NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Waste-to-Energy Evaluation: 

U.S. Virgin Islands

Jerry Davis, Scott Haase, and Adam Warren 

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A20-52308

August 2011
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Waste-to-Energy Evaluation: 

U.S. Virgin Islands

Jerry Davis, Scott Haase, and Adam Warren 

Prepared under Task No(s). IDVI.0000 and IDVI.0032

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A20-52308

August 2011
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

List of Acronyms

AEG Alpine Energy Group

CAA Clean Air Act

EDIN Energy Development in Island Nations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GBB Girshman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.

IRS Internal Revenue Service

LFGTE landfill gas to energy

MRF material recovery facilities

MSW municipal solid waste

MSW DST Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool

MW megawatt

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

RDF refuse-derived fuel

TEQ toxic equivalent quantity

TPD ton per day

USVI U.S. Virgin Islands

WTE waste-to-energy
iv

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

Waste-to-Energy Overview .............................................................................................................3

Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................................5

Modeling USVI Solid Waste Options..............................................................................................8

Results ....................................................................................................................................10

Economic and Performance Factors .......................................................................................12

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................13

References ......................................................................................................................................15

Appendix A: Logistics and Facility Assumptions .........................................................................16

List of Figures

Figure 1. Comparison of two possible courses for the USVI: the status quo vs. 

a 60% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2025. ...............................................................................1

Figure 2. Mix of renewable energy technologies required to meet USVI goal ...............................1

Figure 3. WTE conversion pathways ...............................................................................................3

Figure 4. U.S. WTE emissions profiles. ..........................................................................................6

Figure 5. Comparison of CO2 equivalents from LFGTE, WTE, and conventional 

electricity-generating technologies ............................................................................................6

Figure 6. EPA Solid Waste Management Hierarchy .......................................................................7

Figure 7. Waste scenarios modeled using the Municipal Solid Waste 

Decision Support Tool ...............................................................................................................9

Figure 8. Net cost comparison .......................................................................................................10

Figure 9. Net energy consumption .................................................................................................11

Figure 10. Net carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions. ....................................................11

Figure 11. Eleven-mile estimate based on distance between centers of St. John and

St. Thomas ...............................................................................................................................16

Figure 12. Forty-three-mile estimate based on distance between centers of 

St. Thomas and St. Croix .........................................................................................................16

Figure 13. Forty-five-mile estimate based on distance between western St. Thomas and 

eastern harbors on Puerto Rico ................................................................................................17

Figure 14. Seventy-five-mile estimate based on distance between northern St. Croix and

southeastern harbors on Puerto Rico........................................................................................17

List of Tables

Table 1. RDF Facilities in the United States....................................................................................4

Table 2: WTE Emissions Comparison, 1990–2005 .........................................................................5

Table 3: USVI Waste Stream Profile .............................................................................................12

Table 4: MSW and Cost Data ........................................................................................................13
1

Introduction

Like many island communities, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) is almost 100% dependent on fossil fuels

for electricity and transportation. As part of the international partnership for Energy Development in 

Island Nations (EDIN), the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) has been working with stakeholders in the USVI since December 2009 to develop plans to 

reduce the territory’s reliance on fossil fuels 60% from business as usual by 2025. Figure 1 below 

illustrates the mix of energy efficiency and renewable energy that will be required to achieve this goal. 

Note that waste-to-energy (WTE) is a significant component of the strategy.

Figure 1. Comparison of two possible courses for the USVI: the status quo vs. a 60% reduction

in fossil fuel use by 2025. Illustration by NREL

Figure 2. Mix of renewable energy technologies required to meet USVI goal. Illustration by NREL
2 

Alpine Energy Group (AEG) has been developing a WTE project on the islands since 2009. The project 

concept encompasses the following: 

1. Collection of municipal solid waste (MSW) on St. Thomas and St. Croix 

2. Processing of MSW into refuse-derived fuel (RDF) 

3. Consolidation of RDF at a WTE facility on St. Croix 

4. Combustion of RDF for waste disposal and energy recovery 

The project concept has been subjected to intense scrutiny by USVI residents. Their primary concerns 

are the environmental impacts and the potential financial burden USVI citizens will incur if the 

obligated volume of solid waste is not available for the project.

