HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 472 - Contract - BMI-Columbus Lab - Feasibility Study, Solid Waste As Energy Resource - 04_10_19801r- DGV:bs RESOLUTION #472 - 4/10/80
p RESOLUTION
ti
Q�
Q BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and
directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a contract with
Battelle Memorial Institute -Columbus Laboratories for technical services in
connection with a feasibility study upon the utilization of solid waste as
an energy resource, a copy of which is attached herewith which shall be spread
upon the minutes of the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council
shall constitute and be a part of this Resolution as if fully copied herein in
detail.
Passed by the City Council this IOth day of April ,1980.
X:�Z*
BI'00
LL McALISTER, Mayor
ATTEST.__
Evelyn Gaff a,: City Sec t - yeasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Donald G. Vandiver, Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
DENZEL PERCIFULL, Director of Public Services
z;
RESOLUTION #472 - 4/10/80
F (Q) ,
1
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK §
CONTRACT
This Contract made this loth day of April 1980, by and
between the City of Lubbock, hereinafter referred to as City, and Battelle
Memorial Institute -Columbus Laboratories, hereinafter referred to as Battelle.
WITNESS:
WHEREAS, City is desirous of determining the feasibility of the utilization
of solid waste in energy production within the City, and
WHEREAS, City deems it to be in its best interest to engage Battelle to
render technical services in connection with a Feasibility Study to
review the utilization of solid waste as an energy resource within the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:
I. Scope of Services
Battelle shall perform the following services under the terms and con-
ditions hereinafter stated and Battelle hereby accepts and agrees to exert
its best efforts to perform such services:
(a) Task 1. Analyze Lubbock's Solid Waste
Generation: Now and in the Future.
(b) Task 2. Analyze Present and Future Prospects for Landfilling.
(c) Task 3. Analyze the Capability of a Waste -to -Energy System
Producing Steam at 850 Psig and 900 F.
(d) Task 4. Analyze Turbine -Generator Performance Under Non -Design
Conditions.
(e) Task 5. Evaluate Alternative Chute -to -Stack Measures Concentrating
on Design Features and Operating Procedures that will
Reduce Metal Wastage.
(f) Task 6. Develop a Conceptual Plan, Analyze the Site and a Set of
Block Diagrams Showing Relationships of Key Elements.
(g) Task 7. Prepare the Equipment and Cost List.
(h) Task 8. Prepare Annualized Costs and Manpower Estimates.
(i) Task 9. -Estimate Revenues, Savings and Resultant Net Disposal
Costs and Overall Economics Feasibility.
(j) Task 10. Analyze .the Advantage and Disadvantages of Proceeding
With the Proposed Solid Waste Energy Plant.
(k) Task 11. If the Recommendation is to "Go", then Battelle Will
Prepare a Financing Plan and Procurement Strategy.
Battelle further agrees to perform all of the aforegoing services in
accordance with the details listed in Battelle's proposal 227-K-1951 which
proposal is hereby made a part of this Contract as if fully set out herein.
II. Time of Performance
It is understood by the parties hereto that work on this project will
start within thirty (30) days after receipt of an executed copy of this Contract
by Battelle and will continue for a period of four (4) consecutive months. It
is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that this Contract may
be extended by mutual agreement of the parties in writing.
III: Compensation and Method of Payment
Battelle shall be paid the sum of $46,000.00 for and in consideration of
the services to be provided by Battelle to City, provided that Battelle com-
pletes all of the tasks heretofore set forth under Scope of Services and iden-
tified in paragraph I of this Contract, sub -paragraphs (a) through (k). City
agrees to pay to Battelle the sum of $11,500.00 per month upon receipt of a
properly detailed invoice by Battelle until the full consideration heretofore
set forth has been paid. In the event Battelle determines that this project is
not feasible and therefore does not perform services listed under sub -paragraph
(k), paragraph I, Scope of Services of this Contract, then the City of Lubbock
shall only be obligated to pay to Battelle the sum of $41,000.00 as total
consideration for this Contract, and Battelle agrees that City shall have the
right to withhold $5,000.00 from the final invoice due Battelle under such
circumstances. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties further agree that
City shall retain 10% of the total consideration payable to Battelle until such
time as Battelle's final report has been presented to and accepted by the City
Council of the City of Lubbock.
IV. Interim Reports
Battelle hereby agrees to submit to City at the same time it invoices City
for payments as heretofore described in paragraph III of this Contract a status
report of their work indicating to the City the progress made by Battelle in
completion of their responsibilities under this Contract.
V. Location of Performance
The place where the services contemplated by this Contract are to be per-
formed is the City of Lubbock, County of Lubbock, State of Texas, or such other
cities, states or nations as may be required by the provisions of this Contract.
s
VI. Independent Contractor Relationship
Nothing herein shall be construed as creating the relationship of an
employer and employee between the parties. The City shall not be subject to
any obligations or liabilities of Battelle incurred in the performance of this
Contract unless otherwise herein authorized. Battelle expressly agrees.to
indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lubbock from any and all liabilities
and obligations incurred due to the sole negligence of Battelle or its employees.
VII: Law Governing The Contract
For the purpose of determing the place of the Contract and the law govern-
ing the same, it is agreed that this Contract is entered into in the City and
County of Lubbock, State of Texas and shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Texas.
VIII. Termination
Either party hereto may terminate this Contract if the other party is
'responsible for a breach thereof and fails to correct such breach for a period
of ten (10) days after receipt of written notice to correct the same.
IX. Notice
Any notices required under this Contract shall be sufficient if sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the City at the following address,
City Manager, City of Lubbock, P.O. Box 2000, Lubbock, Texas 79457 and to
Battelle at the following address, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 505 King
Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43201.
X. Warranties
Battelle agrees that the Feasibility Study which is the sub-
ject of this Contract, when delivered to the City, will reflect a high standard
of professional procedures and practices and be consistent with the
current state of the art as to feasibility studies of a similar nature.
However, the results of this study will be advisory and/or experimental in
nature. Therefore, in no event shall Battelle or its employees and agents
have any obligation or -liability -for damages, including but not limited to
consequential damages, arising out of or in connection with the City's use
or inability to use the information, apparatus, method or process resulting
from this project. Save and except'the foregoing agreement, Battelle provides
no warranty or guarantee of results including warranties of fitness for
purpose or of merchantability for any item or research result which may be
delivered under this Contract. There are nn other warr»ntiPq either exnressed
i4 onnection with this se ree-^nr.
XI. Advertising
City understands that Battelle is not engaged in research for advertising,
sales promotion, or other publicity purposes, and City agrees that Battelle
reports or correspondence will not be used or reproduced in full or in part for
such purposes. City also agrees that none of its advertising, sales promotion,
or other publicity matter containing information obtained from this investigation
will mention or imply the name of Battelle -Columbus. However, Battelle understands
that if City desires to proceed with a project upon the recommendations contained
in the Feasibility Study and such project requires financing by means of bonds
voted as a bond election, information from reports and correspondence pertaining
to such recommendation may be disclosed by City in connection with such election.
The name, "Battelle -Columbus", may be disclosed by City only in response to
direct inquiry. Battelle further understands that the City is subject to the
Texas Open Records Act, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 6252-17a, and that such reports
and correspondence as are submitted to the City thereby become public records.
XII. Entire Agreement
This Contract constitutes and expresses the entire agreement of the
parties hereto in reference to the professional and expert services of Battelle
for the City and no other agreement either expressed or implied exists between
the parties hereto.
ACCEPTED:
CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS:
BY
.BILL-McALFBTER, Mayor
ATTEST:
elyn Gaff a, City Secr�te.s.re,
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Denzel Percifull, Di ector -
Public Services
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J9I- /``„" i �r .
n C. Ross, Jr., City Attorney
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE:
Columj oratories
t
BY
LM W. MERCIER
CONTRACTING OFFICER
ATTE
i
saw
4�'. ��!'�}{`;•�: 1 ��*; -•fit,'' - `.'• *�- � ,. ,'' ti. �`�._�'"
aal in AM
Pal
m., j.: ,
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A
SOLID WASTE TO ENERGY PROJECT
for
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS
September 30, 1980
BATTELLE
Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
ERRATA SHEET
p. 45 Subtitle should read "Semi -suspension fired waterwall
combustion (processed waste)", not "Mass -burning waterwalI
combution (processed waste)".
p. 47 Item 6 at bottom of the page, last line should read
"processed waste", not "unproven waste."
p. 56 The auxillary fuel input should be 11250 Btu" instead of
23 Btu, the steam generation should be 112783 Btu" instead
of "2662 Btu", and the net energy efficiency should be
45 percent.
P. 73 The capacity at the Texas Instrument's boilers should be
400 HP, 300 HP and 100 HP respectively - not 400,000 HP,
300,000 HP, and 100,000 HP.
011 FTBattel(e
Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue .
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Telephone (614) 424-6424
Telex 24.5454
October 3, 1980
Mr. Denzel Percifull
Director of Public Services
City Hall, Room 207
916 Texas Avenue
Lubbock, Texas 79457
Dear Denzel:
We are pleased to transmit our final report regarding the "Feasibility of
a Solid Waste to Energy Project for Lubbock, Texas".
As we discussed, enclosed are 25 copies of our report so that you may
distribute copies to all the members of the City Council, appropriate
members of the City Administration, and members of the community who
have contributed to this study. Also as we discussed, I am prepared to
meet with the City Council during its regularly scheduled Council meeting
on Thursday, October 23 to discuss our findings and conclusions if this
is still convenient.
Sincerely,
Richard Hopper
Project Manager
Energy and Environmental
Systems Assessment
RH: jr
Encls.
50 Years Of Service
'1929-1979
r
PREFACE
The City of Lubbock is located in the heart of the South Plains
region in northwest Texas. It is the largest metropolitan area between
Dallas -Fort Worth and Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a greater metropolitan
area population close to 200,000,' Lubbock is centered in a rich oil -
producing region and is also recognized as the second largest inland
cotton market in the world. Agricultural, commercial, and industrial in-
terests also constitute a large part of Lubbock's economy.
Growth within and around the City of Lubbock has been on the rise
in recent years. Increased commercial and industrial activity is expected
in the area along with an annual increase in population. With respect to
solid waste, this growth will create the need for updated solid waste
management to satisfy the requirements of Lubbock and the surrounding
communities.
Landfilling of solid waste has been the predominant disposal
practice for the City of Lubbock. Presently, two landfills accommodate
the disposal of solid waste from within the City and a few nearby communi-
ties. One landfill is owned and operated by the City of Lubbock, and the
other is privately owned and operated. Due to the fact that the City
landfill has an estimated remaining life of 5 years or less, City officials
are currently in the process of seeking a new City landfill site and in-
vestigating energy recovery from waste as an alternate disposal option.
This report presents the results of a study undertaken for the City by
Battelle -Columbus Laboratories to analyze the present solid waste genera-
tion and disposal practices within the City of Lubbock, and to address the
future of landfilling and/or energy recovery as long-term disposal options.
Battelle's project manager for the study was Richard Hopper.
Other Battelle staff who contributed to the study included Phil Beltz and
Bert O'Connell. In addition, RAS Associates assisted in characterizing
Lubbock's waste and in surveying Lubbock's existing solid waste management
system, while Stilson Associates assisted in evaluating Lubbock Power and
Light as a potential energy market.
Finally, this report could not have been prepared without the
generous cooperation of personnel from the City of Lubbock, Lubbock Power
and Light, Southwestern Public Service, Reese Air Force Base, Texas
Instruments, Texas Tech, and BFI. Battelle would like to especially
thank the following individuals for their support and input:
Mr. Denzel Percifull
Director of Public Services
City of Lubbock
Mr. M. J. Aderton
City Councilman
City of Lubbock
Mr. William Wood
Director of Electric Planning,
Development and Production
Lubbock Power and Light
Mr. Robert Massengale
Finance Director
City of Lubbock
Mr. Donald Vandiver
First Assistant City Attorney
City of Lubbock
Max Cunningham
Sanitation Director
City of Lubbock
Mr. Jake Webb
District Manager
Southwestern Public Service
Mr. William Droll
Reese Air Force Base
Mr. Marvin S. Buckberry
Director, Building Maint. Utilities
Texas Tech University
Mr. Chris Nelson
Texas Instrument
,..
Mr. Tony Santanglio
St. Mary of the Plains Hospital
o.
0-
1
Mr. Max Hodge
The Methodist Hospital
Mr. Mike Mansell
Container Recycling Corp.
Mr. James Crider
Chamber of Commerce
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. SECTION
I
ESTIMATES OF WASTE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION. . . .
. . . 1
1.1
Waste Quantities Collected and
Disposed of by the City of Lubbock . . . . . .
. . . 1
1.2
Privately Collected Wastes Disposed
of at the City Landfill . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 4
1.3
On -Site Refuse Truck Survey at the
City Landfill. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 6
1.4
Waste Quantities Collected and
Disposed of by BFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 8
1.5
Wastes Not Collected by BFI But Disposed
of at the BFI Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 10
1.6
Waste Quantity Data Summary and
Projected Waste Generation . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 10
1.7
Composition of Lubbock's Waste . . . . . . . .
. . . 16
B. SECTION
II
PRESENT AND FUTURE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND LAND
DISPOSAL PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 19
2.1
City Collection and Disposal Practices . . . . .
. . 19
City Collection Practices . . . . . . . . . .
. . 19
City Disposal Practices . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 20
Remaining City Landfill Life. . . . . . . . .
. . 24
2.2
Privately -Owned Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 25
Private Collection Practices . . . . . . . .
. . 26
Private Disposal Practices. . . . . . . . . .
. . 25
2.3
Proposed New Landfill Sites for the
City of Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 26
2.4
Impact of RCRA on Existing Practices and
Costs and Likely Environmental Impacts
from Future Landfilling. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 31
Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 31
Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 32
Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 32
Groundwater . . . . .
