4 for calculations). By comparing the calculations and technical data, a modern BP turbine that produces up to 100 MW can handle the steam pressures and temperatures required for this facility
(See Table 9)52. This WTE facility can produce 72 MW of electricity and 590 MMBtu/h of hot water for district heating. The BP mode of operation would give the power plant an electrical efficiency of 24% and an overall efficiency of 83% (Appendix 4).
Table 9: Turbine Parameters
Tin (°C) Pin (bar) Tout (°C) Pout (bar) m (kg/s)
Design 400 55 160 1.5 235
Upper Limit 540 140 n/a 55 n/a
The reheat-condensing mode of operation is more widely used in the United States because American WTE facilities are generally not located near a district heating network. A mass-burn WTE facility that will open in 2015 in Palm Beach County, Florida plans to combust 3000 TPD with a 32% electrical efficiency using R-C operation53. Since this mass-burn facility has a 2900 TPD waste stream with a similar calorific value, it is reasonable to assume a similar electrical efficiency using an R-C cycle. Therefore, the R-C mode of operation would allow for the production of 94 MW of electricity. It should be noted that engrained in the 32% electrical efficiency assumption is the assumption that higher initial steam temperatures (at least 500˚C) than the minimum inlet temperature assumed in the BP calculations (400˚C) will be achieved. These high temperatures are achievable with the calorific value of the incoming waste stream. The decision on the mode of operation is based on economics. The price of backpressure and reheat-condensing turbines are similar; and in fact, many modern steam turbines can be adjusted to operate in either mode. Assuming a selling price of $0.07 per kWh of electricity and $0.05 per kWh of hot water54, at least 105 MMBtu/h of the hot water would need to be sold or used onsite in order for BP operation to be economically favorable over R-C operation (See Appendix 4 Calculations). This break-even point between the two modes of operation does not consider district heating pipe installation and maintenance costs, however, these costs are relatively small in comparison to the income from energy sales over the 30 year lifetime of the plant. Additional investigations need to be completed in order to ascertain how much district heating nearby facilities can use, how far away each facility is, piping regulations, and if the piping system is economically feasible. These findings would enable a more detailed analysis of each mode of operation. In conclusion, given the cement facility on-site that has heating requirements for aggregates (as well as basic heating needs) and the presence of IKEA nearby that could benefit from district heating, it is reasonable to assume that 105 MMBtu/h of hot water could be used onsite or sold. Thus, a backpressure turbine will be selected because it allows for maximization of annual income and overall efficiency. Plus, as an added benefit, increasing the overall efficiency increases the carbon offset from the facility, the amount of carbon avoided by using an alternative energy source.
3.2.3 Electricity Transmission
The 72 MW of electricity produced on site will be transmitted to the grid operated by Consolidated Edison. The specific transmission station is Greenwood – 138 kV and is located at 336 24th St., Brooklyn, NY 11215, or the northwest corner of the Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn (see Figure 5 below).
Figure 5: Distance from WTE Site to Transmission Station
The transmission station is approximately 1 mile from the WTE facility and would require transmission of electricity across land and water to minimize transmission distance. In order to connect to the grid operated by ConEd, a formal interconnection process must be followed as outlined in the “The Long-Range Transmission Plan 2010-2019,” which requires multiple studies and ongoing communication between ConEd, New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), and the project developer (see Figure 6 below for details).55
Figure 6: Project Development Plan for Grid Connection
3.2.4 Waste Heat Recovery & Distribution
New York City has the largest district heating steam system in the US.56 Given this fact, transmitting steam to the NYC steam system was seriously considered, however, given the distance necessary to transmit steam to the existing network this option proved to be unfeasible. In order to transmit the steam produced on site to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the nearest tie-in-point to the NYC steam system which is operated by Consolidated Edison, it would require over three miles of piping and high pressure steam around 400 PSIG. In order to supply steam at this pressure, it would no longer be feasible to operate a steam turbine to produce electricity. The high temperatures and pressures needed to satisfy Consolidated Edison’s steam specifications57 would require multiple degrees of superheat to be added to the steam to prevent it from condensing before arriving in Manhattan. This would likely cost on the order of $80 million.58 Instead of supplying steam, the waste heat recovered on site will supply hot water for district heating. In order to utilize the recovered waste heat, an end-user agreement will need to be arranged to ensure a customer will purchase the supplied hot water. Once an end-user agreement is arranged, the parameters of the hot water system can be designed more specifically to meet the needs of the consumer, while maximizing power production. Given other WTE facilities with cogeneration abilities that supply hot water for district heating,59 Table 10 outlines approximate specifications to expect for the hot water system:
Table 10: District Heating Parameters
Temperature Supply 110-130ᵒ C (230-266ᵒ F), Return 50-70ᵒ C (122-158ᵒ F)
Pressure Winter 9-17 bar (130-250 psig) , summer 4-10 bar (60-150 psig)
Water Velocity 0.5-4 m/s (1.6-13 ft/s)
Pipe Materials Steel
Piping Installation Underground
The primary advantages to supplying hot water instead of steam are the lower temperature and pressures needed to transmit hot water. Given the economics for the sale of electricity versus hot water, the production of electricity with the option to recover waste heat to supply hot water is the best economic option.
3.3 Pollution Control
3.3.1 Air Pollution
3.3.1.1 Regulations
The Air Pollution Control (APC) design for flue gas treatment must comply with current EPA National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards and EPA Clean Air Act Section 129 standards. Section 129 of the Clean Air Act required EPA to develop and adopt New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and emissions guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) based on application of MACT60. These regulations were adopted by EPA in 1995 and were fully implemented by 2000. On April 28, 2006, emission limits and guidelines for large MWC units were revised in its NSPS. MWC rules are reviewed every 5 years by the EPA. Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC) from MACT standards are shown in Table 11 below61. Important emissions for consideration include nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), hydrogen chloride (HCl), dioxins/furans, heavy metals such as mercury, and particulate matter.
Table 11: Standard for HAPs from HWCs
Summary of Emission Limits for New or
Reconstructed Sources Unit EPA Standard
Max. allowed emission standard for NOx ppmv 150
Max. allowed emission standard for SOx ppm 30
Max. allowed emission standard for dioxin/Furan ng/m3 0.11 for dry APCD and/or WHB sources; 0.20 for other sources
Max. allowed emission standard for Hg ug/dscm 8.1
Max. allowed emission standard for PM gr/dscf 0.0015
Max. allowed emission standard for Semivolatile Metals (lead + cadmium + selenium)
ug/dscm 10
Max. allowed emission standard for low volatile metals (arsenic + beryllium + chromium + antimony + cobalt + manganese + nickel)
ug/dscm 23
Max. allowed emission standard for CO ppmv 100
Max. allowed emission standard for HC ppmv 10
Max. allowed emission standard for Cl (hydrogen chloride + chlorine gas)
ppmv 21
Destruction and Removal Efficiency 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous pollutant.
Although US WTE plants must comply with the standards, it is beneficial for those plants to reduce emissions by a wide margin to ensure compliance with possible future emissions regulations. Table 12 below shows averaged data from 87 US WTE plants and demonstrates their tendency to remain far below the US standard62.
Table 12: Average Emissions of 87 US WTE facilities
Pollutant Average
emission
US EPA
standard
Average emission
(% of US EPA standard) Unit
Dioxin/furan, TEQ basis
0.05 0.26 19.2% ng/dscm
Particulate matter 4 24 16.7% mg/dscm
Sulfur dioxide 6 30 20% ppmv
Nitrogen oxides 170 180 94.4% ppmv
Hydrogen chloride 10 25 40% ppmv
Mercury 0.01 0.08 12.5% mg/dscm
Cadmium 0.001 0.020 5% mg/dscm
Lead 0.02 0.20 10% mg/dscm
Carbon monoxide 33 100 33.3% ppmv
dscm: dry standard cubic meter of stack gas
In order to meet and exceed these standards, the Clean Air Act mandates installation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In this standard, the EPA determines what air pollution control technology will be used to control a specific pollutant to a specified limit (defined as the lowest demonstrated level in the geographic area). Although there are many technologies that can be used, the following APC units are chosen for this project: Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), Dryer Absorber (SDA) and Dry Injection Adsorption (DIA), Activated Carbon Injection (ACI), and Baghouse Fabric Filters.
3.3.1.2 SNCR
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction will be used instead of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) to reduce NOx because it requires less space to install, does not generate heavy metal waste from the spent catalyst, and has a much lower investment and operating cost as shown in Table 13 below63. SNCR is able to reduce the same amount of NOx as SCR (up to 90%) as it is compatible with other techniques such as the Very Low NOx process or the Acoustic Gas Temperature Measurement System, both alternative solutions to higher NOx reduction.