This report evaluates the environmental impact and fundamental economics of WTE technology based 

on available data from commercially operating WTE facilities in the United States. In particular, it 

considers life-cycle impacts of WTE as compared to landfill disposal and various forms of electrical 

generation, as well as WTE impacts on source reduction or recycling programs. In addition, the report 

evaluates the economics and potential environmental impact of WTE in the USVI based on existing 

USVI waste stream characterization data, recycling challenges unique to the USVI, and the results of 

cost and environmental modeling of four MSW management options. The intent of the report is to 

present information for the consideration of energy and solid waste stakeholders in the USVI. 
3

Waste-to-Energy Overview

Waste-to-Energy technologies consist of various methods for extracting energy from waste materials.

These methods include thermochemical and biological methods. Figure 3 illustrates the various 

pathways, most of which are early in their developmental stages. The only WTE technology that is 

commercially available in the United States using MSW feedstock is combustion. All other processes 

hold high potential for utilizing MSW feedstock but must overcome various technical or procedural 

challenges before they are commercially viable. The primary challenge facing these technologies is the 

heterogeneous nature of MSW, which creates a widely varying chemical constituency of the energy 

products generated from these processes. This variance affects the ability to extract energy efficiently.

Solutions are being actively pursued from two angles:

1. Cleanup and conditioning of synthetic gas (syngas) products of thermochemical conversion 

and biogas products of biological conversion—These efforts are directed at making the gases 

more usable as a direct fuel in internal combustion engines or gas turbines.

2. Feedstock preparation, shredding and/or mixing MSW to make the feedstock more 

homogeneous—This homogeneity will be reflected in the energy product(s) and help improve 

utility.

Figure 3. WTE conversion pathways. Illustration by NREL
4

AEG’s proposed project utilizes combustion technology with a high level of feedstock processing to 

improve the fuel quality and performance of the facility. There are currently 87 active WTE plants in the 

United States (Psomopoulos 2009); of these, 13 facilities are using an approach similar to AEG’s. 

Table 1. RDF Facilities in the United States

Company Name Location

Trash 

Capacity, 

tons per 

day (tpd)

Generation 

(MW)

Project 

Startup

Xcel Energy French Island Generating Plant LaCrosse, WI 400 32 1987

Ames Municipal Electric Utility Ames, IA 175 10 1975

Mid-Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility Hartford, CT 2,000 68 1987

Miami-Dade County Resource Recovery 

Facility Miami, FL 3,000 77 1979

North County Resource Recovery Facility

West Palm Beach, 

FL 1,800 62 1989

Southeastern Public Service Authority of 

Virginia Portsmouth, VA 2,000 50 1988

Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture Honolulu, HI 1,851 57 1990

Great River Energy - Elk River Station Elk River, MN 1,000 35 1989

SEMASS Resource Recovery Facility

West Wareham, 

MA 2,700 78 1989

Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Facility Detroit, MI 2,832 68 1991

Xcel Energy - Red Wing Steam Plant Red Wing, MN 720 21 1988

Xcel Energy - Wilmarth Plant Mankato, MN 720 22 1987

Maine Energy Recovery Company Biddeford, ME 600 22 1987

Other aspects of WTE technology that will be of interest to USVI stakeholders include the following:

• WTE is considered renewable energy by various federal and state laws, Executive Orders, 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

• WTE offers firm, dispatchable power.
5

• In general, nonenergy recycling programs require economies of scale that do not exist in 

island communities. The markets for these recyclables are typically off island, creating 

additional financial and environmental impacts resulting from the transport of these 

materials.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently released new guidance for 

WTE combustion facilities, lowering emissions levels and requiring WTE facility operators 

to maintain rigorous pollution control equipment and procedures. The proposed AEG facility 

must be fully compliant with the EPA regulations and local policies.