33
Application to Land Used•for the
Production of Food -Chain Crops. . . . . . . .
. . 33
Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 34
Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 34
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 34
OM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
C. SECTION III
ENERGY
RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . .
. . . 36
3.1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 36
3.2
Description of Alternative Systems. . . . . .
. . . 36
Mass -burning Waterwall Combustion
(unprocessed waste) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 36
Mass -burning Refractory Combustion . . . .
. . . 41
Mass -burning Waterwall Combustion
(processed waste) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 45
Suspension -fired Refuse -derived -fuel
(RDF) Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 49
Starved -air Combustion . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 53
3.3
Typical Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . .
. . . 57
Air -Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 57
Water Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 58
Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 58
Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 59
D. SECTION
IV
ENERGY MARKETS . . . . . .
60
4.1
Overview . . . . .
60
4.2
Energy Recoverable from Lubbock's Waste . . . . .
. 60
To Calculate the Energy Content of
Lubbock's Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 62
To Calculate the Amount of Low-pressure
Steam Produceable from Lubbock's Waste . . . .
. 62
To Calculate the Amount of High -Pressure
Steam Produceable from Lubbock's Waste . . . .
. 64
To Calculate Potential Revenues Obtainable
from the Sale of Steam . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 64
To Calculate Potential Revenues Obtainable
from the Sale of Refuse -Derived -Fuel (RDF) . .
. 64
4.3
Evaluation of Lubbock Power and Light
as a Potential Energy Market. . . . . . . . . . .
. 65
Provide Superheated Steam to Power One
or More of Lubbock Power and Lights'
Existing Turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 65
r
..
t.,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
i
(Continued)
r..
Page
D. SECTION IV(Continued)
r
l
Provide Medium -Temperature Steam to Power
One or More of Lubbock Power and Light's Existing
i
Turbines . . . . . . . .
. 68
Provide Feedwater to LP & L's Existing Boilers.
69
Ir
4.4 Evaluation of Other Potential Energy Markets. . .
. 71
Texas Tech University.
71
Reese Air Force Base . . . . . . . . . . .
72
Southwestern Public Service. . . . . . . . .
. 73
Texas Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 73
Pft
The Methodist Hospital and St. Mary
i
of the Plains Hospital
. 73
New Industrial Steam User (such as Michelin)
74
►r
i
i
E. SECTION V
EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . .
. 75
5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 75
5.2 Implement a Refuse -Derived Fuel System
76
With Sale of a Processed Waste Fuel
to Southwestern Public Service . . . . . . . . .
. . 76
5.3 Implement a Mass -Burning Refractory
Combustion System With the Sale of Steam
to Either LP&L or a New Industrial
User (Such as Michelin) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 81
Assumptions for Table 5.4 Refractory
~'
Combustion Projected Capital Cost. . . . . . . . . . .
. 82
Assumptions for Table 5.5 Refractory
Combustion Projected Operating Cost. . . . . . . . . .
. 84
5.4 Implement a Starved -Air Combustion System
With the Sale of Steam to Either an
Existing Steam User (Texas Tech,
^
Texas Instruments) or a New Industrial
Steam User (Such as Michelin) . . . . . . . . . .
. 86
5.5 Implement a New Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 90
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
E. SECTION V (Continued)
5.6 Comparison of Alternatives and Life -Cycle
Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
F. SECTION VI
ENERGY RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION: PROCUREMENT,
FINANCING, AND RISK MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 95
6.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 95
6.2 Procurement Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 96
Architectural and Engineering Approach . . . . . .
. 96
Turnkey Apporach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 97
Full Service Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 98
6.3 Financial Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 100
General Obligation Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 101
Municipal Revenue Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 102
Special Revenue Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 103
Pollution Control Revenue Bonds and
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds . . . . . . .
. 103
Leverage Leases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 104
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Grants . . .
. 105
Farmers Home Administration . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 106
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 106
6.4 Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 107
Methods of Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . .
. 108
Sources of Risk and Risk Management Strategies .
. . l09
G. SECTION VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 119
r
i
I
1
r
SECTION 1
E
ESTIMATES OF WASTE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION
The choice of alternate disposal techniques and their respective
i
economics is dependent upon the quantity and composition of solid waste.
r�
To develop waste characterization data for Lubbock, information was ob-
tained from a variety of sources. These sources included meetings with
r"
iCity officials involved with solid waste management, data from City files,
phone conversations with many of the major waste generators within the
City, an interview with the local private landfill operator (BFI), an
on -site refuse truck survey conducted at the City landfill, and an inspec-
tion of the BFI landfill site. These sources provided a reliable data
i
base from which the solid waste generation in the City of Lubbock could
r be estimated. Each data source was analyzed separately, and where possible,
compared to other data sources to establish accuracy.
P. The waste quantity data is presented in four parts:
(1) Those wastes collected and disposed of by the City,
r�.
i (2) Privately collected waste disposed of at the
I City landfill,
(3) Wastes collected by BFI, and
` (4) Wastes not collected by BFI but disposed of at the
r' BFI landfill.
t Since the services of the City and BFI represent the majority of
r" all waste collected and disposed of in the City of Lubbock, it was considered
best to present the data in this manner. This section will conclude in a
r summary of all available waste quantity data, waste quantity generation
projections, and waste component compatibility with resource recovery.
1.1 Waste Quantities Collected and Disposed
of by the City of Lubbock
.y
The City of Lubbock utilizes a platform scale located at the
City landfill to weigh each City truck entering the landfill for waste
s+
r
li 2
i
rdisposal. From the truck weighing records it was possible to accurately
i determine City -collected quantities of residential and commercial wastes.
r^ Bulky waste quantities are included in both the residential and commercial
categories, therefore, it was not possible to quantify bulky wastes from
City records. Quantities of bulky waste were thus quantified through
data collected during the on -site truck survey. Table 1-1 shows the
latest City waste quantity data on a monthly basis for 1978 and 1979.
From this data, residential waste generation can be assumed
to be increasing yearly, although not necessarily at the rate of
I 9.8 percent annually as shown in Table 1-1. Annual increases in
residential waste generation can be expected, however, since a population
i,
t: increase in the City is expected. In 1979, 236 tons per day of municipal
t' wastes were collected by the City. It should be noted that this figure
1'
does not represent the entire residential waste stream in Lubbock since
!�! the City does not collect residential wastes from apartment complexes
greater than 50 units. Large apartment complexes are serviced by the
r private collection companies who do not report separately residential
and commercial waste quantities collected. Therefore, the actual daily
rr total tonnage of residential waste is higher than 236 tons per day.
A decrease in the amount of commercial waste collected by the
r, City from 1978 to 1979 is evident from Table 1-1. This was expected
since BFI has reported an increase in its commercial waste collection
r. throughout the City.
Seasonal variations in both waste categories, residential and
commercial, are evident from the data. Higher waste quantities are dis-
posed of in the late spring and summer months and lower p p g quantities are
disposed of during the fall and winter months. The increase during the
spring and summer months may be due to the large quantity of bulky
wastes, brush, grasses, wood, and similar wastes generated during
this time. The City trucks reserved for these bulky wastes are emptied
at least once per day during this time of year.
3
TABLE 1-1
WASTE QUANTITIES COLLECTED BY THE CITY OF LUBBOCK
Residential Waste
Commercial Waste
(Tons)
(Tons)
Month
1978
1979
1978
1979
January
4,728
5,500
928
1,043
February
4,627
5,357
950
921
March
6,753
7,450
1,103
1,018
April
6,642
7,462
1,069
908
May
6,993
8,384
1,110
1,363
June
8,307
9,354
1,002
1,170
July
7,212
8,561
1,024
1,000
August
7,380
9,220
1,242
1,166
September
6,868
7,131
1,273
1,036
October
7,178
6,600
1,278
921
November
6,282
5,502
1,217
818
December
5,524
5,750
847
837
TOTAL
78,494
86,271
13,043
12,201
Tons Per Day*
215
236
36
33
Change Since 1978
-
+9.8%
-
- 6.5%
*Based on 365 days per year.
r q
r
i
1.2 Privately Collected Wastes
Disposed of at the City Landfill
The quantities of waste collected by the City of Lubbock are
only part of the total quantity of waste disposed of at the City landfill.
These quantities were presented in the previous discussion. This discussion
will present the remaining portion of the waste stream disposed of at the
r�
City landfill, i.e., wastes disposed of by private hauling companies,
private industries and residents.
r
Since private haulers, industries and residents hauling their
i
own wastes to the City landfill are charged a disposal fee as discussed
r�
above, it was possible to estimate the quantity of waste disposed of from
these sources by using the disposal fee receipts and applying a cost per
r
ton figure to them. Disposal fees can either be paid in cash at the City
landfill or charged as a utility fee and billed monthly to the private
disposers. Table 1-2 lists the monthly dollar amounts of disposal fees
paid in cash and charged for the period January, 1979 to January, 1980.
From information supplied by City officials, a unit disposal fee of $3.75
per ton was used to calculate the tonnages of waste disposed of at the
I
City landfill by private disposers.
As shown in Table 1-2, the average daily tonnage calculated for
f" private waste disposal at the City landfill is 60 tons per day. This
1 figure includes primarily commercial, industrial and bulky waste quantities.
r Tables 1-1 and 1-2 present the available data of waste quantities
collected by the City and/or disposed of at the City landfill. From this
r' data it can be assumed that residential waste generation in the City of
i
Lubbock approaches or exceeds 236 tons per day since the City collects
►" almost 100 percent of the residential waste stream. The quantity of com-
mercial and industrial wastes, collected privately and by the City, which
•� are disposed of at the City landfill approaches 60 tons per day. The
commercial and industrial wastes disposed of at the BFI landfill represent
r additional quantities of these waste types generated and collected in the
City of Lubbock.
5
TABLE 1-2
PRIVATE DISPOSED WASTE TONNAGES DERIVED FROM
CITY LANDFILL DISPOSAL FEES
Monthly Cash*
Monthly Charge
Total
Disposal Fee
Tons Per**
Date
Receipts
Receipts
Receipts($/Ton)
Day -Disposed
1979 -
January
$ 3,375
$ 3,197
$ 6,572
$3.75
57
February
3,000
3,214
6,214
3.75
59
March
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
April
3,125
3,779
6,904
3.75
61
May
3,375
3,925
7,300
3.75
63
June
3,250
3,996
7,246
3.75
64
July
3,250
3,682
6,932
3.75
60
August
3,375
4,033
7,408
3.75
64
September
3,125
3,618
6,743
3.75
60
October
3,375
3,279
6,654
3.75
57
November
3,250
2,849
6,099
3.75
54
December
3,250
2,889
6,139
3.75
53
1980-
January
3,375
4,505
7,880
3.75
68
TOTAL
$39,125
$42,966
$82,091
Average Tons Per Day
60
* Average cash receipts of $125/Day, Mondays thru Saturdays for each month.
**Based on total number of days in each month.
F,
6
1.3 On -site Refuse Truck Survey at the
City Landfill
As a check on the estimated quantities of waste derived from
the City landfill data, an on -site refuse truck survey was conducted at
the City landfill. The survey was conducted on May 6 and 7, 1980.
Although the survey covered only a two-day period, the resulting data cor-
related favorably with the previously discussed waste quantity data.
Table 1-3 shows the results of the truck survey. The trucks
that were readily identifiable at the landfill are listed in the first
column under "Truck Owner". These trucks were either owned by the City
or the major haulers operating within the City (BFI, FABIT, Commercial -
Industrial Disposal). Trucks that could not be identified are listed
under "Other Private Vehicles".
The number of trucks from each owner was recorded as it entered
the landfill along with its known or estimated cubic yard capacity. Esti-
mating the average waste tonnage each type of truck delivered to the
landfill, a total daily tonnage was calculated. From Table 1-3, it.can
be seen that approximately 289 tons of City collected wastes and 76 tons
of privately collected waste were disposed of at the City landfill during
this day. Comparing these waste quantities with the final ton per day
figures derived from the previous 1979 City data, the results are as follows:
1979
May 6, 1980
Waste Disposed of at
City Data
Truck Survey
Percent
City landfill
(TPD)
(TPD)
Difference
City Collected
269
289
7 percent
Private Collected
60
76
27 percent
In terms of City collected wastes disposed of at the City land-
fill, the City and truck survey data compare favorably, allowing for the
probable annual increase from 1979 to 1980 in waste collected and disposed
7
TABLE 1-3
ON —SITE TRUCK SURVEY AT CITY LANDFILL
(CONDUCTED MAY 6 & 7,1980)
Average
Truck or
Waste
Total
Container
Capacity
No. of Trucks
Tonnage
Daily
Truck Owner
Type
(Cubic Yards)
Observed
Per Truck
Tonnage
City of Lubbock
Side -Loader
28
52
5.0
260
Front -Loader
28
7
3.0
21
Brush Truck
28
3
2.5
7.5
J & G
Open Roll -Off
30
5
3.6
18
FABIT
Side -Loader
28
3
5.0
15
Commercial -Industrial
Disposal Service
Front Loader
28
1
3.0
3
Other Private
Bobtail
10
6
1.2
7.2
Vehicles
Bobtail
25
3
3.0
9
Open Roll -Off
30
1
3.6
3.6
Trailer
40
2
4.9
9.6
Dump Truck
5
1
1.0
1
Pick -Up '
3
23
0.4
9.2
TOTAL
City Collected Tonnage 288.5
Privately Collected Tonnage 75.6
364.1
B
0
l
a
of by the City. Privately collected wastes disposed of at the City land-
fill show a substantial difference between the City and truck survey data.