Table 13: Operating Parameters and costs for denitrification systems
Urea ((NH2)2CO) will be used as a reduction agent to react with NOx instead of anhydrous or aqueous ammonia because it is a less expensive substitute, the safest to store and transport, and less toxic. The urea is injected at high temperature into hot flue gases in the furnace in order to reduce and convert the NOx emissions to nitrogen, water and carbon dioxide. A simplified reaction for urea with NOx is shown below: NH2CONH2 + 2 NO + ½ O2 → 2 N2 + CO2 + 2 H2O 40.0% urea solution will be used instead of 32.5% or 50% because it has a freezing point at 32°F, whereas 32.5% urea solution has a freezing point at 11°F and 50% urea solution has a freezing point at 55°F. A freezing point at 32°F is advantageous because the droplets would not evaporate too quickly, causing more NOx to be formed, and would not evaporate too slowly, causing more ammonia slip to occur. In other words, 40% urea solution maximizes NOx control while minimizing ammonia emissions. A ratio of 0.16-1.56 gal urea/ton waste will be used (464-4,524 gal urea/day) (See Appendix 5). The best method to avoid urea storage is to receive dry urea and immediately convert the material to a liquid for storage in tanks. The process to convert dry urea to a liquid utilizes demineralized or soft water blended with the urea gravimetrically on a batch basis with the addition of approximately 900 BTU/lb of heat. In this way, the system has an
Unit
SNCR Urea (45%)
SNCR NH4OH (25%)
SCR NH4OH (25%)
Waste throughput MT/h 15
Flue gas volume stream Nm³/h,dry 80,000
Operating hours h/a 7,800
NOx baseline mg/Nm³ 400
NOx clean gas concentration mg/Nm³ 20 100 70 Pressure loss mbar 25
Temperature increase °C 20
Investment costs USD 200,000 500,000 2,500,000
Operating time years 1 15 15
Interest rate 6 6% 6%
Annuity USD/a 20,000 50,000 250,000
Ammonia water USD/h - 16.50 6.00
Urea solution USD/h 11.30 - -
Process water USD/h 0.5 - -
Demineralised water USD/h 1.20
Electrical energy USD/h 0.1 0.15 6.70
Natural gas USD/h - - 38.00
Compressed air USD/h 2.0 2.00 -
Operating costs per hour USD/h 14.03 19.85 50.70
Operating costs per year USD/a 109,434 154,830 395,460
affirmative control on solution strength, which is essential for process control and monitoring64. The optimum temperature range, where a noticeable NOx reduction is achieved, also plays a large role in NOx control. According to Figure 7 below, the range is between 900 and 1,100°C (1600-2100°F) depending on the composition of the flue gas65. Above this temperature range, ammonia is increasingly oxidized causing more nitrogen oxides to form. At lower temperatures the reaction rate is slowed down, causing a high level of ammonia emissions from the stack. There should be at least 0.5 seconds of residence time in the boiler after ammonia injection.66
Figure 7: Influence of Temperature on NOx Reduction
3.3.1.3 Spray Dry Absorber and Dry Injection Adsorption
After the SNCR process, the flue gas enters into a combination of Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA) and Dry Injection Adsorption (DIA) unit where scrubbers spray a mixture of lime and water into the hot exhaust gases to significantly reduce and neutralize acid gases. Dry scrubber systems trap up to half of the mercury present in the gas. Unlike a wet scrubbing system, this type of combination has zero wastewater discharge.
A calcium-based solid sorbent will be used instead of a sodium-based solid sorbent as the most widely used dry scrubbing system is calcium-based hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2). A slurry of hydrated lime and water is injected into the spray dryer and reacts with the acid gases in a simplified manner as follows: Ca(OH)2 + SO2 → CaSO3(s) + H2O
Ca(OH)2 + 2HCl → CaCl2(s) + 2H2O The hydrogen chloride (HCl) is removed at a higher rate than the sulfur dioxide (SO2). One mole of Ca(OH)2 will neutralize one mole of SO2, whereas one mole of Ca(OH)2 will neutralize two moles of HCl. Since SO2 is 64lb/lbmole, HCl is 36 lb/lbmole, and Ca(OH)2 is 74 lb/lbmole, one pound of calcium hydroxide can neutralize 0.86 pounds of SO2 or 0.97 pounds of HCl. However, due to inefficiencies in the mixing process, more than the theoretical amount of alkaline material is required to assure compliance with applicable standards. Thus, stoichiometric feed rates of 1.5 to 2.5 have been used to achieve SO2 removal level in the 75-85% range and HCl removal efficiencies of 95% on municipal waste combustors. Acid gas removal efficiencies can be increased by cooling and/or humidifying the flue gas stream. Reducing flue gas temperature increases the rate of reaction between the sorbent and acid gases. The temperature must be maintained high enough to ensure that all the water droplets used to quench are evaporated. A ratio of 12.50-18.75 lb lime/ton waste will be used (36,250-54,375 lb lime/day) (See Appendix 5). A rotary atomizer system will be used instead of a dual-fluid nozzles system on spray dryers as it has a higher capacity per unit and a simpler piping system as usually only one feed pipe per atomizer is used. Atomizer wheels range from 8 to 16 inches in diameter and have rotational speeds from 7,000 to 20,000 revolutions per minute (rpm). The liquid is atomized into discrete droplets that are propelled radially outward. These droplets, generally 25-150 um in diameter, dry rapidly in the hot flue gas within the spray dryer. To avoid wall deposition, the designed radial distance between the atomizer and the spray-dryer chamber wall must be sufficient to allow for adequate drying of the largest droplets. This is accomplished by proper choice of the L/D, droplet size, and residence time. The length-to-diameter ratio of the spray-dryer chamber (L/D) for an atomizer type of spray dryer is typically 0.8. Flue gas may enter a spray dryer in either a concurrent or a countercurrent pattern relative to the slurry. The most common flow pattern in acid gas control systems are co-current spray dryers, which will be used instead of a countercurrent system. All of the gas enters through a roof gas disperser in the top of the vessel, where its rotation is controlled by angled vanes that direct the gas around the atomizer. This type of gas distribution precisely controls the exit gas temperature since the gas and slurry travel in the same direction.67
3.3.1.4 Activated Carbon
Scrubbing can also improve the capture of heavy metals such as mercury in the exhaust gases. The remaining mercury can be controlled by blowing dry-powdered, activated charcoal/carbon into the hot exhaust gas for absorption and removal. Carbon injection also reduces emissions of trace organic compounds such as dioxins and furans. A ratio of
1.56 lb activated carbon/ton waste will be used for this project (4,524 lb activated carbon/day)
(See Appendix 5).
3.3.1.5 Baghouse Fabric Filters
Finally, the particulate exiting the chamber contains fly ash, calcium salts and unreacted lime that must be sent to a particulate control device. Baghouse fabric filters are used to clean the air of soot, smoke and metals, while also controlling particulates from the flue gas. Fabric filters can collect particles with sizes ranging from submicron to several hundred microns in diameter at efficiencies generally in excess of 99 or 99.9 percent from the gases before they are finally released from the stack. A pulse jet (compressed air cleaning) baghouse is the typical baghouse used for municipal waste incinerators, as opposed to reverse air (gas cleaning) and shaker baghouse (mechanical cleaning). The pulse jet baghouse is combined with a continuous online sequence rather than an intermittent or continuous offline sequence as it is fully automated and the process flow continues during cleaning68. The proper air-to-cloth (A/C) ratio is the key parameter for optimal design. Pulse-jet baghouses have the highest A/C ratios but should still be operated within a reasonable A/C ratio range. Too high an A/C ratio results in excessive pressure drops, reduced collection efficiency, blinding, and rapid wear. Typical air-to-cloth ratios for baghouses used municipal waste incinerators are listed in the table below. Typical A/C ratios [(ft3/min)/ft2] for municipal waste incinerators are 2.5-4 for the pulse jet. Table 14 below also shows typical A/C ratios for fabric filters used for control of particulate emissions from industrial boilers69.
Table 14: Typical A/C Ratios for Particulate Fabric Filters
Boiler Size
(103 lb
steam/hr)
Temp
(°F)
Air-to-cloth
ratio
[(ft3/min)/ft2]
Cleaning mechanism Fabric material
260 (3 boilers) 400° 4.4:1 On- or off-line pulse-
jet or reverse-air
Glass with 10% Teflon
coating (24 oz/yd2)
170 (5 boilers) 500° 4.5:1 Reverse-air with pulse-
jet assist
Glass with 10% Teflon
coating
140 (2 boilers) 360° 2:1 Reverse-air
No. 0004
Fiberglas with silicone-
graphite Teflon finish
250 338° 2.3:1 Shake and deflate Woven Fiberglas with
silicone graphite finish
200 (3 boilers) 300° 3.6:1 Shake and deflate Woven Fiberglas with
silicone- graphite
400 (2 boilers) Stoker, 285° to 300°; pulverized coal, 350°
2.5:1 Reverse-air Glass with
Teflon finish
75 150° 2.8:1 Reverse-air Fiberglas with
Teflon coating
50 350° 3:1 On-line pulse- jet Glass with
Teflon finish
270 (2 boilers) 330° 3.7:1 On-line pulse- jet Teflon felt
(23 oz)
450 (4 boilers) 330° 3.7:1 On-line pulse- jet Teflon felt
(23 oz)
380 NA 2:1 Reverse-air vibrator
assist
Glass with 10% Teflon
coating
645 NA 2:1 Reverse-air vibrator
assist
Glass with 10% Teflon
coating
1440 (3 boilers) 360° 3.4:1 Shake and deflate Woven Fiberglas with
silicone- graphite finish
3.3.2 Ash Treatment/Disposal
3.3.2.1 Regulations on WTE ash disposal
The WTE process generates two types of ash waste products, bottom ash which is collected at the end of the combustion from the furnace bottom and grate fly ash that is collected at the baghouse. The quality of the ash must be in compliance with currently existing regulatory limits enforced by the EPA. Ash treatment is an essential step that reduces the leachability of hazardous heavy metals such as Ba, As, Cr, Pb, Ag, Cd, Se, and Hg, especially for the heavy-metal laden fly ash. Table 15 shows the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) regulatory limit concentrations established by the EPA.
Table 15: Maximum Concentration of Toxic Contaminants (the D List)70
EPA Hazardous Waste Code Contaminant Maximum Level (mg/l)(or ppm)
D004 Arsenic (As) 5.0
D005 Barium (Ba) 100.0
D018 Benzene 0.5
D006 Cadmium (Cd) 1.0
D019 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.5
D020 Chlordane 0.03
D021 Chlorobenzene 100.0
D022 Chloroform 6.0
D007 Chromium (Cr) 5.0
D023 o-Cresol 200.0
D024 m-Cresol 200.0
D025 p-Cresol 200.0
D026 Cresol 200.0
D016 2,4-D 10.0
D027 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 7.5
D028 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5
D029 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.7
D030 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13
D012 Endrin 0.02
D031 Heptachlor 0.008
D032 Hexachlorobenzene 0.13
D033 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5
D034 Hexachloroethane 3.0
D008 Lead (Pb) 5.0
D013 Lindane 0.4
D009 Mercury (Hg) 0.2
D014 Methoxychlor 10.0
D035 Methyl ethyl ketone 200.0
D036 Nitrobenzene 2.0
D037 Pentachlorophenol 100.0
D038 Pyridine 5.0
D010 Selenium (Se) 1.0
D011 Silver (Ag) 5.0
D039 Tetrachloroethylene 0.7
D015 Toxaphene 0.5
D040 Trichloroethylene 0.5
D041 2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol 400.0
D042 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2.0
D017 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 1.0
D043 Vinyl Chloride 0.2
3.3.2.2 Current industry practices
To achieve concentration levels below the maximum regulatory limits, approximately 80% of current operating WTE facilities practice “the mixing of ashes” which involves combining the bottom ash and fly ash (75% bottom ash, 25% fly ash) to stabilize the hazardous fly ash component71. The stabilized ash mixture is often transported for safe landfill disposal or recycled as alternate daily cover (ADC) for active landfills. The MSW ash mixture has been board-approved by the state of New York to be implemented as ADC,72 to cover the active surface of MSW landfills at the end of each operating day to control vectors, odor, and fire.73 Even though the bottom ash has potential to be utilized as construction filler material, the reuse of bottom ash is not widely practiced in the U.S.