Environmental Impacts

Air-quality issues from the early days of combustion facilities created a negative stigma for WTE 

technology. According to the Energy Recovery Council, since the Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments of 

1990, however, more than $1 billion has been invested to upgrade pollution control equipment and 

lower emissions to a fraction of their previous levels (Energy Recovery Council, www.wte.org). Table 2

shows WTE emissions reductions achieved in the 15 years following the CAA amendments.

Table 2. WTE Emissions Comparison, 1990–2005

Pollutant 1990 Emissions 2005 Emissions Percent Reduction

CDD/CDF, TEQ basis* 4,400 g/yr 15.0 g/yr 99+%

Mercury 57 tons/yr 2.3 tons/yr 96%

Cadmium 9.6 tons/yr 0.4 tons/yr 96%

Lead 170 tons/yr 5.5 tons/yr 97%

Particulate matter 18,600 tons/yr 780 tons/yr 96%

HCI 57,400 tons/yr 3,200 tons/yr 94%

SO2 38,300 tons/yr 4,600 tons/yr 88%

NOx 64,900 tons/yr 49,500 tons/yr 24%

*dioxin/furan emissions in units of toxic equivalent quantity (TEQ), using 1989 NATO toxicity 

factors

Source: Energy Recovery Council, www.wte.org
6

As noted, all commercially operating WTE facilities in the United States use combustion technologies. 

Their emissions have improved significantly in recent years. Current emissions from these facilities are 

presented in Figure 4 (Psomopoulos et al. 2009; Themelis 2007), which includes the average of 87 U.S. 

WTE facilities as well as an 

average of the top contenders for a 

recent industry award for low 

emissions.

Substantial research has been done 

to understand the cumulative 

environmental impacts of WTE 

technology. Areas studied include 

life-cycle impacts of WTE as 

compared to landfill disposal and 

other forms of electrical generation 

and WTE impacts on source 

reduction or recycling programs. 

Figure 4. U.S. WTE emissions 

profiles. Illustration by NREL

For example, Kaplan, Decarolis, and 

Thorneloe (2009) conducted a 

comparative analysis of air emissions 

from WTE and landfill gas-to-energy 

(LFGTE) operations. Their findings, 

summarized in Figure 5, indicate that 

WTE plants’ carbon footprint, as 

measured in metric tons per megawatthour (MWh), is three to four times 

lower than comparable LFGTE systems.

Figure 5. Comparison of CO2 equivalents 

from LFGTE, WTE, and conventional 

electricity-generating technologies. 

Illustration by NREL
7

Harrison, Dumas, Barlaz, and Nishtala (2000) conducted a life-cycle analysis of MSW combustion.

They modeled the emissions from waste combustion, the emissions offset from avoided fossil-fuels 

electrical generation, and the associated emissions from manufacture and logistics of pollution control 

materials (lime and ammonia). In modeling a 500-ton-per-day (tpd) WTE combustion facility, they 

found WTE operations would lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel sources by 42,000 

metric tons annually. This is primarily the carbon savings from avoided electrical generation from fossil

fuel sources and is dependent on the predominant fuel that would have been combusted to generate the 

equivalent amount of electricity (e.g., diesel, coal, or natural gas). Note that this does not include CO2

emissions resulting from biogenic materials in the waste stream. These materials are considered carbon 

neutral, since they originated from plant life that previously consumed CO2.

From a behavioral perspective, communities often express concern that WTE will diminish motivation 

to reduce waste and recycle because residents feel a sense of satisfaction knowing the waste they 

generate is converted to energy. This effect should be mitigated through outreach and education to 

ensure that source reduction and recycling remain high priorities in the community. Figure 6 illustrates 

the EPA solid waste management hierarchy.