Over -estimation of the tonnage of waste contained in each private truck
r
could account for the difference since private trucks are not weighed at
the City landfill. An unusually heavy day for private waste disposal
r
could also account for the difference.
r,
1.4 Waste Quantities Collected
and Disposed of by BFI
The major portion of the privately collected waste stream in
!^
Lubbock is collected by BFI (previously J&G Waste Systems, Inc.). These
wastes consist mainly of commercial and industrial type wastes. Major
generators of these wastes include local industries such as Devro, Frito-
Lay and Texas Instruments. The waste quantity data presented here was
r
derived from information as provided by BFI.
Table 1-4 shows waste quantity estimates as calculated from
the cubic yard capacity of the containers used by BFI and the number of
times per day each container is emptied for disposal at the BFI landfill.
r..
BFI utilizes 31 cubic yard (CY) front -loaders, 30 CY open roll -offs, 40
CY closed roll -offs and a 30 CY side -loader. Estimated compaction densi-
ties were assigned to each container to arrive at the waste quantities
shown in Table 1-5. Each roll -off container was also assumed to carry a
full load every trip.
Item 1 in Table 1-4 shows the quantity of waste collected daily
from BFI's six front -loader routes. At three loads per route, per day,
t
209 tons per day (TPD) of waste is collected by the 31 CY front -loaders.
BFI operates three roll -off routes with 60 percent of the
roll -offs having a 30 CY capacity and 40 percent having a 40 CY capacity.
From a total of 27 roll -off loads per day, the 30.CY containers account
for 15 loads and the 40 CY containers account for 11 loads. Item 2 shows
the total daily tonnage from BFI roll -offs to be approximately 223 TPD.
BFI also operates one 30 CY side -loader on a part time basis
collecting only two loads per week (or an average of 0.33 loads per day).
r
The daily tonnage collected in the side -loader is approximately 3.75 TPD
r�
as shown in Item 3.
0-
9
TABLE 1-4
WASTES COLLECTED BY J&G AND DISPOSED OF AT THE J&G LANDFILL
(1) 6 Front -Loader Routes x 3 Loads/Route/Day x 31 CY/Truck = 558 CY/Day
558 CY/Day x 750 lb./CY x 1 Ton/2,000 lb. = 209 Tons/Day
(2) 3 Roll -Off Routes x 9 Loads/Day/Route = 27 Loads/Day
60% 30 CY Open Containers = Approx. 16 Loads/Day
40% 40 CY Closed Containers = Approx. 11 Loads/Day
For 30 CY Open Roll -Offs
16 Loads/Day x 30 CY/Load = 480 CY/Day
480 CY/Day x 240 lb./CY x 1 Ton/2,000 lb. = 58 Tons/Day
For 40 CY Closed Roll -Offs
11 Loads/Day x 40 CY/Load
= 440
CY/Day
440 CY/Day x 750 lb./CY x 1 Ton/2,000 lb.
= 165
Tons/Day
(3) 1 Side -Loader x 0.33 Loads/Day x 30 CY/Load
= 10
CY/Day
10 CY/Day x 750 lb./CY x 1 Ton/2,000 lb.
= 3.75
Tons/Day
(4) To Paper Recyclers —
275 CY/Day x 240 lb./CY x 1 Ton/2,000 lb.
= 33
Tons/Day
(5) Glass from Coca-Cola —
30 CY/D 32
5 I ay x b./CY x 1 Ton/2,000 lb. = 4.88 Tons/Day
TOTAL 473.63 OR
474 Tons/Day
NOTE: 18 Tons/Day of bulky wastes are collected by J&G and disposed of in the City landfill. This
waste quantity is included in the privately collected wastes disposed of at the City landfill.
10
r
I
r In addition to BFI's regular collection routes, 250 to 300 CY
t
per day of corrugated cardboard is collected and delivered to paper re-
cyclers. Using an average of 275 CY per day, Item 4 shows 33 TPD of
corrugated wastes generated in the City and recycled.
Waste glass from a Coca-Cola bottling plant located within
r
the City accounts for a small daily tonnage of waste collected by BFI.
i
Item 5 shows this tonnage to be 4.88 TPD. All totaled, BFI collects and
r
disposes of approximately 474 TPD of commercial and industrial waste.
Not included in this total are 18 tons of bulky wastes collected by BFI
and disposed of at the City landfill. The 18 tons of bulky waste is
included in the tonnage of those wastes disposed of at the City landfill.
1.5 Wastes Not Collected by BFI But Disposed of_
at the BFI Landfill
r The BFI landfill accepts a limited quantity of waste not col-
lected by the services of BFI. These wastes are generated and hauled by
the following: the City of Wolfforth; Reese Air Force Base; and Texas
Tech University.
r. Table 1-5 shows the daily quantity of waste disposed of at BFI
by these generators. These wastes consist mainly of residential and com-
mercial type wastes. The City of Wolfforth, located 4 miles to the
southwest of Lubbock, sends approximately 11.3 tons of waste daily to
BFI for disposal. Reese AFB generates 8.4 tons of waste from its daily
operations. Texas Tech University operates two 24 CY packer trucks each
hauling two loads per day of waste for a total of 17.3 TPD. Together,
these generators dispose of an additional 37 TPD of waste at the BFI
landfill.
1.6 Waste Quantity Data Summary and
Projected Waste Generation
The waste quantity data presented in the preceding discussions
is summarized in Table 1-6. For the purpose of estimating waste generation
f" in the City, it may be assumed that the total tons per day disposed,
r
P.
;� 11
r
TABLE 1-5
r WASTES NOT COLLECTED BY J&G AND DISPOSED OF AT THE J&G LANDFILL
r"
f 1. City of Wolfforth
., 30 CY/Day x 750 Ib./CY x 1 Ton/2,000 lb. = 11.3 Tons/Day
2. Reese Air Force Base
r^ 25 CY/Day x 675 Ib./CY x 1 Ton/2,000 lb. = 8.4 Tons/Day
,l
3. Texas Tech University
.- 24 CY/Truck x 2 Trucks/Day x 2 Loads/Truck = 96 CY/Day
96 CY/Day x 360 Ib./CY x 1 Ton/2,000 lb. — 17.3 Tons/Day
C.. TOTAL 37 Tons/Day
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
12
t
TABLE 1-6
WASTE QUANTITY DATA SUMMARY
r^
1.
Wastes Collected by the City of Lubbock
f
Residential
236
TPD
e.
{
Commercial
33
TPD
r'
(Bulky wastes collected by the City included in both categories)
!
2.
Privately Collected Wastes Disposed at the City Landfill
r
Bulky, Commercial, Industrial
60
TPD
i
3.
Wastes Collected by J &G
•
Commercial, Industrial
474
TPD
4.
Wastes Not Collected by J&G But Disposed of at J&G Landfill
Residential, Commercial
37
TPD
TOTAL
840
TPD
r.
r
r
13
r
i
r., 840 TPD, approximates the total City generation rate. Solid waste col-
lection and disposal rates are often the only data available for determin-
ation of waste generation rates. Some importation of waste into Lubbock
j from outside generators, as was evident from the City of Wolfforth and
r Reese AFB, may increase the actual waste quantity disposed of in the
j City of Lubbock. Waste generated in the outlying rural areas often re-
mains uncollected, and thus does not enter the waste stream. These
r
"uncollected wastes" generally represent insignificant quantities in
comparison to the collected wastes, and have been excluded from the
current study.
A daily per capita generation rate can be calculated for Lubbock
r-
using an estimate of the City's population for 1980. The City of Lubbock
Planning Department estimates a population of 186,000 residing within
the City limits. With a daily waste generation of 840 TPD, the present
per capita generation rate is 9.0 pounds per capita per day (lb/cap/day).
r.
fThis per capita generation rate includes residential, commercial and
industrial wastes.
r-.
Table 1-7 shows the result of a National Survey performed by
Pennsylvania State University on the subject of per capita solid waste
generation. Comparing Lubbock's generation rates with those of the
i
University's survey for a large population (100,000 pop.) as shown in
Tabel 1-8, an apparent agreement may be observed. Lubbock's per capita
f
generation rates agree well with the national average.
The City of Lubbock's population is expected to increase by an
average of 1.4 percent per year or about 2,600 people per year from 1980
through 1990 according to the latest information obtained from the
r
Lubbock Planning Department. By projecting the population figures for
t` this 10 year period, it is possible to project the quantity of residential
i
waste that may be generated in the future using the present generation
rate of 2.5 lb/cap/day (see Table 1-7). Residential waste generation may
be viewed as a direct function of the total City population. Table 1-8
r" shows population projections for the City of Lubbock and the projected
�' increases in residential waste generation to 1990.
r
14
TABLE 1-7
f" PER CAPITA SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES FOR
VARIOUS SIZED MUNICIPALITIES'
r
r
r
r-�
o
g.
g
g
a
7
a
a
Ea
v=uU
s
F
=
0
y
E^
��
�o
�tn
�jLn
ze
0]
W
Residential
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.0
32
3.1
Commercial
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
0.4
1.2
1.0
Industrial
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.2 •
1.8
3.0
0.4
0.6
0.6
TOTAL
3.5
4.5
5.4
6.1
7.7
8.9
3.8
5.0
4.7
CITY OF LUBBOCK
Residential (Municipal) 2.5
Commercial/industrial 6.5
TOTAL 9.0
' From "Solid Wastes", Chapter 2, Solid Waste Characteristics, Table 10, Pennsylvania State
University, Civil Engineering Dept., Workshop Proceedings, 1972.
r
r
15
rTABLE
1-8
CITY OF LUBBOCK POPULATION AND RESIDENTIAL
r:
WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
% Increase
Projected Res. Waste Gen.
Res. Waste Gen.
.rill
Year
in Population
Population (lb./cap./day)
(TPD)
r..
1980
(Base Year)
18b,000 2.5
233
t
1981
1.4
188,604 2.5
236
r-
r,
1982
1.4
191,244 2.5
239
1983
1.4
193,922 2.5
242
1984
1 A
196,637 2.5
246
r�
t
1985
1.4
199,390 2.5
249
i
1986
1.4
202,181 2.5
253
1987
1.4
205,012 2.5
256
1988
1.4
207,882 2.5
260
r•
1989
1.4
210,792 2.5
263
i
1990
1.4
213,743 2.5
267
f"
A
r
Mdw
r
16
To project the quantity of commercial and industrial wastes
for the same period, it was necessary to project the annual percent in-
creases of commercial and industrial employment population in Lubbock.
jProjections of employment population were supplied by the Lubbock
Planning Department for this purpose. Table 1-9 shows employment pro-
f
r jections in various commercial and industrial categories from 1980 to
r 1990. To project future commercial and industrial waste quantities
j generated in Lubbock, the annual percent increase in the employment
population was applied to the total commercial and industrial waste
rquantity derived for 1980 of 567 tons per day. The commercial and
industrial waste projections to 1990 are shown in Table 1-10.
1.7 Composition of Lubbock's Waste
During the on -site truck survey conducted at the City of
Lubbock sanitary landfill, a visual analysis was conducted to assess the
r
typical composition of wastes generated within the City. The objective
P
of the analysis was to examine the waste stream for compatibility with
an energy recovery facility.
r
i
The history of the energy recovery industry has shown mostly
residential and commercial wastes to be compatible with an energy recovery
r-
from waste facility. These wastes are composed mainly of combustible
materials which can be burned as an energy source. The residential and
.-
t
commercial waste stream of Lubbock was observed to be rich in cardboard
and paper wastes which are highly combustible materials with significant
heating value. Other combustibles in the waste stream included plastics,
f
food wastes, cotton wastes, garden trimmings and wood. Collectively,
F'
all these combustible wastes accounted for approximately 65 to 75 percent
of Lubbock's residential and commercial waste stream. The balance of
the waste stream included such materials as glass, metals, brick and ash.
To accurately assess the percentages of all components in Lubbock's
waste stream, a detailed waste component analysis should be conducted.
low
1
TABLE 1-9
EMPLOYMENT POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Agriculture
857
840
823
806
789
773
758
743
728
713
696
Mining
184
184
183
182
182
181
180
180
179
179
178
Constriction
3,610
3,655
3,700
3,745
3,790
3,834
3,881
3,929
3,976
4,024
4,071
Manufacturing
8,591
8,784
8,978
9,171
9,365
9,558
9,773
9,988
10,203
10,418
10,633
Railroads
157
153
149
145
141
137
134
130
127
123
120
Transportation
1,699
1,724
1,748
1,773
1,797
1,822
1,848
1,875
1,901
1,928
1,954
Warehousing
417
424
431
437
444
451
458
466
473
481
488
Communications
993
991
990
988
987
985
984
982
981
979
978
Util. & Sanitation
1,151
1,153
1,155
1,156
1,158
1,160
1,162
1,163
1,165
1,166
1,168
Wholesale Trade
3,791
3,811
3,831
3,851
3,871
3,891
3,911
3,932
3,952
3,973
3,993
Retail Trade
13,676
13,837
13,998
14,159
14,320
14,481
14,652
14,822
14,993
15,163
15,334
Finance, Ins. &
Real Estate
4,112
4,155
4,199
4,242
4,286
4,329
4,374
4,420
4,465
4,511
4,556
Total Services*
17,930
18,362
18,793
19,225
19,656
20,088
20,572
21,056
21,540
22,024
22,508
Government**
13,537
13,917
14,296
14,676
15,055
15,435
15,868
16,301
16,734
17,167
17,600
Industry Not
Reported
1,900
1,923
1,946
1,970
1,993
2,016
2,040
2,065
2,089
2,114
2,138
TOTAL
72,605
73,913
75,220
76,52P
77,834
79,141
80,595
82,052
83,506
94,963
86,415
*Classified in agriculture, construction, transportation and communications in Bureau of the Census publication. Reclassified as
Commercial Services for purposes of this table.
**All publicly financed education is included under Government. Private schools, including nursery schools included under Total
Services.
18
TABLE 1-10
CITY OF LUBBOCK EMPLOYMENT POPULATION
AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
WASTE PROJECTIONS
Projected
Projected*
% Increase
Comm./Ind. Waste Gen.