3.3.2.3 Two preliminary WTE ash treatment process diagrams
Two possible ash treatment processes have been proposed, first in compliance with current industry practices, and second incorporation of beneficial reuse of bottom ash, to compare the advantages and disadvantages that each presents. The following flow charts represent the ash treatment operations that have been proposed and compared: In either case there will be separation of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Implementation of a magnetic separator which uses a magnetic field to separate between the ferrous and non-ferrous materials will act as the primary method of ferrous metal separation. After the ferrous metal separation, an eddy current separator will be used to separate the non-ferrous metal components. The separated ferrous and non-ferrous materials will be stored on-site until its sale. Keeping bottom and fly ash separate leaves the bottom ash available for beneficial reuse. In industry, reuse of bottom ash is unpopular as WTE facilities would have to accommodate additional equipment and processes to stabilize fly ash through a chemical
Ferrous/non-ferrous
metal extraction
Utilize stabilized ash
mixture as ADC
Ferrous/non-ferrous
metal extraction
Fly Ash: WES-PHix
Stabilization Process
Bottom Ash: Sold as
Concrete Aggregate
Fly Ash:
Landfill/Disposal
Physical Mixing of
Bottom and Fly Ash
Figure 8: Ash Treatment - Conventional vs. Innovative Methods
reaction. However when considering the economic profits that the facilities can access by marketing bottom ash as construction aggregate, the choice for ash treatment at this facility involves separate ash operations including the WES-PHix stabilization process for fly ash. A cost-benefit analysis was done in Germany to determine if bottom ash recycling was economically feasible and desirable. Since Germany regarded the bottom-fly ash mixture as hazardous waste, the disposal fee of $100/ton was imposed. Alternatively, the bottom ash could have been disposed as a non-hazardous waste with a disposal fee of $30/ton. Table 16 represents the different economic analysis of the disposal scenarios based on this facility’s expected production of 80,000 tons and the fly ash production of 6000 tons.
Table 16: Simple Economic Analysis of Multiple Ash Disposal Scenarios
Unit Disposal Cost ($/ton) Total Disposal Cost ($)
Ash mixture 100 8,600,000
Bottom ash Only 30 2,400,000
Fly ash Only 100 600,000
Total Savings Ash mix-(bottom+fly) 5,600,000
The disposal costs of the ash waste were based on German standards
From a disposal analysis, the separate disposal and reuse of bottom and fly ash was economically the favorable option as the plant would be saving approximately $6 million annually by disposing the different types of ash separately. Even with the additional costs for bottom ash treatment including capital cost, storage cost, marketing and transportation cost to costumer’s construction site (which was determined to be $25/tonne), the annual savings was calculated to be over $3.6 million dollars as the bottom ash processing fee was $2 million. Furthermore, a total profit of $ 225,000 dollars would be generated as the recovered ferrous metals (7,500 tons at $20/ton) and non-ferrous metals (700 tons at $250/ton) would be sold to customers74. Another significant advantage of recycling bottom ash is the subsequent reduced landfill land usage. Even using the ash mixture as ADC would ultimately result in an overall increase in the volume of the landfill waste. By landfilling only the stabilized fly ash portion of the ash waste, the total waste volume landfilled by WTE facilities would significantly reduce. For the stabilization of the heavy metal, dioxin and furan laden fly ash, the WES-PHix process was adapted for its effectiveness in reducing the leached metal concentration. It is the most widely adopted chemical stabilization process by currently operating WTE facilities, and sprays the bottom ash with a phosphoric acid solution, usually of 10% H3PO4, as the bottom ash is being tumbled in a drum-like structure.75 The WES-PHix process has proven to reduce the solubility of Pb, which most often increases in the
highly alkaline conditions that occur when excess lime is used for acid gas control.76 The effectiveness of the WES-Phix process in meeting the TCLP regulatory limits can be proven by the ash residue concentration gathered from two WTE facilities (Veolia/Montenay Savannah Operations Inc. and Veolia/Montenay Greater Vancouver Regional District’s WTE facility). This facility will perform the TCLP test every month, just as the Burnaby WTE in British Columbia does, to ensure that the ash leachate concentration meets the EPA standards. The decision to landfill the chemically treated fly ash was based on current industry’s weariness in utilizing fly ash. Despite the TCLP testing data from the Veolia/Montenay WTE plants, the potential of heavy metal leaching prevents from a wide spread utilization practices. Mirroring the low market demand for treated fly ash, our facility decided it will economically favorable to simply landfill.
Table 17: WES-PHix Design Specifications77
Parameter Value
Liquid to Solid Ratio 0.4
Residence Time (min) 3-5
Phosphate to Ash Ratio (mol H3PO4/kg dry fly ash) 0.71
Amount of Phosphate Acid Needed (TPD) 6
Bottom Ash Produced (TPD) 370
Fly Ash Produced (TPD) 65
The calculations for the amount of bottom ash and fly ash produced were based on the following conservative assumptions:
1) 20% of the incoming MSW stream by weight is bottom ash 2) 3% of the incoming MSW stream by weight is fly ash
Since this facility will be receiving 2900 TPD, it will produce 369.75 TPD of bottom ash and 65.25 TPD of fly ash. The liquid to solid ratio of 0.4 represents the ratio between the amounts of phosphate solution to the amount of fly ash processed. The residence time of 3-5 minutes were taken from specification from a reference plant to ensure ample time for the chemical reaction to taken place between the fly ash particles and the phosphate solution. Based on the ratio of 0.71 moles of H3PO4 to kg of dry fly ash, the daily tonnage of phosphate acid needed was calculated to be 6.03. The reuse of bottom ash as concrete aggregate came naturally as the majority of its composition is aggregate material such as stone and glass. Also, as the planned WTE plant is going to be constructed in an industrial park located in Red Hook, Brooklyn, the market for bottom ash is abundant and product demand high. In Europe, the use of bottom ash is widely adapted as they use bottom ash for road embankments, construction fillers, and road base material.
3.4 Economics
A constraint common to any engineering project is cost. As a consideration for projects claiming to be sustainable in particular this is essential since the idea of sustainability is out of reach without a funding source. The concept of a triple-bottom-line must underlie any meaningful effort towards sustainability, inherent in which is not just environmental neutrality but long-term viability. WTE power plants require very high capital investment, close to three times higher than that of coal-fired power plants generating the same amount of electricity. One of the reasons is that MSW has a calorific value of less than one half that of the average U.S. coal. The second reason is that because of the much higher chlorine content (nearly 5 times that of coal), the WTE steam cannot be heated to as high temperature, thus resulting in a lower thermal efficiency of the steam turbine. However, there will be opportunities to bring this cost down, especially if and when new plants start to become
more regularly implemented in the US.78 There are many possible finance structures, allowing for flexibility depending on the specific design parameters of a given WTE project. The proposed plant would be operated privately, with the public municipality handling waste collection and transport. For the economic model, a basic IRR estimation strategy outlined in Essentials of
Engineering Economy 1: The Profitability of a Chemical Plant Investment was used.79
Built into the economic model are a number of assumptions (see Appendix 7 for economic data). First, calculations are based on a 72 MW plant, since this is the expected electrical output. Since the client already owns the land on which the plant is to be built, no capital is required for the purchase of land. Further, any additional land that the client is able to acquire would be acquired independently of moving forward with WTE development, and thus does not need to be included in the analysis. Working capital (WC) at 15% of the fixed capital cost (FC), and a salvage value (NS) of 5% of the FC were assumed. FC is estimated based on a cost of $9000 per installed kW, which is approximately equal to the cost of the planned WTE plant to be installed in Palm Beach,
FL.80 Production disbursements include labor, operations and maintenance, and ongoing regulatory fee considerations, and are estimated at $30 million per year. With an estimated 65 full-time positions filled at the plant, labor costs would make up a relatively small percentage of this total (even at $100,000/employee this is only $6.5 million), which suggests that this is likely a conservative estimate. The impact of loan repayment, especially given the current economic climate, can be reduced by taking out shorter-term loans at the very beginning of the project, as was done
in the financing of the Frederick, MD, plant.81 With respect to loans, it is typical to collect approximately 60% capital from a major bank loan, with the remainder for the most part being financed privately. For the Red Hook WTE Plant, a bank loan for 60% of the FC was assumed, with the remainder coming from private investors and requiring a return on
investment over the expected 30-year lifetime of the plant.82
This analysis is intended to be a conservative estimate, by planning for costs on the high end of the usual spectrum and revenues on the low end. An electricity value of $0.07/kWh was assumed, which is reasonable given New York's average electricity cost, of approximately $0.20/kWh. The electricity output of the waste is taken as the calculated heating value at an efficiency of 24%. To determine the total annual receipts, 43% and 5% ferrous and non-ferrous metal recovery, respectively, and sale prices of $100/ton
ferrous and $800/ton non-ferrous metals were assumed.83 Tax estimates are calculated as 45% of total income, which includes both Federal and State tax rates. A 5.68% loan interest rate is assumed on the basis of the financial analysis of the Frederick, MD, power plant.84
Tipping fees for the waste are currently set at $65/ton, which represents the lowest current out-of-state cost being paid by New York to landfill its waste; this is significantly lower than the average New York State tipping fee, which is greater than $100. On this basis, private investors could expect to see a 10.4% internal rate of return (IRR). Under more optimistic conditions (tipping fee at $105/ton; electricity valued at $0.10/kWh) an IRR of 17.6% would be expected. This is a range of profitability favorable for investment, as WTE is a mature technology which provides a relatively low financial risk.