Figure 6. EPA Solid Waste Management Hierarchy. Illustration from EPA 

Economic factors associated with recycling programs should also be considered. Island communities 

often export their recyclables to other locations, creating financial and environmental impacts. The

resources required to sort and extract recyclables from the waste stream are significant and can be 

expensive. Curbside programs offer a partial solution, removing recyclables at the source of the waste 

stream; yet these programs have environmental impacts resulting from collection efforts, and remaining 

recyclables in the waste stream must be extracted. The additional impacts of recyclable sorting, 

collection, and shipping to market must be weighed against the associated benefits. 
8

Modeling USVI Solid Waste Options

To evaluate solid waste management options for the USVI in the context of the EPA’s recommended 

solid waste management hierarchy and local desire to maximize recycling, NREL partnered with 

Research Triangle Institute to model the scenario using the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support 

Tool (MSW DST). The MSW DST was developed through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development and RTI’s Center for Environmental Analysis to assist 

communities and other waste planners in conducting cost and environmental modeling of MSW 

management systems. Users can evaluate the numerous MSW management scenarios that are feasible 

within a community or region and identify the alternatives that are economically and environmentally 

efficient, making tradeoffs if necessary. (RTI 2011)

The MSW DST allows users to analyze existing waste management systems and proposed future 

systems based on user-specified information (e.g., waste generation levels, waste composition, diversion 

rates, and infrastructure). The current components of the MSW DST are (RTI 2011):

• Waste collection

• Transfer stations 

• Material recovery facilities (MRFs) 

• Mixed municipal solid wastes

• Yard waste composting 

• Combustion 

• Refuse-derived fuel production 

• Conventional landfill

• Bioreactor landfills.

Working with RTI, NREL investigated four scenarios, outlined in Figure 7, that are of interest to 

stakeholders and decision makers in the USVI.
9

Figure 7. Waste scenarios modeled using the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool. 

Illustration by NREL
10

In all of the MSW DST modeling, the following assumptions were made:

• Characterization of the waste stream is derived from the 2009 Waste Stream Characterization 

Study completed by Girshman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) for the USVI Waste 

Management Authority. Several categories of the GBB study were modified to fit categories 

required for the MSW DST (e.g., the GBB category of Wood Waste as a proxy for the MSW 

DST category of Pallets). Several similar adjustments were made for various grades of wood, 

paper, and plastic categorization, but these were not considered significant, as the general 

categories remained consistent.

• Net electrical production of the WTE facility will offset utility-provided power from 100% 

oil-fired generation facilities.

• General RDF processing characteristics were considered representative of the WastAway 

processes in considering facility costs and energy consumption. 

• Retail rates for electricity on the USVI are $.42/kilowatt-hour (kWh).

• MSW is collected one time per week in the USVI.

• All recycling is completed at MRFs on St. Thomas and St. Croix. A curbside recycling 

program was not evaluated.

• Recovery efforts are 75% effective in removing recyclable and compostable material from 

the USVI waste stream.

• Assumptions relating to transportation and facility characteristics are outlined in 

Appendix A.

Results

Of the scenarios considered, the RDF and gasification plus RDF scenarios had marginally higher costs, 

larger energy production/savings, and lower carbon footprints. Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10 provide 

an overview of the results, and more details can be found in the corresponding RTI paper (RTI 2011).

Figure 8. Life-cycle net cost comparison. Illustration by NREL
11

Costs were estimated using available standard industry guidelines for capital and operating and 

maintenance costs for facilities capable of handling the estimated 147,000 tons per year of MSW in the 

USVI. Revenues from the sale of recyclable material or electricity are based on available market 

information for the USVI. Note that potential costs for continued noncompliance of the Bovoni and 

Anguilla landfills were not included in the landfill scenario, as these were outside the scope of this work.