Year
Emp. Pop.
in Emp. Pop.
(TPD)
1980
72,605
(Base Year)
567
1981
73,913
1.80
577
1982
75,220
1.77
587
1983
76,526
1.74
598
1984
77,834
1.71
608
1985
79,141
1.68
618
1986
80,595
1.84
629 .
1987
82,052
1.81
641
1988
83,506
1.77
652
1989
84,963
1.74
664
1990
86,415
1.71
675
*Total annual employment population projections from Table 10.
19
I
SECTION II
PRESENT AND FUTURE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND LAND DISPOSAL PRACTICES
r<
i
{ This section contains a description of Battelle's survey of
t" Lubbock's existing solid waste management system and Battelle's estimates
of both current and projected future costs for landfilling. This was
then significant in establishing a baseline for comparing the economics
of landfilling versus energy recovery.
a..
2.1 City Collection and Disposal Practices
City Collection Practices. The Sanitation Department of the
City of Lubbock provides collection service for most of the residential
waste generated within the municipality. Residential waste is considered
to be those wastes generated by private households, including items such
as paper, cardboard, food wastes, yard wastes, metal cans, glass bottles,
and plastic containers. The City currently utilizes a "containerized"
system of collection for these wastes, each container serving a multiple
of residential dwellings ranging from single family houses and duplexes
to quadraplexes and small apartment complexes. Apartment complexes
greater than 50 units are excluded from City collection and are served
by private collectors.
The City has calculated that an average of 3.2 residential
units are served per container. A total of 15,750 containers, each accom-
modating up to three cubic yards of waste, are located throughout the
City. Collection is performed by the City's fleet of thirty 28-cubic
yard side -loading trucks. Each truck requires one man for the collection
process since the containers and trucks are designed for mechanical
tipping of the containers into the trucks.
Residential wastes are collected six days per week, Monday
through Saturday. Each collection container is emptied twice per week,
starting on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday depending upon the collection
r
NN
districts (Paul, Lara, Juan, and Gunn) as shown in Figure 2-1. Each of
t the four major districts is subdivided into smaller districts (indicated
by a number -letter combination in Figure (2-1)• The letter M, T, or W
designates the day of the week collection is performed in that subdistrict.
r Districts collected on Monday (M) would again be collected on Thursday;
I
f those collected on Tuesday (T) would again be collected on Friday and so
r. on. All waste collected by the City is disposed of at the City landfill.
4 The City of Lubbock also provides collection service for 12 to
r, 15 percent of the commercial wastes generated within the City. These
wastes are usually generated in establishments such as offices, restaurants,
{. and department stores, and are similar in composition to municipal wastes.
The City has 10 front -loading trucks available for commercial waste
collection, each with a capacity of 28 cubic yards.
In addition, nine open panel trucks each of 28 cubic yard capa-
city are strategically parked throughout the City to receive bulky wastes.
The City residents can deposit into these trucks such items as refrigera-
tors, stoves, construction debris, tree stumps, and brush for transport
and disposal at the City landfill.
City Disposal Practices. All wastes collected by the City of
r
Lubbock are disposed of at the City -owned 320 acre sanitary landfill.
The landfill is located north of the City on Avenue P between University
Avenue and the Amarillo Highway, one mile north of FM 2641. Figure 2-2
shows the location of the landfill with respect to the City.
Wastes collected by private haulers or wastes brought to the
P.
landfill by City residents are also accepted for disposal at the City
landfill between the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m., Monday through
w
Saturday. A disposal fee is charged for each load delivered to the
landfill by these customers. The amount of the disposal fee is determined
r-.
by the type of vehicle transporting the waste, and in the case of packer
trucks, by the capacity of the vehicle. Table 2-1 shows the current
disposal charges for each vehicle type. No hazardous wastes of any
i
type are permitted to be disposed of at this landfill.
r
21
❑t
BLUEFIELD ROAD
/-----------i'-------- 1
22 M 23 W
1 a
W
------ �l
`,
1�
of
��� •----4
a
1�1
' p,u L
41
23T
OOii
1•---T------1-
2�
1
25 M 1124 24",
1 22 W 1
I
1 1
H 23M 1 iMi
I T L -1 I--- L - - - - - l_
STREETj --'-
j44W ,
wl / 41W
21M 1 44T
1221211 25T 1 24W
1 21w 1
�1 /
1
iT IT 1 1
i� 19TNSTR��T
ILI
at--_J 43W 45WZ 331--1132i35
�i 1-
W
n
j
m I
-
134 .I
c� 42 W - W 1 131
x�
1 43T tnr--_ 1-_�341 W
�1
3i
--- I 1 T 1--
L MR A �41T4
T3r3111Q i32
45T �42T 1 c __4 T'M 1 T
_-
1
_1�1
� r—
145 M
�•�
i�� M M3 34 i i35
t..
%% 1 r, IM 1 IT
�r-J`1
44M : 43M 11
f"
1
1 L----L------ 31" 31
1
14- M I
42M 1M1 1
< I
�..
?
1 I
I o 1
I = I
0-
aK-
1 ;I31 %11
m �M2 1M� 14 M �%
1
j
IT
1 1131 1 1 %
t4 i 15 M
r--i T
1
11 I
T .l%�
U
1 12 LOtrlG
t
--J 15T
w i %
' 15
1
1
r- � 1
11 1 131 w-%♦
1
WM-1-------c'''�
,LOOP 269
♦ 1
14 W
`1
-----------------I
82MOSTREET
w 1
> 1
1
-1
CITY OF LUBBOCK
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION DISTRICTS
FIGURE 2-1
_.. I - I ) _ . I --I -) __ lI -- - I _ I _ I _ _ I _ _I -1 _ 1 . _ l -A ._ _ y _ . I --I - --lI - _ j _11
N
N
LANLPl-lLL be Alril-UN I LU AI IVNS
FIGURE 2-2
�..
I
23
r
TABLE 2-1
+R
CURRENT DISPOSAL FEES
.. `
t,
AT THE CITY OF LUBBOCK LANDFILL
rVehicle
t'
Type
Disposal Fee Per Load
Pickups, Small Trailers
$ 1.25
r"
{�
Bobtail Trucks
$ 3.75
Semi -Trailers
$ 7.50
r-
Container and Packer Trucks:
R
20 Cubic Yards
, $18.75
24 Cubic Yards
$22.50
28 Cubic Yards $26.25
r-
r
f
24
r
►^ To determine the quantity of wastes collected by the City's
t collection force, a platform scale, located at the entrance to the City
landfill, is used to weigh incoming -City trucks only. Daily records are
maintained of the waste tonnage each City truck delivers. Private
r� trucks and trailers are not weighed, therefore, no record of waste
tonnages from these sources is available.
�+ The City landfill utilizes a trench and fill method for resi-
dential and commercial/industrial waste disposal. Using one or both
r.. of the landfill's scrapers, a trench is carved out of the earth and the
fexcavated material is stored for later use as a cover material. All
r. non -bulky residential and commercial/industrial wastes entering the
landfill's two compactors, and covered with earth at the end of each
�. operating day. All bulky wastes delivered to the City landfill are de-
posited in a separate 80 acre section of the landfill set aside for
this purpose. The bulky wastes are left uncompacted and are covered
once per month.
r Windstorms, a characteristic of the Texas Plains region, force
the City landfill to suspend operations when wind velocity is in excess
r
of 25 miles per hour. Windblown litter, dust, and debris are excessive
during windstorms, causing an unsightly nuisance to adjoining properties.
Presently, a separate trench is being excavated at the site for use
T
during windstorms. Screening will be arranged around the trench in such
a way as to minimize movement of windblown materials beyond the trench.
Remaining City Landfill Life. At the time the operational
r-
permit was issued for the present City landfill in September 1975, a
12 year life span (1987) was estimated for this facility. Since that
r-
time, a problem has arisen concerning a nearby radar tower, monitoring
air traffic to the west for Reese Air Force Base.
The City landfill is situated directly across Avenue P from
the radar tower (see Figure 2-2). The radar tower has been in operation
r since the late 1950's. When the present site was chosen for location
of the City landfill, fill height was not anticipated to be a problem
r
r
I
25
r
with respect to obstructing the radar's operation in the direction of the
landfill. As waste disposal progressed and the fill height increased, the
inability of the radar to track aircraft for Reese AFB in the direction
° of the landfill became apparent.
r` Addressing this problem, the Federal Communications Commission
°
has required the City of Lubbock to limit fill height to a maximum of
32 feet, which will provide unobstructed operation for the radar unit.
Presently, the City is removing 200,000 cubic yards of previously land -
filled material in the fill areas exceeding the 32 foot limit and rede-
positing the material in other areas of the landfill. As of May, 1980,
City officials believe the remaining life of the landfill to be 5 years
or less.
2.2 Privately -owned Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Practices
{�
I
Private Collection Practices. Private waste haulers currently
handle 80 to 85 percent of all commercial and industrial waste collection
within the City of Lubbock. These figures include collection performed
r
by the four waste collection/hauling concerns in the City and private
individuals or industries who haul their own wastes to disposal sites.
r►
The commercial and industrial waste stream in Lubbock consists mainly
of cardboard and paper wastes, cotton wastes from several cotton mills
r
located within the City, and manufacturing wastes such as plastics from
Texas Instruments, Inc., glass from the Coca-Cola Company, and metals
from local machine shops.
The greatest portion of Lubbock's commercial and industrial
r"
waste stream is collected by BFI (previously JAG Waste Systems, Inc.).
'
BFI performs approximately 70 percent of the collection of these wastes. -
r'
The remaining 10 to 15 percent of the commercial and industrial wastes
'
are collected by three other waste collection companies, including
^
Commercial -Industrial Disposal Service Co., FABIT Corp., and H. C. Watson,
in addition to private individuals and industries.
r-
0-
r
r
26
r
i"
Private Disposal Practices. Wastes collected by private haulers
f
within the City of Lubbock are disposed of at either of the two landfills
r
in the City, i.e., the City -owned landfill or the 94 acre site owned and
operated by BFI. The BFI landfill only accepts wastes collected by BFI,
or delivered by the following customers: The City of Wolfforth; Reese APB;
and Texas Tech University. Other private haulers utilize the City landfill
r
for waste disposal and are charged for this service.
The BFI landfill is also located north of the City on Avenue P,
r-
approximately 1/2 mile south of the City landfill on the eastern side of
E
Avenue P (see Figure 2-2). The process of waste disposal practiced at
f.
BFI is also the trench and fill method for compactible wastes. Non -
compactible (bulky) wastes are not accepted for disposal at BFI. All
r,
bulky wastes, including those collected by BFI, are directed to the City
landfill for disposal.
The BFI landfill operation is also susceptible to occasional
�.,
windstorms in the area. During windstorms and other inclement weather,
BFI closes its landfill and suspends its collection operation. According
i
to officials of BFI, the landfill has a remaining life of 12 to 15 years.
2.3 Proposed New Landfill Sites for the
City of Lubbock
As discussed earlier, the problem associated with the radar
rtower has limited the remaining life of the City landfill to approximately
5 years. The City plans to open a new landfill upon termination of the
P
existing one and is currently in the process of siting a new facility.
City officials have identified four sites having the greatest
r potential of becoming the new City landfill. All are located beyond
the City limits. Figure 2-3 shows the location of each site with respect
to the City of Lubbock.
Site No. 1 is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of
the City limits and approximately 4 miles due east of Lubbock International
• Airport. The site is 320 acres in area and is currently utilized for
27
PROPOSED
CITY LANDFILL SITES
FIGURE 2-3
r
28
agricultural purposes. Groundwater is at a depth of 90 feet or greater
from the land surface, therefore minimizing the potential for groundwater
contamination.
Site No. 1 is accessible from the City via State Highway Loop
289 and U.S. Highway 62 as shown in Figure 3. Presently, the segment of
r
roadway adjoining Site No. 1 is unpaved and will require improvement if
this site is chosen as the new landfill. One undesirable aspect of this
site is its location with respect to air traffic approaching the Lubbock
Airport from the east. Landfills usually attract great numbers of birds,
which may pose a hazard to aircraft. Since very few birds were observed
at the existing City and BFI landfills, their presence may not be a major
r..
problem at Site No. 1. However, bird hazards must be taken into consider-
ation when siting a landfill near an airport.
�^
I
As shown in Figure 2-3, Site No. 2 lies directly east of Lubbock,
approximately 1 mile from the City limits. The site is accessible via
Loop 289 and east 19th Street and includes an area of 320 acres. Presently
i
utilized for agricultural purposes, this site may provide shorter haul
distances for City and private collection vehicles than that of the
present City landfill. Electrical power is available nearby for use at
r"
the site.
Upon investigating water table data in the area of Site No. 2,
supplied by the High Water Conservation District No. 1, however, the
depth to groundwater was found to be 10 to 15 feet in most of this area.
This uncharacteristic high groundwater table is most likely the result
'
of groundwater recharge and irrigation practices conducted at the Frank
Gray Farm, adjacent to and south of Site No. 2. Mr. Gray disposed of all
treated sewage effluent from the Southeast Wastewater Reclamation Plant,
r
which is pumped to holding ponds on his property. Owing to the high
groundwater table present in this area, selection of Site No. 2 as the
!�
new City landfill may prove undesirable. Potential groundwater contamin-
ation could be a possibility associated with the disposal of solid waste
^
in this area.
W.
P.
29
r
rThe third location being investigated as a potential new City
i landfill is the site of an existing excavation operation bordering Yellow
,,. House Canyon. This site (No. 3) is approximately 9 miles southeast of
the Lubbock City limits via Loop 289 and FM 835. Groundwater is
approximately 300 feet below the land surface at this location.
Site No. 3 appears acceptable as a potential City landfill.