3.5 Community Integration
Perhaps the most significant barrier to the success of any WTE project is community approval. Public outcry over WTE development has led to a dearth of WTE construction in the past 15 years, which has seen no new plants completed in the US since 1997. A widespread information distribution plan to get community members and representatives on board with the proposal is necessary. In order to further increase educational and outreach possibilities and turn the potential WTE plant into a resource for the community, a plan to engage the community so that the positive effects of the WTE plant will reach beyond the environmental and economic spheres and into the human one will be incorporated. This will include an outreach plan as well as a proposed community and visitor center, which will serve to engage community members, provide educational opportunities for children and adults alike, and facilitate the spread of information on the benefits of WTE technology. Typical criticisms of WTE development include claims of dangerous pollutant concentrations that cause public health risks, especially in underprivileged neighborhoods, NIMBY arguments, a decline in surrounding housing values, odor problems, high capital costs requiring too much financial risk, and an assertion that WTE
development discourages recycling in neighboring communities.85 While there is historical precedent for some of these claims, WTE technology has evolved at a fast rate in the past 20 years and become a very well-refined and above all safe technology. Many modern plants now include real-time emissions monitoring systems with outputs publicly available to demonstrate a commitment to accountability
for health and safety awareness. Companies like Covanta increasingly take social issues and sustainability seriously, and recognize the demand for such measures.86 Concerns related to dioxins, furans and other common pollutants like SO2 and NOx are minimized by air pollution control technologies, and fall safely within increasingly stringent EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act. WTE combustors are held to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) standards, which are close to the EPA’s strictest standard. Emissions of most major pollutants due to WTE combustion decreased by upwards of 95% between 1990 and 2005, and continue to fall as APC technologies develop further (NOx is a notable exception, though its emission rate also decreased by 24%).87 It has been shown from a public health standpoint that disposal via WTE is less
damaging than landfilling in many cases.88 Still, not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) concerns will remain an issue as long as WTE remains unfamiliar to populations within potentially affected neighborhoods. Just as the Cape Wind project, an energy development focused on significantly less controversial technology, was delayed many years due to primarily aesthetic considerations, such concerns have impeded WTE projects. WTE development in Palm Beach County, Florida, was itself not ultimately affected, but NIMBY concerns presented an obstacle that resulted in the unfortunate sacrifice of some engineering principles. The concerns are described as follows: "A conventional design using Good Engineering Practices (GEP) would have called for a stack 50 feet in diameter and 385 feet tall. This would have created a significant visual impact for many living at Ironhorse."89
It is strange that amidst serious concerns of pollution and health risks, some protesters are willing to potentially sacrifice their health in order to preserve their view of the horizon. In the end, engineers both shortened and narrowed the profile of the stack from the perspective of the protesting communities, making it oblong. The shape of the stack does not adversely affect pollutant concentrations, but its height will impact ground-level concentrations. While the plant must still operate within EPA regulations, the factor of safety was effectively reduced. While it has been documented in South Korea that the siting of a WTE plant leads to a
decrease in housing values, the effect in this study was limited to a 300 meter radius.90 This concern may be easily addressed by taking steps to ensure that such WTE plants are not eyesores, but rather integrated into their surroundings, and making an effort to site WTE plants in industrial areas rather than residential, with the added benefit that in such locations heat and electricity may be more readily used on a large scale. Many modern plants have been designed or renovated with this in mind, a prime example being the Spittelau WTE plant in Vienna, Switzerland.91 Other proposed designs, including the one put forth by the firm BIG in Denmark for a Copenhagen WTE plant, go a step further, incorporating not only architectural but functional components which are able to directly involve and attract nearby residents and tourists alike.92 Innovative and attractive designs such as these have the ability to make WTE plants more palatable to a diverse community
of people, with significant room left for growth in developing new means of showcasing WTE technology through architectural design. Odors due to a waste processing facility are also a typical concern raised by community members, however all modern WTE plants operate with a negative pressure inside of the plant, ensuring that with few exceptions the odor is contained within their walls. This negative pressure is achieved via the intake of air for the waste combustion, which is pulled in over the waste storage pit. Financial risk caused the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to consider bankruptcy in 2010 when the city was unable to make payments on loans related to the plant, which is
operated by Covanta (the plant has since resumed operations with private funding).93 A certain amount of risk is taken on by any financial investment, and WTE is no exception. However, the financial involvement of the public sector is not necessary in entirely necessary. Any truly sustainable technology must also be profitable in the long run. While investments from local government can be beneficial, serious financial hardship is something to be avoided, and given the financial viability of WTE plants is not always necessary. With respect to the final assertion that WTE combustors “compete” with recycling plants for material, there is no known evidence substantiating this claim. To the contrary, many analyses show that recycling rates increase in areas with higher WTE capacity. The recycling and WTE feedstock do not compete, because they make up separate streams – and while recyclables may enter the WTE feedstock, MSW cannot be recycled. WTE development in Red Hook, Brooklyn, in particular could provide an economic boon to the surrounding area, which is largely industrial and historically home to citizens with low incomes. With the development of similar-sized plants leading to over 600 full-time construction jobs, greater than 50 permanent full-time positions, and many more in supporting industries, WTE could provide many opportunities for local residents.94 The presence of WTE technology would also place Brooklyn at the cutting edge of urban waste disposal practices and help to establish it as a leader in green jobs creation.
Significant efforts must be made to ensure that outreach to community members is comprehensive, and that the public has easy access to all relevant educational materials. Specifically, direct engagement with WTE’s most vocal opponents might help to alleviate some of the stress between communities, and their input should be an integral part of the planning process. A visitor’s center and educational resources will be provided, allowing for a continued expansion of understanding among interested communities. There are reasons to be optimistic, as an increased dialog has been taking place in recent years.95 This has happened alongside neutral and in some cases favorable media coverage – a welcome shift in perspective.96 A small handful of WTE plants in the US are currently in development, including two in Florida and the Frederick, MD, plant cited earlier. Finally, waste management and WTE corporations are taking steps to improve
transparency and showcase their sustainability initiatives, both in terms of sustainability and ethical responsibility.97 Such ethical considerations are the basis of sound engineering. These do not simply involve community concerns of pollution and economic development, but also issues of environmental ethics and job creation. In general, appropriate externalities should be taken into consideration during decision making processes to ensure the best-informed result possible, even when not quantifiable. One would be particularly remiss to ignore environmental considerations like the life cycle analysis of the plant and its operations, including waste transport, etc. After all, the decision to implement WTE technology in the first place is motivated by concerns of sustainability, so a failure to design a facility in a sustainable manner would defeat the purpose of building such a facility in the first place.
4 Synthesis and Recommended Design The design of the proposed WTE facility is anchored by four basic constraints: the waste input stream (2600 TPD), the available operating time (90% ~ 328 days per year), the boiler capacity (2900 TPD), and the available space on Mr. Quadrozzi’s property, the Gonwanus Industrial Park (150,000 square feet). Each of these parameters influences our design and shapes the layout, technology choices, and many more decisions involved in the overall design process. In addition to these four primary constraints, other opportunities specific to this site and Red Hook include its proximity to the Gowanus Canal, an EPA superfund site, and the potential for eco-industrial symbiosis, which will be dependent on the finalization of plans for a concrete facility on the client’s site. Another major goal of this design is to set a positive example for WTE technology and to integrate the facility smoothly into the Red Hook community. To help achieve this goal the plant will provide community outreach and education on WTE, and work with its neighbors to address any concerns that arise before, during, or after its construction.
4.2 Future Work
There are many aspects of this design which are beyond the scope of this report. Among them is the use and/or reuse of water to create steam for the turbine as well as that used for cooling the gas effluent. A more detailed design would include specifications on the amount of water needed, water treatment equipment, and sizing of units or equipment needed. An opportunity also exists to aid in the long term clean-up efforts of the Gowanus Canal, by using waste heat to power on-site water treatment while simultaneously providing water for the purposes of use in the plant itself. The heated water effluent could be utilized further still if Mr. Quadrozzi’s plan for a concrete processing facility is carried out, with any additional purification available via recycling through the water treatment facility as necessary. Different treatment options should be considered, but the opportunity exists for innovation through the use of technologies like microbial fuel cells, which for example have a heat input requirement that could easily be met by our effluent steam supply.
Technical and architectural drawings would be necessary to move forward with the design. However, a rough sketch of the facility layout can be seen in Appendix 8. As discussed in the Community Engagement section, architectural considerations can make an enormous impact on the plant’s presence and perception. An architectural firm should be hired to provide a design that is modern, integrates seamlessly into the neighborhood, and is able to serve as a highly visible and attractive outward representation of WTE to the surrounding area and all outside observers. While cost estimates for some individual components are included in the report, a lack of comprehensive data as well as uncertainty with regards to the uniquely high costs anticipated for any construction in New York City exclude the possibility of a thorough, component-by-component economic analysis. Efforts have been made to provide an educated estimate based on similarly sized WTE plants currently undergoing development in the US, but the possibility for error is significant. In order to develop a more accurate estimate, each component of the plant would need to be priced and an up-to-date NYC-specific cost adjustment for both shipping and construction provided. It is worth reiterating, however, that the current analysis is intended to be conservative and thus should not be overly optimistic. Before moving forward with the implementation of a WTE plant, it is essential to have a long term buyer in place for generated electricity in particular, since along with tipping fees it is one of the primary income sources for the plant. Additional infrastructural considerations must be made, specifically with respect to transmitting electricity from the WTE plant to the closest grid access point. Further purchasing agreements should also be explored for district heating and metal recovery.
4.3 Potential Risks
While WTE is a proven technology, there remain associated pollution and economic risks with any WTE development. These risks can be minimized, though never fully eliminated, through sound engineering and financial planning. Possible pollution issues could arise if the APC units fail, but the facility will be equipped with pollution sensors and alarm systems to minimize the impact of such a failure and quickly resolve issues due to component failure. Emissions are constantly monitored as part of EPA regulations but additionally to ensure the smooth operation of the plant, especially with regards to variations in the incoming waste stream. Safety is the primary concern of the plant operations, given high temperature and pressure requirements inherent in the combustion processes as well as the presence of heavy machinery and potential for hazardous materials. It is in the best interest of the plant owners, developers, employees, and neighbors to minimize and, when possible, eliminate negative impacts of WTE construction, and steps must be immediately taken in the event of any systems failure which results in negative health impacts or otherwise. No investment is ever 100% guaranteed, but risk is low given the track record of WTE. With careful planning and thorough economic analysis, the proposed plant should be economically viable in its current state. Additionally, problems have arisen in the past when municipalities have taken on too much of the debt associated with WTE plant
development. The role of government agencies in our proposed structure is limited to subsidizing the plant’s operations under state programs, which is ideal given the financial stresses that most municipalities, NYC included, are undergoing today.