Figure 9. Life-cycle net energy consumption. Illustration by NREL

Life-cycle net energy consumption considers energy required to build facilities (including 

manufacturing of components), operate facilities (including energy to produce consumable materials), 

and transport materials (including MSW and recyclables). It also considers energy offset by eliminating 

manufacturing of new materials (afforded through recycling) and energy offset by avoiding generation 

of power by utilities using fossil fuels.

Figure 10. Life-cycle net carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions. Illustration by NREL
12 

Life-cycle net carbon emissions are associated with the energy consumption patterns described above as 

well as the greenhouse gas emissions from landfills (primarily methane). Compared to the landfill 

scenario, the other solid waste management options reduce emissions significantly.

The negative emissions profiles of Figure 10 indicate a life-cycle net carbon savings due to avoiding 

utility-provided power from fossil fuels. Recycling affords significant carbon offsets as well due to the 

elimination of emissions that would have resulted from manufacturing new materials. The recycling 

scenario had a positive emissions profile overall, however, due to the approximately 58% of the waste 

stream that is landfilled in the USVI (42% diversion from recycling and composting) and to the

emissions from transport of recycling materials to markets in Puerto Rico. 

The gasification plus RDF scenario was slightly more beneficial than the RDF scenario due to the 

avoidance of material transport from St. Thomas to St. Croix, as well as the presumed efficiency 

improvement of gasification over the RDF-WTE process. The higher efficiency of gasification has not 

been proven using MSW feedstock, however, and the approximately 8% improvement in carbon 

emissions indicated by the MSW DST requires further evaluation to verify.

Economic and Performance Factors

Some USVI stakeholders have expressed concerns that the proposed WTE facility in USVI will not be 

able to generate the 16.5 megawatts (MW) of power from the available waste stream. The volume of the 

waste stream that should be made available for WTE has been questioned. Some residents feel all 

compostable and recyclable materials should be removed. For reasons previously discussed, complete 

removal of these items is impractical and might actually result in a negative environmental impact if 

pursued. 

Taking the existing recycling opportunities and challenges into account, a likely scenario for the waste 

available for a WTE operation is outlined in Table 3. 

Table 3. USVI Waste Stream Profile

Total municipal solid waste 147,000 tons

Metal and glass recyclable material (14,000 tons)

Available for WTE 133,000 tons

If accurate, the waste available for WTE results in approximately 430 tons per operating day (assuming 

the facility operates 85% of the time, with a 15% allowance for facility maintenance). Using conversion 

factors from the RDF facilities in Table 1, the WTE should generate at least .03 MW per ton per day, or 

13 MW. AEG claims a higher conversion efficiency, which may be afforded with modern technology 

(the RDF facilities of Table 1 are 20 to 35 years old). Another possibility for AEG is procurement of 

additional feedstock to supplement the USVI waste stream. 

Another concern of USVI stakeholders is AEG’s proposed disposal rate (tipping fee) of $91 per ton of 

MSW. This is high but not unreasonable for a relatively small-scale WTE operation. According to 

BioCycle, the average tipping fee for a WTE facility in the United States is $67.93 per ton, with costs 

ranging as high as $98 per ton. 
13

Table 4. MSW and Cost Data 

State

Number of WTE 

Plants

Avg WTE Tip Fee 

($/ton)

Alabama 1 $25.00

Connecticut 7 $64.00

Florida 12 $52.95

Iowa 1 $64.00

Massachusetts 7 $69.00

Minnesota 9 $55.00

New Hampshire 2 $69.00

New Jersey 5 $85.00

New York 10 $72.34

Washington 3 $98.00

Wisconsin 2 $51.00

Source: BioCycle, The State Of Garbage In America, December 2008

Conclusions

A general finding of this evaluation is that WTE operations, if implemented appropriately, serve a 

beneficial role in an integrated solid waste management program for a community. The appropriateness 

of WTE for a community must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and should only be considered after 

waste reduction and responsible recycling programs are implemented.