^ However, two factors should.be addressed before this site is considered
for selection. First, refuse truck traffic may be directed to Site No. 3
along roadways adjoining the Yellow House Canyon housing development
(see Figure 3). Residents of this development may object to the volume
of refuse truck traffic on these roads. Secondly, the increased hauling
distance to Site No. 3 as compared to the present City landfill, approxi-
mately 14 miles vs 7 miles from each respective site to the center of
r
Lubbock, may not be desirable for the City due to increased transport
costs.
The last site being considered for the new City landfill lies
approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the City limits. Site No. 4 is
320 acres in size and presently is used for agricultural purposes. It
is accessible from Loop 289 by traveling south on FM 1730 and east on
FM 1585 (see Figure 3). Groundwater in the area is presently at a depth
of 130 to 140 feet.
One major drawback may prevent the acceptance of Site No. 4
as the new City landfill. The majority of residential growth outside
'^ the City limits of Lubbock has occurred in the southwestern areas. Site
No. 4 is centrally located in this residential growth area and 12 or more
., homes line the single available access road. Public opposition to loca-
tion of a landfill at Site No. 4 can be expected. A landfill at this location may
.. also be incongruent with present land use planning. Conversely, significant growth
in this area may tend to alter the centroid of waste generation, with waste
.. transportation requirements diminished for this southwest area. These issues must be
addressed before considering Site No. 4 as a new City landfill.
" To summarize the findings of the landfill siting survey, a
landfill site evaluation matrix has been prepared in Table 2-2. The
.r
r-
30
TABLE 2-2
NEW CITY LANDFILL SITE EVALUATION MATRIX
Item
Site No. 1
Site No. 2
1. Proximity to
Excl. for North
Excl. for North,
Collection Areas
and East.
East and South.
Fair for South
Fair for West.
and West.
2. Access to Major
Good
Excellent
Roads
3. Proximity to
4 mi.
Nearest Airport
east
4. Site Size (Acres)
320
5. Approx. Depth to
90 or Greater
Groundwater (Feet)
6. Within 100 Yr.
No
Floodplain
7. Current Site Use
Agricultural
8. Surrounding Land
Agricultural,
Use
Vacant
9. Site Preparation Minimal
Required
10. Approximate Land 1000 to 3000
Cost ($/Acre)
11. Potential for Public Good
Acceptance
6 mi.
southeast
320
10 to 15
No
Agricultural
Agricultural
Minimal
1000 to 3000
Good
Site No. 3
Site No. 4
Fair for East
Excl. for South
and South.
and West.
Poor for North
Fair for North
and West.
and East.
Good
Good
12.5 mi.
10.5 mi.
southeast
southeast
Approx.320
320
300
130 to 140
No
No
Excavation Pit
Agricultural
Agricultural,
Agricultural,
Vacant,
Residential
Light Residential
Some Land Clearing
Minimal
and Grading
1000 to 3000
1000 to 3000
Fair Poor
31
evaluation of the four sites with respect to each of the items is shown
in the table.
2.4 Impact of RCRA on Existing Practices and Costs and Likely
Environmental Impacts from Future Landfilling
In 1976, the Federal Government enacted a Public Law (P. L.
94-580) to "provide technical and financial assistance for the development
of management plans and facilities for the recovery of energy and other
resources from discarded materials and for the safe disposal of discarded
materials, and to regulate the management of hazardous waste". This act
is known as the Resource Construction and Recovery Act of 1976 and is
referred to below.
As part of RCRA, minimum criteria were established for determining
those solid waste disposal facilities and practices that may have an ad-
verse impact on public health or the environment. These criteria refer
to the following:
(1) Floodplains
(2) Endangered Species
(3) Surfacewater
(4) Groundwater
(5) Application to Land Use for the Production
of Food Chain Crops
(6) Disease
(7) Air
(8) Safety
This section will discuss the impact of these criteria as they
apply to the present and future disposal practices of the City and BFI.
1. Floodplains. The sites of the City and BFI landfills are located
atop an outcrop of the Ogalla Formation which is the principal aquifer
for the City and surrounding area. Both sites are also within the 100 year
floodplain of Blackwater Draw, a tributary to the north fork of Double
32
r-
r. Mountain fork which runs from the Brazos River. The criteria for flood -
plains states that "Facilities or practices in floodplains shall not
.. restrict the flow of the base flood (100 year flood), reduce the temporary
water storage capacity of the floodplain, or result in washout of solid
�., waste, so as to pose a hazard to human life, wildlife, or land or water
resources". In that both disposal facilities are located within the
T„ 100 year floodplain of the Blackwater draw, they are apparently in viola-
tion of RCRA floodplain criteria. As previously described, potential new
landfill sites exist which do not lie within a 100 year floodplain.
l
r. 2. Endangered Species. Disposal "facilities and practices
shall not cause or contribute to the taking of any endangered or threatened
species of plants, fish, or wildlife..." as listed under the Endangered
Species Act. "Taking" means the harassment, harming, hunting, wounding,
killing, capturing, or collecting of the species or attempting to engage
in such conduct. In addition, "the facility or practice shall not result
in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of
endangered or threatened seecies...". Since no endangered or threatened
�+ species of plant or animal life are known to be present at the City and
f BFI landfills, both these sites appear to be in compliance with this
t
criterion. This would also appear to be true for all potential new land-
fill sites being considered.
3. Surface Water. The criteria for surface water states that
no disposal facility or practice shall cause a discharge of pollutants or
t
fill materials into waters of the United States. Surfacewaters, as well
as groundwaters, are most often polluted by leachate, a contaminated
liquid resulting from the passage of rain or surfacewater through a land-
fill. Since rainfall in the Lubbock area averages approximately 18 inches
per year, water runoff or infiltration from the landfill is expected to
be negligible in terms of potential surfacewater contamination. This
r1 would also appear to be true for all potential new landfill sites being
considered.
33
r 4. Groundwater. According to RCRA, a landfill "facility or
practice shall not contaminate an underground drinking water source beyond
.■ the solid waste boundary or beyond an alternative boundary specified...
as part of a solid waste management plan...". The groundwater table in
.- most areas in and around the City of Lubbock is at a depth of 100 to 300
feet. In the area of the two existing landfills, groundwater is presently
r.. at a depth of 130 to 160 feet. At this groundwater depth, contamination
of the Ogalla aquifer located beneath the two landfills is considered un-
r, likely, although the potential for contamination does exist due to the
absence of a lining at the walls and floor of the fill areas. Monitoring
r, well data indicated, as of the time of sampling, the groundwater at the
sampling stations remained uncontaminated. Meanwhile, as previously in-
dicated, only Site Number 2 at those new landfill sites being considered
would seem to pose a groundwater problem.
5. ADDlication to Land Used for the Production of Food -Chain CLODS.
This disposal facility criterion concerns the""application of solid waste
to within one meter (three feet) of the surface of land used for the pro-
duction of food -chain crops shall not exist or occur...". Specifically,
r
this criterion addresses the contamination of tobacco crops, crops grown
for human consumption, and animal feed crops by heavy metals and polychlor-
inated biphenyls (PCB's). Since operation of the City and BFI landfills
s
were not observed to practice disposal of solid waste within three feet of
surrounding farm lands, this criteria has apparently not been violated.
This also does not appear to be an insurmountable problem with respect to
new sites being considered (e.g., buffers can be provided).
6. Disease. This criterion concerns the possible spreading of
disease by vectors such as rodents or flies, or by pathogens contained in
r sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings disposed of at a landfill. Periodic
application of cover material to solid waste or other techniques to protect
.- public health from disease -causing vectors is required. Sewage sludge and
septic tank pumpings are required to be treated by a process to significantly
34
r reduce pathogen activity, prior to landfill disposal. The City and BFI
landfills cover disposed solid waste daily. This practice helps to discourage
.+ disease vectors from access to the waste. Minimal quantities of exposed
l solid waste were observed in some areas of both landfill operations. Sewage
.- sludge, septic tank and grease trap pumpings are accepted at the City
i
landfill for disposal.
7 Sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings which are disposed of
through trenching or burial, as is practiced at the municipal landfill, are
r, excluded from the predisposal requirement of treatment by a "Process to
Significantly Reduce Pathogens", mandated for surficial land disposal under
r interim final RCRA criteria. Municipal landfill acceptance of these wastes
is being conducted on an interim basis, pending the construction of a
r
facility for the treatment of sludges and septic tank pumpings to serve
the greater Lubbock metropolitan area. Hence, while there is presently
6
not complete compliance with RCRA, this is anticipated to be corrected within
the reasonable future.
7. Air. The disposal "facility or practice shall not engage in
open burning of residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial solid
r
waste. This requirement does not apply to infrequent burning of agricultural
wastes in the field, silvicultural wastes for forest management purposes;
land -clearing debris, diseased trees, debris from energy clean-up operations,
4
and ordnance". Open burning is not practiced at either the City or BFI
r-
landfills, therefore, both facilities appear to be in compliance with this
criterion. This is anticipated to be true, as well, for any future landfill
p sites and practices.
r 8. Safety. The safety criterion addresses potential hazards
of the landfill or landfill operation with respect to explosive gases,
fires, bird hazards to aircraft, and public access to the facility.
Methane is a potentially explosive gas often generated at a landfill from
r solid waste decomposition. Underground migration of methane from the
al
r
landfill to adjoining properties has been a problem in past landfill opera-
tions elsewhere in the country. If problems with methane should occur at
either the City or BFI landfills, safety measures such as installing
methane venting systems should be implemented. Prohibiting open burning
at the landfills will reduce the hazard of fire resulting from a possible
methane explosion.
Disposal facilities "within 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) of any
airport runway used by turbo jet aircraft or within 5,000 feet (1,524
meters) of any airport runway used by only piston -type aircraft shall not
r
pose a bird hazard to aircraft". Both the City and BFI landfills are
just within the 10,000 feet limit of runway used by turbojet aircraft at
Lubbock International Airport. Large numbers of birds were not present
I
at either the municipal or BFI landfills during site visitations on May 5,
r 6, and 7, have not been observed at the City landfill in � y past operations,
with the absence of a large avian population at the site mandated by State
Public Health Officials, due to the proximity of the Lubbock Regional
Airport. It would appear that despite this proximity to the airport,
RCRA criteria pertaining to avian interference with aircraft are not being
violated by existing landfill practice.
r" Public access to the City landfill is limited to the entrance
and exit gates on Avenue P. Fencing surrounds the entire City landfill
site. The entrance and exit roadways of the BFI landfill are restricted.
Other access to the BFI landfill is restricted through use of a soil berm
r- fronting Avenue P on the entire length of the landfill property line.
Similar design considerations are expected to be likewise implemented for
�. any future landfills.
36
SECTION III
ENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Overview
r
The combustion of solid waste offers the potential for not only
'
volume reduction of the waste, but also the potential for the production
r.
of energy. This section describes such systems for the production of
steam from municipal refuse or for the production of a fuel which can be
..
used in a remote boiler for the production of energy. Systems were eval-
uated in terms of their cost, technical reliability, energy efficiency,
P.,
and environmental impacts.
For the purpose of this study, Battelle evaluated the technical
and economic viability of five different types of combustion -boiler systems.
?
These systems were chosen for review because they are classified as
"commercially -available" technologies for the recovery of energy from
jwaste.
The systems evaluated are as follows:
• Mass -burning Waterwall Combustion (unprocessed waste)
• Mass -burning Refractory Combustion (unprocessed waste)
• Semi -suspension Burning Waterwall Combustion (processed waste)
• Suspension -fired Refuse -derived -fuel System
• Starved -air Combustion.
r
i
3.2 Description of Alternative Systems
I
Mass -burning Waterwall Combustion (unprocessed waste). The use
r
of waterwall furnaces for the recovery of steam from the combustion of
solid waste has been practiced widely in Europe for over 20 years. Con-
ditions that facilitated the development of steam recovery facilities in
Europe included the lack of available land for landfills, the relative
T
scarcity and cost of fossil fuels, and institutional factors (in Europe,
the responsibility for both refuse disposal and power generation are often
r
in the hands of one governmental entity).
r
37
r
Typically, in a waterwall combustion system municipal solid
r..
waste (MSW) is deposited on a tipping floor or in a large storage pit
from which it is transferred to a furnace feed hopper (Figure 3-1). From
,..
!:.
the feed hopper, the waste is fed onto mechanical grates where it burns
as it moves continuously through the furnaces. Noncombustible ash falls
r
i
off the end of the grate where it is quenched with water and then con-
veyed to trucks or a temporary storage pit. What distinguishes waterwall
rcombustion
units is that the furnace walls are enclosed by closely spaced
water filled tubes that absorb the heat and produce steam, while also
r
reducing the amount of excess air needed. The status of existing systems
i
is as follows:
^"
• Saugus, Massachusetts; This facility has been designed, built
and operated by RESCO, a joint venture of Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. and
r`
M. De Matteo Construction Company. It utilizes the established technology
r
of the Swiss firm of von Roll for which Wheelabrator-Frye is licensee in
the United States. The facility was started up in 1976 and is designed
i
to burn 1200 tons of solid waste per day and supply 8.4 x 106 lb of steam
f"
per day to General Electric's Lynn Works. The facility is now operating
routinely at near design capacity. Since it is owned by a private firm,
!'
complete information is not available but the operators indicate that it
is meeting its financial goals.
+�
• Nashville, Tennessee; This system was constructed in 1974 and
was designed to process 720 tons of solid waste per day. The facility
.�
generates steam and chilled water, which supplies heating and cooling for
the downtown area of Nashville. There were several problems with the plant
.�.
relating to corrosion and air pollution when it was originally installed,
but as of this time, these problems seem to have been corrected and the
plant is currently successfully operating.
• Norfolk, Virginia; This plant is located at the U.S. Navy
,.,
Base in Norfolk, was completed in 1967, and was designed to process 360 tons
I
of municipal solid waste per day. Steam production currently averages
T•
approximately 40,000 lbs per hour and supplies about 10 percent of the
basic requirement.