5 Conclusions A mass-burn WTE facility for Red Hook, Brooklyn is economically feasible. The consistent, dependable income from tipping fees, electricity production and metals recovery provide the incentive to finance the high capital costs of the plant. The location in Red Hook provides the added incentive of possible income from district heating sale; and furthermore, the on-site cement facility provides the ability for internal use of district heating and for the realization of the Quadrozzi vision of an Eco-Industrial Park. City-wide economics regarding WTE in Brooklyn are also favorable. By combusting the waste and recovering it energy in Brooklyn, New York City avoids paying fees for long-hauling to other states. A mass-burn WTE facility for Red Hook, Brooklyn is environmentally beneficial. New York City’s current method of hauling the majority of its waste to distant landfills is unsustainable. It results in a large amount of landfill gas (mostly methane and carbon dioxide) and diesel fuel emissions, which both contribute to climate change as greenhouse gases. The combustion of the waste reduces the volume that needs to be landfilled and avoids long-haul trucking. The APC units at the WTE facility abate the various emissions to below the strict EPA standards for emissions, ensuring that incineration does not lead to air pollution. The energy produced from the waste offsets the energy that would need to be produced from fossil fuels (primarily natural gas in NYC); so, the carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion, transportation (pipe leaks), and mining are avoided. Despite the misconception that WTE and recycling do not work in unison, WTE recovers metals and enhances recycling efforts. Finally, the bottom and fly ash are treated and do not pose a threat to the environment. A mass-burn WTE facility for Red Hook, Brooklyn must be incorporated into the community. Red Hook is largely an industrial area, so it will face less residential opposition. However, in order for any project of this caliber to come to fruition, community engagement must play a role. The community must know that WTE is not hazardous to the environment and that it is actually beneficial. People will also want to know how their property value, daily life and community will be affected. A WTE facility must be open with the community by first educating its neighbors before being built and then by staying involved with the neighborhood throughout its operating lifetime. A community center and public tours are an easy way for the WTE facility to accomplish these goals. Another important aspect for the community is the architecture of the facility. An impressive, captivating structure can make the WTE facility a community landmark that local residents are proud to have in their community.
Appendices
A1 Permits
1. NYCRR Part 360: Solid Waste Management Facilities (non-hazardous waste)98
Statutory Authority: Article 27, Title 7 of the Environmental Conservation Law Regulated Activities: The processing, recovery, reclamation, or disposal of solid waste, defined as any garbage, refuse, sludge or other waste material not exempted in 6NYCRR Part 360, or regulated under Part 382 or 383 or defined as a hazardous waste. Completeness Requirements:
• Engineering plans, reports, and specifications that comprehensively address the project in its environmental setting.
• Plan of operations and maintenance, contingency plans for waste control. • Certified location of property boundaries. • Detailed closure plans for the facility. • For resource recovery facilities, information on the landfill which will
receive the residue/bypass waste as detailed in 6NYCRR 360.3. Public Notice Requirements:
• Environmental Notice Bulletin and newspaper publication required for major projects.
2. The air pollution control permit program encompasses both federal operating permit requirements and additional state requirements
• For each major stationary source facility, DEC issues a Title V Facility Permit, a comprehensive permit containing all regulatory requirements applicable to all sources at the facility.
• For each non-major source, DEC issues a State Facility Permit. NYCRR Parts 200 through 317: Air Pollution Control
99 Statutory Authority - Article 19 of the Environmental Conservation Law Regulated Activities: Air contamination sources which qualify as Major Stationary Sources. Major stationary sources are indicated by:
• Projects subject to EPA Title V facility permit requirements, qualifying as: o Major Stationary Sources. Major stationary sources are indicated
by air contamination sources which (in New York City) experience emission of any of the following pollutant levels:
� NOx - 25 TPY � VOC - 25 TPY
� PM-10 - 100 TPY � PM-2.5 (fine particulate) - 100 TPY
o Any stationary source subject to a standard or limitation, or other requirement under the Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, et seq.
o Any stationary source including an area source, subject to a standard or other requirement regulating hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of the act, except that a source is not required to obtain a title V permit solely because it is subject to regulations or requirements promulgated for the control of accidental releases of substances regulated under section 112(r) of the act.
o A stationary source that includes one or more fossil fuel fired combustion units that are subject to emission reduction requirements or limitations established in accordance with the Federal Acid Rain Program under title IV of the act.)
• Projects involving preconstruction permits for modifications of or new emission sources at Title V permitted facilities that are defined as significant permit modifications.
• Projects that are subject to major new source review permitting. • Projects seeking emission reduction credits. • Projects requiring the use of a federally enforceable emission cap. • Projects involving the construction of new facilities with emission sources
subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants under 40 CFR Part 63.
• Projects subject to Title IV (Acid Rain) requirements under the Clean Air Act amendments.
• Projects involving the construction of new highways or roads, or modification of any existing section of highway or road, which require an indirect source permit under Part 203.
Completeness Requirements:
• Title V permit documents, if applicable. • Application must include:
o Identifying information, including owner and/or operator name and address, plant name and address.
o A location map with the site marked on it if the application is for a new facility.
o A description of the emission units' processes and products. o A list of all emission units at the facility. o A list of all regulated air pollutants emitted from the facility. o The type, rate and quantity of emissions in sufficient detail for the
department to determine those State and Federal requirements that are applicable to the facility.
o Assessment of environmental impacts (required by State Environmental Quality Review Act, (SEQR)).
Special Procedures and Exceptions:
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - This federal regulation applies to new major facilities and significant emission increases at existing major facilities located in areas that are in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards; requires use of best available control technology (BACT) and sophisticated air quality modeling to control increases of certain air contaminants.
• New Source Review in Nonattainment Areas (Part 231) - Requires Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LEAR) control technology and offsetting of emissions from new major facilities or significant emission increases at existing major facilities located in areas that exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (nonattainment areas).
• Title V Facility Permits - Federally delegated program requires coordination with EPA, which may object to issuance or revoke a permit, and notice to affected states, tribal lands, and the public. Five day letter provision of UPA does not apply to Title V permits unless DEC has satisfied all requirements regarding notice and review of draft permits.
• Applicants may choose to avoid certain state or federal requirements or regulations by proposing limits or a "cap" on a source's potential to emit.
Public Notice Requirements:
• Applicants may Environmental Notice Bulletin and newspaper notice required for all UPA major projects (both delegated and non-delegated), and UPA minor projects which are required to have federally enforceable permit conditions (i.e., “emission caps”). Draft permits are required for delegated permits. Minimum comment period is 30 days.
Regulatory Fees:
• Environmental program regulatory fees (air pollution program fees and operating permit program fees) are billed annually by the Department, based on the nature of the facility, the type of authorization, and the amount of contaminants emitted. The fee per ton is assessed on emissions up to 7,000 tons annually of each regulated air contaminant. As of January 1, 2010, the fee per ton is as follows:
o A fee of $45.00 per ton for facilities having total annual emissions less than 1,000 tons.
o A fee of $50.00 per ton for facilities having total annual emissions of 1,000 tons or more but less than 2,000 tons.
o A fee of $55.00 per ton for facilities having total annual emissions of 2,000 tons or more but less than 5,000 tons.
o A fee of $65.00 per ton for facilities having total annual emissions of 5,000 tons or more.
3. NYCRR Parts 370, 371, 372, 373, 374 & 376: Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities100
Statutory Authority: Article 27, Title 3 of the Environmental Conservation Law Regulated Activities: Storage, transfer, processing, recovery, reclamation, combustion or disposal of any hazardous substance as listed in Part 371 or which exhibits any of the following characteristics:
• Ignitability • Corrosivity • Reactivity • Leachibility of toxic compounds (TCLP)
Completeness Requirements:
• Compliance with standards and planning requirements set forth in 6NYCRR Subpart 373-2, which includes provisions regarding environmental safeguards for the tracking and handling of hazardous wastes, and consciousness of safety of facility personnel.
Regulatory Fees: For all methods of hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal:
• $12,000 for each facility that receives less than or equal to 1,000 tons per year of hazardous waste.
• $30,000 for each facility that receives greater than 1,000 tons per year of hazardous waste.
• A facility that receives no waste in a particular year is still subject to a $12,000 fee.
• Operational Fees: o $10,000 for each incinerator which is located at the facility operator's
hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility. o $10,000 for each unit which burns listed hazardous waste for energy
recovery located at the facility operator's hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility.
4. (If facility is responsible for hauling materials other than ash to landfill or other end user) NYCRR Part 364: Waste Transporter
101 Statutory Authority: Article 27, Title 3 of the Environmental Conservation Law
Regulated Activities: Vehicular transportation of regulated wastes originating or terminating at a location within the state
• Exempt activities include: o Rail, water, and air carriers are exempt. o Transportation of food processing waste. o Transportation of construction and demolition debris except asbestos. o Transportation of agricultural waste employed in agriculture. o Transportation of samples being shipped for analysis or testing. o Transportation of certain types of bottom and fly ash.
Completeness Requirements:
• Submission of Appropriate fees • Proof of liability insurance
Regulatory Fees:
• If the permit is to transport industrial, commercial, or radioactive wastes: o $500 for the first vehicle permitted o $200 for each additional vehicle permitted.
• For Any other materials: o $250 for the first vehicle permitted o $100 for each additional vehicle permitted.
