Talk:Wheelabrator Incinerator

Pollution permit
"operating with an expired air pollution permit" - Would be illegal and I do not think this is accurate. What probably occurred is that the permit renewal application was submitted and MDE failed to issue a new permit before the previous one expired. This is not uncommon and according to regulations, the previous permit remains in effect and is not considered expired until MDE takes action. Thus, this statement is misleading.

"which prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to order the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to reinforce the plant's pollution-monitoring necessities.[2]" - Even when including the reference, the issue is not fleshed o9ut very well. The issue was the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) limits. There is an abundance of data and studies that demonstrate that when using carbon as a control media for mercury at an incinerator that insuring proper feed rate of carbon equates to adequate mercury control. Which is why the Clean Air Act JJJ updates only require annual stack testing for mercury emissions. Changes were made because the original PSD permit limits that were issued many years ago did not explicitly designate an average period. Since, compliance with these limits were to be demonstrated via manual stack methods, they were listed as simple lb/hr values with no average period. As a result of the suits filed, some averaging periods were changed but this has had no impact on actual emissions.

"per hour of energy than each of the state's four largest coal-fired power plants.[3]" - This appears to be incorrect. Wheeleabrator burns 2,000 tpd. According to the EPA (http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/mswaste/msw.pdf) you can expect ~ 11 mill btu/ton of waste. When you convert 2000 tpd at ~11 mill btu/hr the result is significantly higher then the 60 mw capacity listed. Where did all the energy go? I suspect (I do not have the data available to confirm this) that it is supplied directly as steam power for heating etc.. I do know that Wheelabrator provides steam but not the extent. When looking at emissions compared to power output, all power output (electricity and steam power) should be looked at for a proper comparison.Tracyfearson (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think this is an error, feel free to edit the page. Make sure you add a source to it. I was going by the source I had posted. Tinton5 (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer to only change things that I am 100% sure of with backup data. Thus why I posted in the discussion.  As the reports referenced did not provide specific data, only claims and graphs without the input data, it is hard to validate.  Some I know is inaccurate but cannot share backup data as my sourcew is one I cannot share.Tracyfearson (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Description of facility
Article is currently written as if the plant was only a solid waste incinerator, with emphasis on it being a source of air pollution, and not a waste-to-energy facility. The name of the article "Wheelabrator Incinerator" contributes to this (also misleading as there are many "Wheelabrator incinerator plants" around the world). Deanlaw (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggested renaming
I note here that the plant described in this article is only one of a number of Wheelabrator incinerators. I suggest that this article be renamed to a more descriptive name -- Possibly Wheelabrator Incinerator (Baltimore) -- to prevent conflicts with future article about other Wheelabrator plants.

Pages which link to the current name ought to be edited to link to the new name, with the WP:Pipe trick used where appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)