BOILER
I STACK
CONVECTION---r------------�
r
,
SECTION )
AIR POLLUTION I
LOADING
CONTROL
I
CRANE
,
UNLOADING
I I
SHED
I
t
1
,
FURNACE
GRATES
REFUSE
PIT
/
RESIDUE
FIGURE 3-1. TYPICAL MASS -BURNING WATERWALL COMBUSTION (UNPROCESSED WASTE) SCHEMATIC
w
00
39
• Braintree, Massachusetts; This system was completed in 1971
r and has a design capacity of 480 tons per day. The system has two units
operating at 240 tons per day per unit. The facility had been shut down
for several years due to non-compliance with air pollution standards; but
just recently, the system went back into operation after the installation
r" of electrostatic precipitators and is currently meeting both federal and
{' the State of Massachusetts standards.
• Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; This system was completed in 1972
and was designed to handle 720 tons of solid waste per day, and is
capable of producing 200,000 lbs of steam per hour.
t
Figure 3-2 shows a typical energy balance for a waterwall
+� combustion unit burning municipal refuse. In a well designed and operated
f
unit, more than 97 percent of the combustibles are consumed to liberate
r• heat from steam generation. European design and operating practices
indicate that approximately 70 percent of the energy in the refuse can be
r-. converted into steam. After accounting for the energy used to operate the
waterwall furnace, 55 percent of the input energy is available for sale
,-, to a customer.
f ;
I Residues produced from the combustion of refuse in waterwall
., incinerators represent approximately 5-10 percent by volume of the input
r
waste and 25 to 35 percent of their original weight.
General advantages and disadvantages of waterwall combustion
burning unprocessed waste are:
r„ Advantages
(1) It is the most widely -demonstrated of all waste -energy
processes.
(2) Good burnout of the ash is achieved.
(3) The system usually has less downtime than other
systems because there is no feed preparation
+r
system to break down.
(4) Relatively high thermal efficiency.
Disadvantages
(1) The waste supply and the steam use must be
reasonably in balance.
r+
(2) The waste is abrasive and high in ash.
r-.
r
40
DISSIPATED ENERGY
167 BTU
ASH & UNBURNT CARBON LOSS
125 BTU
.30 LB
r
NOTE: ASSUMING AN INPLANT ENERGY USAGE OF 750 BTU, THE NET ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IS 55 PERCENT,
FIGURE 3-2. TYPICAL MASS -BURNING WATERWALL COMBUSTION ENERGY BALANCE
r
41
1
(3) The volumetric heat release and thermal efficiency
of the boiler are slightly lower than would be the
case in a system designed for processed waste.
r
(4) The grate -type furnace used requires more maintenance
than a suspension -fired boiler.
(5) Byproduct recovery is generally limited to recovering
ferrous metals from the ash.
r
Mass -burning Refractory Combustion. In the 1950's and 1960's,
►^ a large number of refractory incinerators were built in the U.S. as our
country's first attempt to develop an alternative to landfilling. In the
•" late 1960's and early 1970's, however, many of these older incineration
units were shut down either because they did not comply with newer air
r- pollution standards or because they were too costly in that they did not
provide for energy recovery. This is in contrast with the European exper-
ience which has demonstrated extensive energy recovery for over the past
20 years, and which historically has consisted primarily of refractory
p+ incineration with energy recovery.
The nature of refractory incineration is to line the furnace
r.. walls with a heat -resistant refractory brick, and to recover heat through
r
a heat exchanger placed far enough up into the furnace to insure that
combustion gases have had sufficient time to become mixed before they
come into contact with it (Figure 3-3). While refractory incinerators
0. require more excess air, and are thus less energy efficient than waterwall-
j mass burning systems, they also are less susceptible to problems of
r corrosion.
The status of existing refractory incineration systems is:
• Portsmouth, Virginia; This system was completed in May of
1977 with a plant capacity of 160 tons per day. The system has two cells
operating at 80 tons per day. The system operates 24 hours a day, five
r
days per week, and produces 115 psig saturated steam. The system is
r+
equipped with electrostatic precipitators as air pollution control devices.
The system provides steam for the Norfolk Naval Ship Yard at Portsmouth,
_ Virginia.
_.. j - -1 I I -I __ } -I I - _1 - _l `_ 7 1 - I _) _, _ __I __ I _- ) - l I 1 l
LC
PRIMARY COMBUSTION WASTE HEAT WATER
CHAMBER WITH TUBE BOILER
MOVING GRADE
FIGURE 3-3. TYPICAL MASS -BURNING REFRACTORY COMBUSTION SCHEMATIC
OR
r.,
43
• Hamilton, Montana; The system installed in Hamilton,
f
Montana, is 17 tons per day and was installed in 1975 for the U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This is one of the few systems
fi
that has a grate and combustion chamber that has been designed as a modular
refractory unit. The Clean Air technology utilized was originally devel-
oped and installed in Chicago in 1964 where a 150 ton cell with a waste
heat recovery boiler was installed to produce steam for a railroad yard.
f
The Chicago facility consisted of three 150 ton cells with a total
capacity of 450 tons per day, but only one of these cells had a waste heat
I
recovery boiler, and the facility operated until 1972 when it was deter-
mined that the cost to update the system to include electrostatic pre-
cipitators to meet the then current air pollution control standards would
not be economically viable. Another Clean Air System was installed in Ogden,
Utah in 1966, consisting of two cells with wet scrubbers, and a third
installed in 1974, but all three were shut down in 1979 because of the
cost of adding electrostatic precipitators.
Figure 3-4 illustrates a typical energy balance for refractory
r
combustion with a waste heat boiler. An overall energy efficiency of
53 percent is indicated. Typically, residue from a refractors incinerator
averages 5-10 percent by volume and 25-35 percent by weight.
The advantages and disadvantages of incineration in a refractory
lined furnace with a waste heat boiler are:
Advantages
(1) There is considerable experience with this type
of unit.
(2) The furnace is able to withstand thermal cycling
better than waterwall furnaces.
(3) There is good burnout of the ash.
(4) It is possible to convert an old incinerator to
this system for energy recovery.
(5) There is less corrosion of boiler tubes than
r
with a waterwall incinerator.
Disadvantages
(1) It requires more space than controlled air or
waterwall furnace systems.
r
r
j
t.
i
r
n
t
a.
f,
f^
f
T 5000 BTU
1 LB MSW
i
DISSIPATED ENERGY
167 BTU
i R/C LOSSES
100 BTU
INCINERATOR
ASH & UNBURNT CARBON LOSS
125 BTU
.30 LB
44
FUEL GAS LOSS
1208 BTU
BOILER STEAM
3400 BTU
THERMAL EFF
68%
NOTE: ASSUMING AN INPLANT ENERGY USAGE OF 750 BTU, THE NET ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IS 53 PERCENT.
FIGURE 3-4. TYPICAL MASS -BURNING REFRACTORY COMBUSTION ENERGY BALANCE
[may
(2) The furnace and boiler must normally be obtained from
different vendors.
(3) The system is somewhat less efficient than a
waterwall incinerator.
(4) The system is less capable of producing superheated
steam (i.e., above 700°F) than waterwall systems.
P"
rMass-burning aterwall Combustion (Processed Waste). Waterwall
t
furnaces are also utilized to burn coarsely shredded solid waste. The
concept is that by first shredding the solid waste (and possibly removing
the ferrous metal and other noncombustibles), a more homogeneous and
thus more controllable fuel can be produced. The shredded waste is then
f
fed into the furnace by "spreader strokers" which allow part of the waste
~ to be burned in suspension, and p part to be burned on the grates: that is
i
why it is often referred to as a "semi -suspension -fired" system (Figure 3-5).
The status of existing systems is as follows:
i
e Hamilton, Ontario; This facility was constructed in 1972 and
has been in limited operation since. It was designed to handle 600 tons
of waste per day but has not achieved design capacity because of problems
with the materials handling systems which were designed without any
standby equipment. It has been operating successfully and continuously,
but at reduced capacity, since then.
i
e Akron, Ohio; This system was placed in service in July, 1979
r^ and is at last report still in the shakedown stage. The facility consists
of three semi -suspension boilers each having a burning capacity of 300 tons
r'* of refuse per day and a design steaming rate of 126,000 lb per hour. The
steam is supplied to several customers for space heating and to B. F.
�. Goodrich Company. Some steam is used to generate electrical power for
internal use and surplus steam is vented. The initial operating phase
r" has been successfully completed and some operating problems interfering
with smooth operations are being addressed.
r^ • Albany, New York; This system is presently undergoing
shakedown and is designed for 750 tons per day. The steam produced by
this system is for use in heating and cooling of state office buildings.
_.-1 _ _I 1 _ .1 __ I ._ I __I __1 — 1 - l _.A l n_1 -A 1 --1 --1 -_--I __I _- ---.1 1
AUTOMATIC
RECORDING
1l
/544 Mg
(600 TON)
SHREDDED
REFUSE
STORAGE BIN
w
REFUSE SHREDDER (A IN PARALLELI
COLLECTION 13.6 M91h 115 TPH)
TRUCK /
BRIDGE ACROSS PIT Q // BALLISTIC
IPICKING STA� N►/ REJECT CHUTE
REJECT BIN
CONVEYOR BOTTOM i
REFUSE RECEIVING PIT 1
o � i
Oo FERROUS METAL
SHREDDED REFUS
E
SE r�
SHREDDED REFUSE �-- L
STEAM
PORTABLE
FERROUS METAL
,+ BIN
ll /FL4Ea7F_1
may" ELECTROSTATIC
��FUSE STEAM GAS PRECIPITATORS STACK
SNREpOEp GENERATOR 12 PER BOILER)
is
FLY
AIR ASH
OUT AIR
ASH
SILO BOTTOM is
`ASH/ SIFT) �S
ASH SCREW CONVEYOR
ADJACENT ASH
LANDFILLr�
FIGURE 3-5. TYPICAL SEMI -SUSPENSION FIRED WATERWALL COMBUSTION (PROCESSED WASTE) SCHEMATIC
rn
r-
47
r�
e Hempstead, New York; This facility was constructed in late
1979 but is presently shut down because of air pollution problems. The
facility is designed to process 2000 tons per day of municipal solid
waste and produce through a wet -pulp method a refuse derived fuel that will
then be burned as the sole fuel source in a specially designed waterwall
combustion unit. Steam produced in the boiler will be converted to
electricity, which in turn will be sold to Long Island Lighting Company.
e Niagara Falls, New York; This system is undergoing shakedown
and scheduled for completion in early 1981. It is designed for 2,200 tons
per day. The steam produced by this system will be used for Hooker
Chemical and Plastic Company which is also the owner and operator of the
system.
A typical energy balance for a semi -suspension fired waterwall
r
combustion (processed waste) system is illustrated in Figure 3-6.
Residues should be approximately 22 percent by weight and 5 percent by
rvolume
with a net energy efficiency of 56 percent.
The advantages and disadvantages of the semi -suspension com-
bustion of processed waste in a spreader -stoker type waterwall unit are:
r
Advantages
(1) The fuel has a lower ash content and is less
abrasive than unprocessed waste.
(2) The volumetric heat release and thermal
efficiency of the boiler are slightly higher
than would be the case in a system designed
for unprocessed wastes.
r"
(3) There is good burnout of the ash.
r
(4) Relatively constant furnace temperatures are
r
achieved with no hot spots or clogging.
(5) The furnace can operate at lower excess air
^
ratios than conventional grate -type furnaces
without causing corrosion of the lower tube
r^
sections.
i
(6) There are fewer grate plugging problems than
n
with Funp rovened]was to .
48
5000 BTU
r 1 LB MSW
(I
1r
SHREDDING
MAGNETIC
SEPARATION
DISSIPATED ENERGY
167 BTU
R/C LOSS
100 BTU
THERMAL EFF.
72%
FLUE GAS
LOSS
1263 BTU
.08 LB ASH AND UNBURNT CARBON LOSS
0 BTU 25 BTU
.22 LB
NOTE: ASSUMING AN INPLANT ENERGY USAGE OF 825 BTU, THE NET ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IS 56 PERCENT
FIGURE 3-6. TYPICAL SEMI -SUSPENSION FIRED WATERWALL COMBUSTION
(PROCESSED WASTE► ENERGY BALANCE
STEAM
3600 BTU
P.
49
r
^
Disadvantages
(1) The waste supply and the steam use must be
reasonably in balance.
(2) Less down time and maintenance of the boilers
may be offset by greater down time for the front-
end processing system.
Suspension -fired Refuse -derived -fuel (RDF) Systems. Mixed solid
waste can be processed to produce a supplementary fuel to be co -fired with
i
coal in utility or industrial boilers. This "waste fuel" is commonly
called refuse -derived -fuel (RDF). A typical RDF System may use primary
^
shredding to reduce the particle size to 4 to 8 inches, followed by an air
classifier that separates from 50 to 85 percent of the shredded material
I
as RDF (Figure 3-7). The RDF is then passed through a secondary shredder
r
to reduce the particle size to a range from 1/4 to 2 inches. Finally,
.—
the RDF is transported, stored, and fired as needed into the boilers. The
status of existing systems is as follows:
r"
a Ames, Iowa; This facility, the first of the commercial RDF
units in operation, was constructed in 1975 and was designed to handle
P_
40 tons of solid waste per hour or 400 tons per day on a 10-hour operation.
The facility has been operating since November, 1975, processing approxi-
mately 150 tons of waste daily. The refuse -derived -fuel is pneumatically
transported to the adjacent city power plant where it is fired as a
'"
supplementary fuel in a pulverized coal-fired boiler.
a Baltimore County, Maryland; This plant is designed to ulti-
mately handle 1500 tons per day of municipal solid waste. The facility
has been in operation for approximately two years and has been shredding
^
refuse daily. The plant primarily is a demonstration facility and modi-
fications and optimizing of air classification and recovery of glass and
..
metals have all been part of the planned shakedown process. Most of the
shredded waste is currently being landfilled while a market is being
..
secured.
a Bridgeport, Connecticut; This facility is currently under
.�
shakedown. It is designed to process 1800 tons of waste per day and
R
produce a powdered fuel for use in utility boilers.