A2 NYC MSW Composition Details
Table A2-1.1: NYC Waste Characterization and Composition Analysis102
Table A2-1.2: NYC Waste Characterization and Composition Analysis103
Table A2-1.3: NYC Waste Characterization and Composition Analysis104
55
Table A2-2: Ultimate Analysis of Combustible Components in MSW105
Table A2-3: Composition of a Sample of MSW Ash
Table A2-4: Calculating the Heating Value of NYC MSW
CONSTITUENT
MATERIALS
PERCENT
IN NYC
WASTE
STREAM[3]
HEATING
VALUE
(MILLION
BTU/TON)[4]
NYC
CONSTITUENT
HEATING VALUE
(BTU/%)
plastics: 13.94
PET 1.21 20.5 0.24805
HDPE 0.99 38.0 0.37620
PVC 0.03 16.5 0.00495
LDP/LDPE 0.01 24.1 0.00241
PP 0.19 38.0 0.07220
PS 0.78 35.6 0.27768
other 10.73 20.5 2.19965
56
glass 4.49
metals 4.92
rubber 0.28 26.9 0.07532
leather 0.70 14.4 0.10080
textiles 5.09 13.8 0.70242
wood 3.77 10.0 0.37700
food 17.70 5.2 0.92040
yard trimmings 4.06 6.0 0.24360
newspaper 7.54 16.0 1.20640
mixed
paper/cardboard 22.50 6.7 1.50750
Table A2-5: Determining Molecular Formula for NYC MSW
CONSTITUENT COMPOSITION
OF NY WASTE
(%)
ATOMIC
WEIGHT
(G/MOL)
MOLE MOLE
RATIO
Carbon 37.38098 12.01 3.11249 6
Hydrogen 4.85283 1.01 4.80478 9.26226
Oxygen 28.23971 16.00 1.76498 3.40238
Nitrogen 0.97725 14.01 0.06975 0.13446
Sulfur 0.15552 32.07 0.00485 0.00935
57
Table A2-6: Chemical Composition of NYC’s Waste
New York City’s Waste:
% by Wt normalized to NY Waste Stream106
Constituent
Materials
Percent in NYC
waste stream107 C H O N S Ash
Dry Weight
(kg/100 kg)
PET 1.21 0.726 0.0871 0.2759 0 0 0.121 1.1858
HDPE 0.99 0.594 0.0713 0.2257 0 0 0.099 0.9702
PVC 0.03 0.018 0.0022 0.0068 0 0 0.003 0.0294
LDP/LDPE 0.01 0.006 0.0007 0.0023 0 0 0.001 0.0098
PP 0.19 0.114 0.0137 0.0433 0 0 0.019 0.1862
PS 0.78 0.468 0.0562 0.1778 0 0 0.078 0.7644
other plastic 10.73 6.438 0.7726 2.4464 0 0 1.073 10.5154
metal 4.92 0.221 0.0295 0.2116 0.0049 0 4.866 4.7724
glass 4.49 0.022 0.0045 0.0180 0.0045 0 4.063 4.4002
rubber 0.28 0.218 0.0280 0 0.0056 0 0.028 0.2744
leather 0.70 0.385 0.0462 0.2184 0.0322 0.0011 0.018 0.6300
textiles 5.09 2.799 0.3359 1.5881 0.2341 0.0076 0.127 4.5810
wood 3.77 1.866 0.2262 1.6098 0.0075 0.0038 0.057 3.0160
food 17.70 8.496 1.1328 6.6552 0.4602 0.0708 0.885 5.3100
yard trimmings 4.06 1.941 0.2436 1.5428 0.1380 0.0122 0.183 1.6240
newspaper 7.54 3.280 0.4524 3.3176 0.0226 0.0151 0.452 7.0876
mixed
paper/cardboard 22.50 9.788 1.3500 9.9000 0.0675 0.0450 1.350 21.2625
ash/residue 9.12 0 0 0 0 0 9.199 9.1990
Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur Ash Moisture108
Composition of NY Waste (%) 37.381 4.8528 28.2397 0.9773 0.1555 22.622 33.3807
58
A3 Boiler
A3.1 Detailed Description of the Boiler See Figure 7 for a schematic of a hopper and grate designed for use with solid waste fuels from Detroit Stoker. 1) Hopper, 2) Throat, 3) Ram, 4) Grates (reciprocating), 5) Roller Bearings – these help minimize friction and wear. 6) Hydraulic Power Cylinders and Control Valves -- allow for the individual movement of the grate sections. 7) Vertical Drop Off – where primary air enters 8) Overfire Air Jets – where secondary or tertiary air enters 9) Combustion Air – primary combustion air is pulled in across the pit 10) Automatic Sifting Removal System.
Figure A3-1: Schematic for a Hopper and Grate Design
The boiler produces heat from the combustion of waste and transfers this energy to water, generating high pressure steam to drive the turbine. The most popular boiler in the field of waste to energy is the water wall boiler. Water tubes run along the walls of the boiler to simultaneously cool the walls and heat the process water that is headed for the turbine. In this system the tubes on the walls of the boiler contain only liquid water at a high pressure. Decreasing the pressure forces the water to vaporize and make steam. This steam is further heated in a super heater by exiting exhaust gases.
A3.2 Boiler Capacity
The total boiler capacity was determined based on the overall incoming waste stream of 2600tons/day by dividing by a plant availability of 328 days (of 365).
59
Boiler Capacity = 2600 TPD ∗(365 days / 328 days) /(3 boilers) = 964 TPD
A3.3 Grate Sizing
The grate can be sized based on the knowledge that for 1 MW of waste input 1 square meter of grate is needed:
964 TPD ∗ 8.3145 ##$%&%'( ∗ )*,,-- ./
*##$%&0 ∗ ) * 123456'&78 ∗ * 6'&7
9:,,8 0 = 97.9MW = 97.9 m4of grate
The waste should reside in the boiler for approximately one hour, in order to accomplish this the grate should be approximately 9 meters long. This means that the grate should be 10.9 meters wide for each boiler.
A3.4 Combustion Air
Using an average molecular formula for waste, which is C6H10O4, the combustion equation for waste can be determined. C6H9.3O3.4N0.1 + 6.63 O2 → 6 CO2 + 4.65 H2O + 0.05 N2 80% excess air gives the best operating conditions within the boiler.109 To find the mass flow rate of air needed for each boiler: 964 TPD*(1 mole / 136 g)*(6.63 mol O2 / mol C6H10O4)* (1 mol air / 0.21 mol O2)*(1.8 excess air)*(29 g/mol air) = 11,682 TPD O2 Mass of bottom ash = 20%*964 TPD waste = 193 TPD Mass of fly ash = 3%*964 TPD waste = 29 TPD Mass is conserved thus there are 12,646 TPD of products, 222 TPD of which are ash and therefore to determine the mass of the exhaust gas: 12,646 - 222 TPD = 12,424 TPD. From the combustion equation we can determine the composition of the exhaust gas using 80% excess air.
Table A3-1: Flue Gas Composition
Compound MW Moles
Reactants Moles
Products mol
fraction Mass out
(grams) Mass
Fraction
C6H9.3O3.4N0.1 135.83 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 135.83
O2 32.00 11.93 5.30 0.09 169.72 32.00
N2 28.01 44.89 44.89 0.74 1257.65 28.01
CO2 44.01 0.00 6.00 0.10 264.05 44.01
H2O 18.01 0.00 4.65 0.08 83.77 18.01
Total 60.85 1.00 1775.19
60
A4 Turbine Calculations
Power Out of BP turbine (Assume 700 kWh/ton, generator efficiency=0.9):
kWh
day
day
tons
ton
kWh93981
24
2900
9.0
1700=×××
BP Turbine Inlet Parameters (Assume isentropic efficiency=0.85, Tin=400°C, Tout=160°C, Pout=1.5 bar110):
From Steam Tables: 160°C, 1.5 bar→h2=2793 kJ/kg, s=7.466 kJ/kg/K
From Steam Tables: 400°C, 7.466 kJ/kg/K→h1s=3264 kJ/kg
kgkJhh
/35.319327933264
279385.0 1
1 =→−
−=
From Steam Tables: 400°C, 3193.35 kJ/kg→Pi= 55 bar
BP Turbine Mass-flowrate
( ) skgmm /23593981279335.3193 =→=− &&
BP Power to Grid (Assume generator efficiency=0.9, 600 kWh to grid/ 700 kWh produced due to losses and internal use of electricity)
MWkW
MW
kW
kWkW 5.72
1000700
6009.093981 =×××
Heat Exchanger for District Heating (Assume Tic=25°C, Toc=100°C, Toh=40°C, overall effectiveness=0.21)
From Steam Tables: Tic=25°C, Pic= 0.15 bar→ hic=105kJ/kg
From Steam Tables: Toc=100°C, Pic= 0.15 bar→ hoc= 419 kJ/kg
From Steam Tables: Toh=40°C, Poh= 0.15 bar→ hoc= 168 kJ/kg
skgmh /235=&
( )( )
skgmm
cc /413
1682793235
10541921.0 =→
−
−= &
&
Hot Water delivered by district heating:
h
MMBtu
h
s
kJ
MMBtu
kg
kJ
s
kg590
3600
10055.1
4194136
=××
××
Energy input from waste:
MWkg
MJ
s
day
ton
kg
day
tons4.295
7.9
86400
2.9072900=×××
Backpressure Turbine Electrical and overall Efficiencies:
245.04.295
5.72==electricalη
831.04.295
1000
4194135.72
=
×+
=overallη
Reheat-Condensing Power (Assume 32% electrical efficiency)
61
MWkg
MJ
s
day
ton
kg
day
tons5.9432.0
7.9
86400
2.9072900=××××
Break-Even Point for Mode of Operation (Assume $0.07/kWh electricity, $0.05/kWh hot water)
( )
hMMBtuMWH
kWh
kJkWhH
kWh
kJkWh
s
kJ
kWh
kJkWh
s
kJ
/1058.30
3600
$05.0
3600
$07.0
72500
3600
$07.0
94500
==
+
=
A5 Air Pollution Control
A similar 69.5 MW WTE plant, Wheelabrator Bridgeport , L.P. at 6 Howard Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06605 is used as a reference for the 72.4MW plant in Brooklyn. For the Wheelabrator plant, the waste stream is 750 tons/day or about 32 tons/hr/boiler. The urea injection rate is 5-50 gal/hr, the lime usage is 400-600 lbs/hr, and the activated carbon injection rate is 50 lbs/hr111. Based on its waste stream, a ratio of 0.16-1.56 gal urea/ton waste (0.00008-0.0008 gal urea/lb waste), 12.50-18.75 lb lime/ton waste (0.00625-0.0094 lb lime/lb waste), and 1.56 lb activated carbon/ton waste (0.0008 lb activated carbon/lb waste) is used. The waste stream for the Brooklyn plant is 2,900 tons/day or about 41 tons/hr/boiler. Therefore, using the same ratios of urea injection rate to waste, lime usage rate to waste, and activated carbon injection rate to waste, 464-4,524 gal urea/day, 36,250-54,375 lb lime/day, and 4,524 lb activated carbon/day will be needed.