Specific to the USVI, the proposed WTE facility appears to:

• Have economics similar to WTE facilities in the continental United States in terms of waste 

disposal fees and overall life-cycle costs to the community (higher costs in the USVI are 

expected due to lack of economies of scale)

• Offer a lower life-cycle impact on the environment (in terms of energy consumption and net 

greenhouse gas emissions)

• Have the potential to meet all EPA emissions standards (based on similar WTE plants in the 

United States).
14

This report used the best available information and considered recycling challenges unique to the USVI, 

particularly the energy required to transport recyclable material to reprocessing facilities. Based on this 

information, NREL’s recommendation for the USVI is to establish a recycling program for glass and 

metals, while using the remainder of MSW feedstock as fuel for a WTE facility using modern 

conversion technology and emissions control equipment.
15

References

Arsova, Ljupka; van Haaren Rob; Goldstein, Nora; Kaufman, Scott M.; and Themelis, Nickolas J. “The 

State Of Garbage In America.” BioCycle; Vol. 49, No. 12, December 2008; p. 22.

Girshman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 2009 USVI Waste Stream Characterization Study. Work performed 

for the VI Waste Management Authority, December 2009.

Kaplan, P.Ozge; Decarolis, Joseph; Thorneloe, Susan. “Is It Better To Burn or Bury Waste for Clean 

Electricity Generation?” Environmental Science Technology; Vol. 43, No. 6, 2009, 1711–1717.

Lauber J.D.; Morris M.E.; Ulloa P.; Hasselriis F. “Local Waste-to-Energy vs. Long Distance Disposal of 

Municipal Waste.” AWMA Conference, June 21, 2006, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Psomopoulos, C.S.; Bourka, A.; Themelis, N.J. “Waste-to-Energy: A Review of the Status and Benefits 

in the USA, Waste Management; Vol. 29, January 2009; pp. 1718–1724.

RTI International, U.S. Virgin Islands Waste to Energy Project. August 2011.

Themelis, N.J. “Thermal Treatment Review.” Waste Management World; July–August 2007; pp. 37–45.

USVI Energy Road Map: Charting the Course to a Clean Energy Future. National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, BR-6A42-51541, July 2011.
16

Appendix A: Logistics and Facility Assumptions

A. MRF, transfer station, landfill, RDF, and WTE facilities are co-located near the Bovoni 

Landfill on St. Thomas and the Anguilla Landfill on St. Croix

B. Average distance from St. Thomas and St. Croix collection points to the MRF/transfer 

station/landfill: 5 miles (by truck)

C. Average distance from St. John collection points to St. Thomas MRF/transfer station: 11 

miles (by truck and ship)

Figure 11. Eleven-mile estimate based on distance between centers of 

St. John and St. Thomas. Illustration from Google Earth

D. Distance from St. Thomas MRF/transfer station to St. Croix: 43 miles (by ship)

Figure 12. Forty-three-mile estimate based on distance between centers of

St. Thomas and St. Croix. Illustration from Google Earth
17

E. Distance from St. Thomas MRF/transfer station to Puerto Rico: 45 miles (by ship)

 Figure 13. Forty-five-mile estimate based on distance between western St. Thomas

and eastern harbors on Puerto Rico. Illustration from Google Earth.

F. Distance from St. Croix. MRF/transfer station to Puerto Rico: 75 miles (by ship)

Figure 14. Seventy-five-mile estimate based on distance between northern St. Croix and 

southeastern harbors on Puerto Rico. Illustration from Google Earth.
18

G. Local truck transportation from MRF/transfer station to shipping harbors, and from 

receiving harbors to recycling centers or WTE facilities, were not considered in the MSW 

DST model.

H. MRF/transfer stations are semiautomated facilities accepting mixed MSW.

I. The WTE plant is RDF-fueled and has a heat rate of 18,000 Btu/kWh.

J. Composting operations use windrows of mixed organics, turned over biweekly.

K. Emissions time period is 100 years.