LIGHT MATERIAL AIR CLASSIFIER STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION
PACKER VEHICLE FEEDER .�-
HAMMERMIIL r �
BELT SCALE
O � FUEL STORAGE
C-6 \ SHEDS AND BINS
-- �,� POSSIBLE
HAW REFUSE HAND -j
DELIVERY PICKING
SEPARATION'
STATIONARY
CHUTE
COMPACTOR
BELT `
MAGNETIC BELT
SCALE \\I`
SEPARATOR t - HEAVY MATERIAL `
TRACTOR/TRAILER
MAGNETIC
FUEL TO UTILITY OR
INDUSTRIAL USER
TRACTOR/TRAILER DRUM/
OR BAIL SHUTTLE O
u�
n"
NON MAGNETIC
� FERROUS METAL
TO STEEL MILL RESIDUE
NON MAGNETIC METALS,
AND WASTE TO
GLASS,
FURTHER SEPARATION,
FERROUS METAL RECOVERY
STORAGE, OR TO SANITARY
LANDFILL
FIGURE 3-7. TYPICAL ROF FACILITY SCHEMATIC
LA
0
51
o Chicago, Illinois; This facility was completed in mid-1978
rbut
is still under shakedown. It is designed to process 1000 tons per
day of municipal refuse: The RDF is scheduled for use in a utility
r'
boiler.
e Lane County, Oregon; This facility was completed in the
summer of 1978. The facility is designed to process 500 tons per day of
municipal solid waste and produce an RDF fuel.
r'
o Milwaukee, Wisconsin; This facility was completed in 1978
and is designed to process 1600 tons per day of municipal solid waste
and to create a refuse derived fuel to be used by Wisconsin Power and
Light in one of their boilers. Presently, the plant is experiencing
problems in producing a RDF acceptable to the utility.
o Monroe County, New York; This facility is under construction
and is scheduled to start up in early 1981. The facility is designed to
process 2000 tons per day of municipal solid waste and to produce an RDF
i�
to be used in a utility boiler of a power plant.
Illustrated in Figure 3-8 is a typical energy balance for a
RDF System. Residues from such a system will amount to approximately
38 percent by weight and 20 percent by volume and the net energy effi-
ciency should be about 49 percent.
Advantages and disadvantages of a refuse derived fuel system
are:
Advantages
r
(1) Lowest capital cost as the boiler is not included
with the facility.
(2) It offers the best potential for recovery of by-
products from the waste in a salable condition.
(3) The fuel produced can be burned in most large
suspension -type coal-fired boilers.
r
(4) The fuel has a lower sulfur content than a corre-
sponding quantity of coal and may be used to
reduce the S02 emissions from a power boiler.
(5) The corrosive effects of the combustion products
..
are diluted by the use of the boilers normal fuel.
52
DISSIPATED ENERGY
.-1
BOILER LOSSES
1106 BTU
HEAVIES AND SCREENING ASH
1144 BTU 10 BTU
0.38 LB 0.04 LB
NOTE: ASSUMING AN INPLANT ENERGY USAGE OF 88 BTU FOR THE FRONT END SYSTEM
AND 66 BTU FOR THE BOILER, THE NET ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS 49 PERCENT
FIGURE 3-8. TYPICAL RDF ENERGY BALANCE
53
n
i
�.,
(6) The electrostatic precipitators will not lose their
efficiency as they would with low sulfur coal.
,.
Disadvantages
i
(1) The use of the fuel increases the quantity of flue
r
gas produced by the plant and thereby increases the
heat loss and reduces the boiler efficiency.
r,
(2) The increased flue gas quantity also reduces the
efficiency of electrostatic precipitators somewhat
and may cause slightly increased particulate
emissions from the boiler.
(3) The fuel cannot be burned in smaller boilers because
it will not burn out completely in the short suspension
times available in such boilers.
(4) The fuel generates considerably more ash than coal does.
Starved -air Combustion. Starved -air combustion is based on an
incineration unit where controlled air is employed to achieve combustion.
r
The incineration process employs two chambers to accomplish combustion
(Figure 3-9). These chambers are designated as lower (primary) and
r�
upper (secondary). The modular starved -air incinerators were developed
primarily for the combustion and reduction of industrial and institutional
waste in a "pollution -free" manner, without need of air pollution control
equipment.
rCombustion
is achieved in the lower chamber by controlling the
amount of combustion air so as to provide partial oxidation of the waste.
The effluent gas stream from the lower chamber is then introduced into
the secondary chamber where turbulent air -flow ignition takes place and
the combustion process is completed.
In order to achieve the anti -pollution features of the system,
it is important to control the conditions in the two chambers. The lower
chamber must operate at low interior gas velocities and under controlled
w
temperature conditions. This is achieved by limiting the air introduced
into the primary chamber to less than that necessary for complete com-
bustion. The heat release is sufficient to self -sustain the partial
54
SECONDARY STA,
FIGURE 3-9. TYPICAL STARVED•AIR COMBUSTION SCHEMATIC
ARY
ISTION
IBER
r
I
55
t
I
oxidation reaction. The resulting effect of this controlled oxidation
produces a gas that includes various pyrolytic and oxidative compounds.
..
The primary function of the upper chamber is to complete the
oxidation reactions of the combustible products as they are received
from the lower chamber. In order to complete this oxidation reaction,
r-
air is introduced into the system which ignites the gases. Following
is the status of existing systems:
r
i
• Blytheville, Arkansas; This facility was built in 1975 and
was designed to handle 50 tons of solid waste per day. A batch -fed unit
r-
operates 10 hours per day and supplies 24,000 pounds of steam per day to
a nearby chrome plating plant.
r
• Siloam Springs, Arkansas; This unit was built in 1975 and
was designed to process approximately 20 tons of solid waste per day.
The batch -fed facility operates 10 hours per day and supplies 4,500
pounds of steam per hour to a nearby food canning plant.
f
j
• Groveton, New Hampshire; This unit was built in 1975 for
the Groveton Paper Products Division of Diamond International and was
designed to handle 300 tons of mill waste and municipal solid waste per
day. The facility is equipped with automatic ash handling allowing for
.�
24-hour-a-day operation. The unit burns primarily dirt from the paper
mills, wood chip feed stock, mill waste, and one day a week, the City`s
municipal waste. The unit provides 4,000 to 6,000 pounds of steam per
hour.
r • North Little Rock, Arkansas; This facility, completed in
September, 1977, has a capacity of 100 tons per day of solid waste and
r produces 10,000 pounds of steam per hour for the Koppers Company railroad
tie and pole creosoting plant. The unit is equipped with automatic ash
r" removal for 24-hour-a-day operation. The facility also includes a
fossil -fired packaged steam boiler for back up.
!- A typical energy balance for a starved -air combustion unit is
given in Figure 3-10. Typically, such a unit should have a net energy
�^ efficiency of 50 percent.
Advantages and disadvantages of a starved -air system are as
... follows:
DISSIPATED ENERGY FLUE GAS
167 BTU 1645 BTU
1 20.13 lb
STEAM
�---' BOILER
AUX.FUEL SECONDARY
23 BTU COMBUSTION n THERMAL EFFICIENCY
I I 53%
rn
PRIMARY R/C LOSS
5000 BTU COMBUSTION 251 BTU
1 LB MSW
NOTE: ASSUMING AN INPLANT ENERGY USAGE OF 139 BTU AND SUBTRACTING THE 23 BTU
OF AUXILIARY FUEL, THE NET ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS 50 PERCENT
ASH
298 BTU
.45 LB
FIGURE 3-10. TYPICAL STARVED -AIR INCINERATION ENERGY BALANCE
r.
57
r
Advantages
r
l
(1)
Factory constructed modular system.
(2)
Numerous small installations through the United
States processing municipal solid waste.
Disadvantages
r
1
(1)
Uses auxiliary fuel to accomplish air pollution
control.
r
J
(2)
Energy efficiency from 48 to 60 percent
(depending upon the system manufacturer and
;~
type of waste heat recovery boiler employed.)
(3)
Small modules 25-50 tons per day existing systems.
r
(4)
Method of steam pressure control does not respond
quickly, thus requiring secondary steam control
systems.
3.3 Typical Environmental Impacts
There are four basic impacts to be considered in the establishment of
r a waste -to -energy facility. These are: atmospheric emissions, wastewater
disposal, residue disposal, and local and in -plant environmental impacts.
t Atmospheric emissions are produced by the combustion of municipal solid
waste. Municipal solid waste is far from being an easily characterized
7 homogeneous fuel. It varies widely, depending upon the geographical,
seasonal and weather related factors. Particulate emissions has been the
^ primary concern of most waste -to -energy systems.
Refuse is inherently a low sulfur fuel containing less than one tenth
rof the amount of sulfur found in typical low sulfur coals. Sulfur dioxide
formation has not been a problem. Carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons
P^ are not considered a problem in most energy recovery boiler systems due to
the high flame turbulence and combustion time. Chlorine contained in most
municipal refuse is in the form of sodium chloride and chlorinated synthetics,
which form hydrogen chloride when heated. Small quantities of hydrochloric
.. acid are produced from sodium chloride and chlorinated synthetics found
in municipal refuse.
r
58
r
Well designed electrostatic precipitators when utilized can remove
r
j 99.6% of the particulate matter, thus minimizing the facility's impact on
local air quality standards.
r
As part of the overall impact evaluation of a resource recovery facility,
the pollutants emitted by motor vehicles associated with the delivery of
r
refuse to the plant must be analyzed to determine the concentrations of
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxidants in the vicinity of the plant.
Water is utilized to some extent in all energy recovery facilities.
The discharge of this waste water produced by the operation of the facility
�. should be considered in any environmental impact study. These discharges
include processing waste waters, wash waters and waters associated with
the combustion process such as cooling towers and boiler blowdown.
The conversion of refuse to energy generally reduces the volume of
municipal solid waste by a factor of at least ten, thus increasing the life
of existing landfills. The bottom ash and flyash produced by these waste -
to -energy systems has been found to contain certain heavy metals. Howevev
i
the impact on the local environment is minimal when these elements are
disposed of in a properly designed and operated landfill.
Local and in -plant environmental impacts include: the containment of
the malodorous air within the plant; maintenance of the carbon monoxide
levels in the tipping area within OSHA limitations; fogging and disposition
of solids produced by the operation of cooling towers; and noise associated
with the operation of plant equipment and the delivery of refuse to the
r' facility. Most systems prevent malodorous air from escaping to the
ambient air by keeping the facility at a negative pressure compared to the
*� ambient air and by venting the air through the waste incineration system
where the malodorous substances are destroyed. Stack gases from a well run,
.► well -designed combustion cell system have a negative odor, which is quickly
I
brought below the threshold of perception by dilution in the atmosphere.
r. By providing adequate, fresh ventilating air, the exhaust gases from the
refuse vehicles delivering waste to the tipping area of the facility can be
,.� controlled. Odors from the combustion of the residue can be minimized
by providing excellent burnout followed by complete quenching of the ash
before hauling to disposal.
r
59
f"
l
Noise levels expected from traffic and unloading and p g processing of
waste can be minimized by proper engineering. Any equipment that can create
noise disturbance above ambient levels at the property line should be
isolated so as to muffle sounds. Traffic flows of waste being received at
r�
a facility should be designed so as to minimize its effect on residential
and other sensitive areas of the community.
f-
r■
i'l
l
�•. 60
SECTION IV
ENERGY MARKETS
4.1 Overview
The purpose of this section is to report on Battelle's investi-
gation of potential markets to purchase the products of an energy recovery
facility. The objective of this market investigation was to determine
whether there were any potentially viable customers to purchase such energy
products and develop an indication of current prices such customers might
be willing to pay.
4.2 Energy Recoverable from Lubbock's Waste
,. As indicated in Table 4-1, Lubbock's solid waste has an esti-
mated Btu value (heating value) of 4500 Btu's/lb. This compares with a
12,500 Btu/lb heating value for coal, 140,000-150,000 Btu/gallon for oil,
and 1000 Btu/cu. ft. of natural gas. Hence, solid waste is a less efficient
r fuel than other fossil fuels.
Before one can determine the.suitability of burning solid waste
.� to satisfy a particular market's needs, one first must know how much energy
e can be produced from solid waste. This is so as to determine whether
there is sufficient solid waste to satisfy a market's energy needs. Next,
jone must determine the equivalent fuel value for solid waste when it re-
places or is used as a substitute for another fossil fuel. This tells
one how much a market should be willing to pay for energy produced from
solid waste. Both have been calculated by Battelle for Lubbock's situation
using the following formulas:
T
(" 61
I
i
TABLE 4-1
r
COMPARATIVE BTU VALUES
Material Btu Value
r
Lubbock's Municipal Refuse 4,500 Btu/Ib.
r., Coal 12,500 Btu/Ib.
Oil 140,000-150,000 Btu/gallon
Natural Gas 1,000 Btu/cm. ft.
62
r■
To Calculate the Energy Content of Lubbock's Waste. Assume a
f higher heating value (HHV)1 for Lubbock's solid waste of 4500 Btu/lb and
r-
a projected 19832 waste generation rate of 306,000 tons per year (88,330
r tons per year residential waste only). Lubbock's solid waste is then
equivalent to approximately 2.7594 x 106 m Btu's/yr (7.9497 x 105m Btu's for
residential waste only); or assuming a 24 hour day, 365 day a year operation,
315 mBtu's/hour (90.75 mBtu's/hour for residential waste only).