62
A6 Overall Material Flow Diagram
Figure A6-1: Overall Process Flow Diagram
63
A7 Economic Data
Table A7-1: IRR Calculation
Year of
Operation
Capital
Disbursements
Production
Disbursements
Receipts Income Tax
Disbursements
60% Bank Loan
-1 $326,250,000.00 ($195,750,000.00)
0 $424,125,000.00 $1,000,000.00 ($255,475,000.00)
1 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
2 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
3 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
4 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
5 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
6 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
7 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
8 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
… … … … … …
28 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
29 $21,750,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $8,150,964.89 $51,661,790.43
30 ($10,875,000.00) $30,000,000.00 $102,862,755.32 $22,832,214.89 $69,605,540.43
Total $1,370,250,000 $901,000,000 $3,085,882,660 $259,210,197 $1,116,572,463
IRR 10.41%
A8 Facility Layout
Figure A8-1: Sketch of Facility
acility Layout
64
65
Works Cited 1 The State of Garbage in America. van Haaren, Rob, Themelis, Nickolas and Goldstein, Nora. New York :
Earth Engineering Center, 2010, Vol. 17. 2 ibid 3 Berenyi, Eileen. Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: Are They Compatible? Governmental Advisory Associates, inc: June
2009. http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/2009%20Berenyi%20recycling%20update.pdf 4 Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures.
Washington, DC : Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. 5 State of Garbage 6 Waste-to-energy: A review of the status and benefits in USA. Psomopoulos, C.S., Bourka, A. and Themelis, N.J. Athens, Greece : Waste Management, 2009, Vol. 29. 7 Environment in the EU27 Recycling accounted for a quarter of total municipal waste treated in 2009. Europa. [Online] March 8, 2011. [Cited: April 21, 2011.] http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/11/37&format=HTML. 8 Michaels, Ted. The 2010 ERC Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants. Washington, DC : Energy Recovery Council, 2010. 9 http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-04-05/news/bs-ed-waste-to-energy-20110405_1_renewable-energy-waste-renewable-resource/2 10 Powell, J. Stephen. Political DifficultiesFacing Waste-to-Energy Conversion Plant Siting. Cerrell Associates, inc. 1984: Los Angeles, CA. 11 Designing eco-industrial parks: a synthesis of some experiences. Cote, Raymond P. and Cohen-Rosenthal, E. s.l. : Journal of Cleaner Production, 1998, Vol. 6. 12 ibid 13 Uniform Procedures Act (UPA). 2011; Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6081.html. 14 UPA Time Frames. 2011; Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6226.html. 15 Air Pollution Control Permit Program: Other DEC Permits and Determinations. 2011; Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6240.html. 16 HDR Architecture and Engineering, P.C., Commercial Waste Management Study: Private Transfer
Station Evaluations. 2004: New York. 17 Executive Summary: Final Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.2006. New York Department of Sanitation 18 DSNY Waste Characterization Study 2005, New York Department of Sanitation. 19 Youngmin Cho, H.K., Jaehac Ko, and Timothy Townsend, Change of Moisture Content and MSW
Decomposition By Vertical Leachate Injection. 2006, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL. 20 Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non-Biogenic Energy, O.o.C. Energy Information Administration, Nuclear, Electric and Alternative Fuels, Editor. 2007, U.S. Department of Energy: Washington DC. 21 Barlaz, B.F.S.a.M.A., Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States and Implications for
Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2009. 135(10). 22 Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non-Biogenic Energy. Energy Information Administration. Office of Coal, Electric and Alternative Fuels, Editor. 2007, U.S. Department of Energy: Washington DC. 23 DSNY Waste Characterization Study 2005. 24 Palmisano, A.C., and Morton A. Barlaz, Chemical Contaminants in MSW, in Microbiology of Solid
Waste, CRC, Editor. 1996: Boca Raton. p. 5. 25 Pitchel, J., Waste Management Practices: Municipal, Hazardous, and Industrial. 2005, Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. 26 Lau, S., W. Cheung, C. Kwong, C. Wan, K. Choy, C. Leung, J. Porter, C. Hui, and G. Mckay, Removal of Batteries from Solid Waste Using Trommel Separation. Waste Management 2005. 25(10): p. 1004-1012. 27 Lau, S. 28 Lau, S.
29 Themelis, N.J., Chlorine Sinks, Sources, and Impacts in WTE Power Plants
Orlando, FL. 30 Chlorine Sinks, Sources, and Impacts in WTE Power Plants31 NYDEC NYS Waste Import/Export32 Life After Fresh Kills. 2001, Columbia University: New York.33 Themelis, N., and N. Krishnan Life cycle environmental impacts of two options for MSW management in
New York City: Modern Landfilling vs. WTE34 Sunk, W., Survey of Metal Recovery in the U.S. WTE Industry35 Underwood, A.B.a.J., New York City's Commercial Waste Hauling Fleets: An Opportunity for New York
City to Ensure Cleaner Quieter Waste Collection Operations36 HDR Architecture and Engineering, P.C., Station Evaluations. 2004: New York.37 Shah, K.L., Shah, Kanti L. 2000, 38 ibid 39 Field trip to Rahway, NJ WTE Facility. Conversation with facility manager, Alan Harleston. 11/2/10.40 Field trip to Rahway, NJ WTE Facility. Conversation with facility manager, Alan Harleston. 11/2/10.41 Themelis, Nickolas, J. Kim, Young, Brady, Mark. ISWA Jourrnal: Waste Management and Research, 2002:20, 22342 Walter R. Niessen. Combustion and Incineration Processes. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 2002. 43 Epelbaum, Greg , Zhang, Hanwei. CFD Model. NAWTEC 15 3206. ASME. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec15/nawtec1544 Huai, X.L. et.al.. Numerical simulation of municipal solid waste combustion in a novel tworeciprocating incinerator. Waste Management. Vol 28, Issue 1. 2008. (15doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2006.11.01045 Lee, Shang-Hsiu, Themelis, Nickolas, Castaldi, Marco. High Temperature Corrosion in WasteBoilers. Journal of Thermal Spray Technology. Vol. 16. ASM International. March 2007. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Lee_Them_Cast_HighTempCorrosion.pdf46 Venice 2010. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste. November 2010.47Wohlleben, A., Gartner, E., Gohlke, O. Reducing the Primary NOx Emissions and Improving the Efficiency of Energy from Waste Plants by Means ofSymposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste. Venice, Italy. November 2010.48 Anderson, Lynne. Reheat Steam Turbines for Sustainable Energy SolutionsTurbines. Engineer Live by OWB. http://www.engineerlive.com/PowerEngineer/Engines_Turbines/Reheat_steam_turbines_for_sustainable_energy_solutions/17623/49 Michaels, Ted. Burgeoning Prospects for Waste to Energy in the United States
Recovery Council. March 10 2010. www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/.../100301%20Michaels%20AICHE.ppt50 Jones, J. B., & R. E. Dugan. Engineering Thermodynamics. Turbine. http://www.massengineers.com/Documents/isentropic_efficiency.htm51 Ginet, C. and R. Joho. The Turbogeneratorhttp://www.labplan.ufsc.br/congressos/powertech07/papers/52 Siemens Turbine SST-600 Technical Data. http://www.energy.siemens.com/us/en/powergeneration/steam-turbines/sst-600.htm#content=Technical%20Data53 Henderson, Thomas M. Palm Beach County WTE Expansion Model
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2010. Proceedings of the 18May 11-13, 2010. Orlando, Florida, USA.54 Finnish Energy Industries Press Release. 2009. http://www.energia.fi/en/news/energy%20year%202008%20district%20heat.html55 Consolidated Edison. Long Range Transmission Plan 201056 International District Energy Association. District Heating Handbook. 3rd Edition, 1921. Print.57 Consolidated Edison. Steam Long Range Plan 201058 Catuogno, John, P.E. Department Manager, Con Edison, Steam Operations. Email corresponance. 2/20/2011. 59 Ulloa, Priscilla. Potential for Combined Heat and Power and District Heating and Cooling
Chlorine Sinks, Sources, and Impacts in WTE Power Plants, in NAWTEC 18
Chlorine Sinks, Sources, and Impacts in WTE Power Plants NYDEC NYS Waste Import/Export, S.W. Digest, Editor. 2007.
. 2001, Columbia University: New York. Life cycle environmental impacts of two options for MSW management in
New York City: Modern Landfilling vs. WTE, in NAWTEC 13 2005: Orlando, FL. Survey of Metal Recovery in the U.S. WTE Industry, in NAWTEC 15. 2007: Miami, FL.
New York City's Commercial Waste Hauling Fleets: An Opportunity for New York
City to Ensure Cleaner Quieter Waste Collection Operations, I. Inform, Editor. 2006: New York.HDR Architecture and Engineering, P.C., Commercial Waste Management Study: Private Transfer
. 2004: New York. . 2000, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
ip to Rahway, NJ WTE Facility. Conversation with facility manager, Alan Harleston. 11/2/10.Field trip to Rahway, NJ WTE Facility. Conversation with facility manager, Alan Harleston. 11/2/10.Themelis, Nickolas, J. Kim, Young, Brady, Mark. Energy Recovery from New York City Solid Wastes.
ISWA Jourrnal: Waste Management and Research, 2002:20, 223-233. New York. Walter R. Niessen. Combustion and Incineration Processes. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 2002. Epelbaum, Greg , Zhang, Hanwei. New development in EfW boiler process modeling: Fully Integrated
. NAWTEC 15 3206. ASME. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec15/nawtec15-3206.pdf
, X.L. et.al.. Numerical simulation of municipal solid waste combustion in a novel tworeciprocating incinerator. Waste Management. Vol 28, Issue 1. 2008. (15-29)
j.wasman.2006.11.010 Hsiu, Themelis, Nickolas, Castaldi, Marco. High Temperature Corrosion in Waste
Boilers. Journal of Thermal Spray Technology. Vol. 16. ASM International. March 2007. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Lee_Them_Cast_HighTempCorrosion.pdf
Venice 2010. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste. November 2010.Gohlke, O. Reducing the Primary NOx Emissions and Improving the
gy from Waste Plants by Means of Internal Flue Gas Recirculation. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste. Venice, Italy. November 2010.
Reheat Steam Turbines for Sustainable Energy Solutions. Power EngineerTurbines. Engineer Live by OWB. http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Engines_Turbines/Reheat_steam_turbines_for_sustainable_energy_solutions/17623/
Burgeoning Prospects for Waste to Energy in the United States President Energy Recovery Council. March 10 2010. www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/.../100301%20Michaels%20AICHE.ppt
Engineering Thermodynamics. Isentropic Efficiency of a Steam Condensing . http://www.massengineers.com/Documents/isentropic_efficiency.htm
The Turbogenerator- A Continuous Engineering Challenge. ID:664. ALSTOM. http://www.labplan.ufsc.br/congressos/powertech07/papers/664.pdf
600 Technical Data. http://www.energy.siemens.com/us/en/power-600.htm#content=Technical%20Data
Palm Beach County WTE Expansion Model. West Palm Beach, Florida. e, Inc. 2010. Proceedings of the 18th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference.
13, 2010. Orlando, Florida, USA. Finnish Energy Industries Press Release. Energy Year 2008 District Heat. Energiateollisuus. 22 January,
ia.fi/en/news/energy%20year%202008%20district%20heat.html Consolidated Edison. Long Range Transmission Plan 2010-2019. 4/5/11. International District Energy Association. District Heating Handbook. 3rd Edition, 1921. Print.
Long Range Plan 2010-2030. 3/5/11. Catuogno, John, P.E. Department Manager, Con Edison, Steam Operations. Email corresponance.
Ulloa, Priscilla. Potential for Combined Heat and Power and District Heating and Cooling
66
NAWTEC 18 2010:
Life cycle environmental impacts of two options for MSW management in
. 2007: Miami, FL. New York City's Commercial Waste Hauling Fleets: An Opportunity for New York
. Inform, Editor. 2006: New York. Commercial Waste Management Study: Private Transfer
ip to Rahway, NJ WTE Facility. Conversation with facility manager, Alan Harleston. 11/2/10. Field trip to Rahway, NJ WTE Facility. Conversation with facility manager, Alan Harleston. 11/2/10.
ery from New York City Solid Wastes.
oiler process modeling: Fully Integrated
, X.L. et.al.. Numerical simulation of municipal solid waste combustion in a novel two-stage
Hsiu, Themelis, Nickolas, Castaldi, Marco. High Temperature Corrosion in Waste-to-Energy
Venice 2010. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste. November 2010.
Gohlke, O. Reducing the Primary NOx Emissions and Improving the Internal Flue Gas Recirculation. Third International
. Power Engineer- Engines
Engineer/Engines_Turbines/Reheat_steam_turbines_for_sustainable_energy_solutions/17623/ President Energy
iency of a Steam Condensing
ID:664. ALSTOM.
-
. West Palm Beach, Florida. Energy Conference.
Energiateollisuus. 22 January,
International District Energy Association. District Heating Handbook. 3rd Edition, 1921. Print.
Catuogno, John, P.E. Department Manager, Con Edison, Steam Operations. Email corresponance.
Ulloa, Priscilla. Potential for Combined Heat and Power and District Heating and Cooling
67
from Waste-to-Energy Facilities in the U.S. – Learning from the Danish Experience. The Earth Engineering Center and the Henry Krumb School of Mines, May 2007 60 James E. McCarthy. Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements. 9 May, 2005. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47810.pdf. 61 NESHAPS - Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards. 5 Sep. 2008.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/td/combust/index.htm 62 C.S. Psomopoulos, A. Bourka, N.J. Themelis. Waste-to-energy: A review of the status and benefits in USA. http://www.nmwda.org/news/documents/Tab3-Psomopoulosetal2009WTEstatusandbenefits2.pdf. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. 63
Mehldau & Steinfath Umwelttechnik GmbH. SNCR Process Best Available Technology for NOx
Reduction in Waste to Energy Plants. http://www.ms-umwelt.de/english/downloads/SNCR-Best_Available_Technology_for_NOx_Reduction_in_Waste_To_Energy_Plants.pdf 64 Lenroc Company. http://www.lenroccompany.com/Urea%20Solution%20Information.pdf 65 Mehldau & Steinfath Umwelttechnik GmbH. SNCR Process Best Available Technology for NOx Reduction in Waste to Energy Plants. http://www.ms-umwelt.de/english/downloads/SNCR-Best_Available_Technology_for_NOx_Reduction_in_Waste_To_Energy_Plants.pdf 66 David L. Wojichowski. SNCR System – Design, Installation, and Operating Experience. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/scr-sncr/wojichowskisystemsummary.pdf 67 Lesson 7 Dry Scrubbing Systems. yosemite.epa.gov/oaqps/eogtrain.nsf/.../$FILE/si412c_lesson7.pdf 68 Neundorfer, Inc. Baghouse / Fabric Filters KnowledgeBase. http://www.neundorfer.com/knowledge_base/baghouse_fabric_filters.aspx 69 Lesson 5 Fabric Filter Design Review. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oaqps/eogtrain.nsf/ae20ef1becae534385256b4100770781/7005aec7427d543e85256b6d004f9376/$FILE/si412a_lesson5.pdf 70 TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure and Characteristic Wastes (D-codes), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 19 April 2011 www.epa.gov 71 Environmental Fact Sheet: EPA Determines that Ash from Waste-To-Energy Facilities Is Subject to
Hazardous Waste Regulations Upon Exiting the Combustion Building, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) January 1995 Solid Waste and Emergency Response http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/10000LB7.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1995+Thru+1999&Docs=&Query=530F95004%20or%20EPA%20or%20WTE%20or%20ash&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=pubnumber^%22530F95004%22&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=pubnumber&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C95thru99%5CTxt%5C00000000%5C10000LB7.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL 72 Landfill Annual Report Form, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Materials Management (NYSDEC) http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/lfannrt.pdf 73 Basics: Alternative Daily Cover (ADC), California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CDRRR) http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/basics/adcbasic.htm 74 Zwahr, Heiner., Ash Recycling: Just at Dream? MVR Mullverwertung Rugenberger Damm GmbH& Co. KG 75 Hasselriis, Floyd., Ash Residues From Waste Combustion: Management And Disposal, Hasselriis Associates, Nov 15 2010 76 Lyons, M. R. (1996) The WES-PHix Ash Stabilization Process, pp. 165ff, 17th Biennial ASME SWPD. 77 Zwahr, Heiner., Ash Recycling: Just at Dream? MVR Mullverwertung Rugenberger Damm GmbH&
Co. KG 78 Potential for Reducing the Capital Costs of WTE Facilities. Themelis, N.J. and Reshadi, Saman. Chantilly, Virginia : Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, 2009. NAWTEC17-2366.
68
79 Marnell, Paul. The Profitability of a Chemical Plant Investment. Essentials of Engineering Economy. New York, NY : Manhattan College, 1993. 80 Palm Beach County WTE Expansion Model. Henderson, Thomas M. and Richter, Leah K. Orlando, Florida : Malcolm Pirnie, Inc, 2010. NAWTEC18-3530. 81 Holstein, Bruce. Waste Not Carroll. [Online] June 21, 2010. [Cited: April 4, 2011.] www.wastenotcarroll.org/analysis%20final%20draft.doc. 82 Williams, Paul T. Waste Treatment and Disposal. West Sussex, England : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005. 0-470-84912-6. 83 Survey of Metal Recovery in the US WTE Industry. Sunk, Werner. Miami, Florida : Dept. of Earth and Environmental Engineering, 2007. NAWTEC15-3219. 84 Holstein 85 Incinerators. Global Allaince for Incinerator Alternatives. [Online] [Cited: April 17, 2011.] http://no-burn.org/section.php?id=84. 86 Energy from Waste: A Progress Report. Covanta Energy. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Covanta_CSR_2011.pdf 87 Michaels 88 A Health Risk Comparison of Landfill Disposal and Waste-to-Energy Treatment of Municipal Solid
Wastes in New York City (NYC). Moy, Pearl. New York, NY : Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, 2005. 89 Palm Beach 90 The Impact of WTE Facility on Housing Value. Park, Soonae and Lah, T.J. 2, Seoul, South Korea : International Review of Public Administration, 2006, Vol. 10. 91Pictures of the Future Fall 2007. Siemens.
http://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/publikationen/publications_pof/pof_fall_2007/seamless_communication/power_plant_management.htm 92 http://www.big.dk/projects/amf/ 93 McNichol, Dunstan. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Council Told to Consider Bankruptcy. Bloomberg. [Online] April 27, 2010. [Cited: April 19, 2011.] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-27/pennsylvania-s-capital-told-to-consider-chapter-9-bankruptcy-protection.html. 94 WTE will Create Renewable Energy, Jobs, Savings. Frederick News Post [Online] April 28, 2010. http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=120399 95Should the US Burn or Bury its Trash? New York Times [Online] April 13, 2010.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/should-the-u-s-burn-or-bury-its-trash/ 96 Berry, Jennifer. Waste to Energy from the Inside. Earth 911. October 25, 2010 http://earth911.com/news/2010/10/25/waste-to-energy-from-the-inside/ 97Waste Management Sustainability Report 2010. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/WM_2010_Sustainability_Report.pdf 98 Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) Permit Profiles. 2011; Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6228.html. 99 ibid 100 ibid 101 ibid 102 DSNY Waste Characterization Study 2005. 103 DSNY Waste Characterization Study 2005. 104 DSNY Waste Characterization Study 2005. 105 Kaiser, E.R. Proceedings of the National Incinerator Conference. 1969. New York: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 106 Nickolas J. Themelis, Y.H.K., Mark H. Brady, Energy recovery from New York City solid wastes. ISWA Journal: Waste Management and Research, 2002. 20: p. 223-233. 107 DSNY Waste Characterization Study 2005. 108 Barlaz, B.F.S.a.M.A. 109 Chattopadhyay, P. Boiler Operations Questions and Answers. McGraw Hill. Inc. 1995. 110 Remondis AG & Co. KG. Energy form Waste. Environmental Service: Archive. 2008-2011. http://www.remondis.com/en/aktuell/archive/2010/remondis-aktuell-01_2010/remondis-environmental-services/energy-from-waste/
69
111 Wheelabrator Lisbon Inc. Title V Operating Permit. 14 May 2007. http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/air/permits/titlev_permits/wheelabratorlisbon.pdf