To Calculate the Amount of Low-pressure Steam Produceable from
r Lubbock's Waste. Assume that water is heated from its initial temperature
to its boiling point at 150 pounds per square inch (psia). The boiling
i point for water at 150 psia is 358°F. (The boiling point for water at
ambient pressure is 212°F.) The energy required to raise the temperature
of 1000 lbs, of water (assumed initially at 80°F) to 358OF is:
. . .283,000 Btu's.
Additional heat is required to change the water from a liquid to
steam. The heat required to accomplish this change of state for 1000 lbs.
?" of steam is:
'. . . .864,000 Btu's.
r- Therefore, the total heat required to produce 1000 lbs. of steam
at 150 psia and 358OF (referred to as "saturated" conditions where the
s� steam temperature is at the liquid boiling point) is:
. . . 1,147,000 Btu's.
r. If Lubbock's solid waste is assumed to have a heating value of
4500 Btu's/lb or 9,000,000 Btu's/ton, we would expect to be able to produce
r" 9,000,000
19147,000 = 7.850 pounds of 150°F saturated steam/ton of refuse
r•
! However, it is not possible to effect a 100 percent efficient
transfer of energy from the combustion of any fuel, including solid waste.
1 Instead, losses occur due to the heat remaining in the flue gas, radiation
W losses, in complete combustion, etc. Thus, an energy recovery facility is
* (1) Corresponds to the net energy release when the waste and air
at 60°F are burned and the combustion products are cooled
at 60°F.
r (2) Earliest assumed date that a resource recovery facility could
be procured, constructed, and be operational.
r
63
tom'
said to have a thermal efficiency. The efficiency is the ratio of heat
r' transferred to the heat theoretically available in the fuel. For a typical
waste combustion process, this thermal efficiency can be calculated as
follows:
r.. 100 x (entering gas temp. -exiting gas temp.)
(entering gas temp. -boiler feed water temp.)
r'
x sensible heat in the gases that can be recovered
- heat loss due to combustibles left in the ash, etc.
= 100 x (1700 F - 450 F) x 87 percent - 5 percent
l (1700 F - 210 F)
68 percent thermal efficiency
f Note - Combustion temperature of 1700"F is typical U.S. practice for solid
waste as one wants the temperature to be above 1300 F so as to com-
pletely breakdown aldehydes and mercaptors which would otherwise
cause odors, but be below 2000 F so as to protect the refractory
,-� at the furnace.
T`
One ton of refuse should thus be equivalent to:
ro
7850 lbs. of steam/ton of waste x 68 percent efficiency
5,340 lbs. of steam/ton of waste
However, since boiler plants normally require certain portions
of their steam of "house heat" or for driving in -plant equipment, a factor
of 15 percent must be deducted to account for this:
r. 0.85 x 5,340 - 4,539 lbs. of steam/ton of waste
In summary, as a "rule -of -thumb", in this study to evaluate
potential markets it has been assumed that:
i
1 ton of input waste 4,539 lbs of low-pressure
.�
steam
242 TPD of waste (amount of
waste controlled by City)
24 hr./day = 45,768 lbs. of steam/hour
840 TPD of waste (total
generated within City)
.. - 24 hr./day 158,865 lbs. of steam/hour
r
rIk
64
r
r. To Calculate the Amount of High -Pressure Steam Produceable from
Lubbock's Waste. Some steam users might require higher pressures or "super-
heated" steam as is the case of the Saugus, Massachusetts resource recovery
project. These conditions are required where the intended use of the
P. steam is to drive mechanical equipment or turbines to generate electricity.
1 As an example, the Saugus steam conditions are 705 psis 875`F (referred to
y, as 270 superheat since the temperature is 270'F above the liquid boiling
point), with 250 F feedwater returned by the energy user to the resource
recovery plant.
r"
Assuming the same efficiencies and in -plant usage as described
r
earlier, and conditions similar to Saugus, the following additional "rule -
of -thumb" will be used herein as it applies to superheated steam.
pal • A resource recovery facility can produce for external
r sale 4200 lbs. of steam per day of 705 Asia., 875`F
steam, per ton of waste input, assuming 250 F feedwater
return.
• Thus, a plant waste throughput of 840 TPD would generate
r
147,000 lbs./hr. of superheated steam (42,390 lbs./hr.
for Lubbock's residential waste only).
To Calculate Potential Revenues Obtainable from the Sale of Steam.
r�
Conduct the following calculation:
Price/1000 lbs. of steam = price of gas/mcf (e.g., $2.40)
To Calculate Potential Revenues Obtainable from the Sale of Refuse -
Derived -Fuel (RDF). Conduct the following calculation:
.� 2000lbs/ton of waste x 0.62 (light fraction percentage recovered as RDF)
i x 6000 Btu/lb m 7.44 mBtu's per ton of input refuse available as RDF
r 2000 lbs/ton x 12,500 Btu/lb of coal = 25 mBtu's available per ton of coal
i
$25/ton of coal r 25 mBtu's a $1.00/mBtu of coal
r
j $1.00/mBtu x 7.44 mBtu's/ton of waste x .9(discount factor to compensate
energy market for increased firing costs, increased ash etc.)
r�
$6.70/ton of input solid waste
r•
65
4.3 Evaluation of Lubbock Power and Light
as a Potential Energy Market
�. In this study, the primary market that Battelle was asked to eval-
{, ate was Lubbock Power and Light (LP&L). Lubbock Power and Light provides
f much of the electricity used in the City of Lubbock, Texas. It is a
division of the City's municipal system. Natural gas accounts for 98
percent of its electrical generation. Lubbock Power's capacity is 225 MW.
This includes steam turbines (Plant No. 2), gas turbines (Plant No. 3), and
i diesel electric units.
r.., Last year Lubbock Power and Light generated 714,000 MW. Their
r' fuel costs were about 3 cents per KWH, and operating and maintenance costs
f, were about 0.9 cents per KWH. Retail sales are about 5 cents per KWH.
For the purpose of providing energy to LG&L, Battelle looked
r only at Plant No. 2 because only it has steam turbines. Total steam turbine
capacity of the plant is 67 MW. This consists of two 22 MW units and two
11.5 MW units. Each 22 MW unit has a Babcock and Wilcox gas -oil fired
boiler unit. The Babcock and Wilcox boilers are rated at 200,000 lbs.
s� steam per hour. The steam pressure rating is 975 psia and the temperature
rating is 910 F. Each 11.5 MW unit has a Riley -Union Iron Works gas -oil
r
fired boiler unit. The Riley -Union boilers are rated at 120,000 lbs steam
{ per hour. The steam pressure rating is 600 psia and the temperature
rating is 825 F. Boiler efficiencies are about 85 percent.
r
Alternative approaches to supplying energy to Lubbock Power and
Light and a discussion of issues related to each are as follows:
Provide Superheated Steam to Power One or More of Lubbock Power
r'
and Lights'Existing Turbines. Under this alternative, 825 F and 600 psia
steam would be utilized to power one or more of LP&L's existing turbines
so as to generate electricity. Assuming an energy recovery facility with
a waste throughput capacity of 840 tons per day, this could generate approxi-
mately 14 MW of electricity on a continuous basis. Assuming a resource
recovery facility with a waste throughput capacity of 242 tons per day
P_
r
66
(residential waste only), this could generate approximately 4 MW of electri-
city on a continuous basis.
t There is a or ma problem associated with the j p production of super-
heated steam from solid waste, however, in that burning solid waste at
high temperatures often causes excessive boiler corrosion.
Corrosion is caused by two major effects in high temperature
solid waste boilers. First, to produce high temperature steam, high temp-
erature combustion gas is required. Unfortunately, the high temperature
gas will cause some inorganic low eutectic, refuse flyash to become sticky
or melt. Examples are glass, earth, and aluminum and other nonferrous metals.
r
Unfortunately, refuse has a very high content of these undesirable
constituents.
r.
Under oxidizing furnace conditions, when these fluid inorganics
1
at a 1500°F combustion temperature hit the boiler tubes at 900°F, they
r�
instantly freeze. Deposits can build up several inches thick; enough so
that thermal transfer is hindered. Eventually, the thermal transfer falls
so much that combustion flue gases exiting the boiler and entering the
i
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) rise from their desired level. When this
T happens, the ESP is subject to its version of high temperature corrosion.
i
The plates become spongy and lose effectiveness. Next, reducing furnace
conditions cause the opposite to occur -that is, reducing conditions cause
the deposits to break loose. When the deposits are broken loose, the bare
P. metal tubes are again exposed to flue gases and the corrosion intensifies.'
In summary, high temperature combustion conditions subsequently enhances
r the corrosion process.
i
The second problem associated with production of very high
temperature steam is high temperature chloride ar sulfide corrosion.
E
In this regard, a common misconception that persists today is that if
alternating oxidizing/reducing furnace atmosphere conditions can be avoided,
( high temperature corrosion can likewise be avoided.
r
i
67
l
This might be true if the tubes were always bare, rusted steel. But they
i` are not. As previd.usly described under an oxidizing environment they are
quickly and heavily coated with tenacious deposits of potentially active
T" flyash. At this point, diffusion rates of gases through the deposits
causing chloridation and sulfidization will control the corrosion reactions.
r' That is, even when the furance atmosphere is in an oxidizing state, conditions
within the mineral deposit at the tube surface may be ozygen free and
r'^ FeC12 or FeS will be corrosion products.
Because of the above, recently (the last 3-4 years) there has
f been convergence of opinion to the effect that 650°F to 750°F is a prudent
temperature limit for refuse -fired boilers. Battelle agrees that, unless
numerous special measures are undertaken in design and operation, the
City of Lubbock should avoid constructing a high temperature incinerator.
Finally, an additional consideration is economic feasibility or
what such steam is worth to Lubbock Power and Light. Normally, the higher
the quality the steam, the more it is worth, though as mentioned previously,
the more costly it is usually to produce. In this case, however, the
steam would be worth less both because Lubbock Power and Light would still
have its own existing boilers to amortize, as opposed to a refuse -fired
boiler eliminating the necessity of building some new boiler, and
because Lubbock Powerand Light is presently burning relatively cheap
natural gas in relatively high efficient boilers. Under this alternative,
it is estimated that steam resources for an energy from waste project
would be $2.40 per thousand pounds of steam (1980 fuel displacement cost).
r-
t
68
r+
c
E.
Provide Medium -Temperature Steam to Power One or More of Lubbock
r
Power and Light's Existing Turbines. Under this alternative, medium-
temperature steam (750°F and 550 psia) would be provided to power one or
^
more of LP&L's turbines under derated or subdesign conditions. This is
considered to be a more attractive alternative than producing high -
r
temperature steam from a technical viewpoint, and is considered to produce
comparable economics.
r
jIn
this regard, there are two important elements of turbine -
generator performance to consider under subdesign conditions. The first
r
is thermodynamic efficiency of the turbine generator. The second addresses -
the possibility of resultant increased maintenance and wear on the turbine
^
generator.
With respect to thermodynamic efficiency, frequently the source
r
I
of the best and most expeditious information regarding overall turbine
generator performance under such conditions is the manufacturer of the
r�
turbine generator. Information obtained from the operating records often
provide an additional source of technical information required to address
r
these questions. Both form the basis of the following analyses.
i
As background, the thermodynamic performance of a turbine
generator is established from basic thermodynamic principles. For each
selected steam inlet condition (pressure and temperature) a "Turbine
State Line" can be developed which defines the thermodynamic properties
of the steam as it passes thorugh the turbine generator to the condenser.
r"
A "first -law of thermodynamics" analysis of information derived from the
state line provides information regarding turbine generator output.
In this regard, it is estimated that a refuse -fired facility
providing steam at 550 psia, 750°F would result in 20.9 MW generation
(vs 22.1 MW presently) and a heat rate of 9.8 x 103 Btu per KWH (vs 9.6 x
103 Btu per KWY presently).
^
The basis of this analysos is the 1-22-56 heat balance test of
t
Westinghouse units 6 and 7, Plant II. The heat balance test data was
r
used to establish a turbine state line on a Mollier Chart.
r
69
r, The new state line was established on the basis of judgement
j that 13 percent moisture in the exhaust steam was commensurate with
acceptably low erosion of the last stage blades. The present state line
indicates 11 Fercent moisture. A further basis of the state line was
a maximum main steam temperature of 750°F. The resulting steam inlet
conditions are 750°F, 550 psia.
The analysis assumes that the inlet nozzles would be modified
to maintain 188,000 lb per hour main steam flow. No other cycle modifica-
tions were considered.
With respect to the issue of increased maintenance and wear
on the turbine generator, when a turbine generator is used in conjunction
with a bulk burning refuse fired boiler, there are two major considerations
which can affect operations and maintenance. The first concern involves
f
the possible use of lower temperature steam to the turbine generator.
In addition to the effect on thermodynamic performance as outlined above,
n
the lower inlet temperature results in increased amounts of droplet mois-
ture in the steam passing through the low pressure stages of the turbine.
rIf the steam temperature were reduced to 750°F, and there was some
t+ attending reduction in pressure from 850 psi, it is unlikely that the
backend erosion would be excessive. Should experience indicate high
rates of backend erosion, replacement blade leading edges can be supplied
r
with Stellite or other hardfacing.
The second concern relates to the constant level of steam temp-
erature since turbine generators operate best when steam inlet temperatures
are unvarying. Bulk -burned refuse is not a uniform fuel. Unless care
r- is exercised, the bulk combustion of refuse can lead to significant
1
fluctuations in steam temperature.
rFinally, under this alternative steam revenues from a waste-to-
energyare projected to be $2.40 per thousand p j p pounds of steam x 0.85 (dis-
count factor to reflect decreased efficiency and greater maintenance
t
costs for the turbo generato-i = $2.28/1000 lbs. of steam (1980 fuel dis-
placement cost).
r
+" Provide Feedwater to LP & L's Existing Boilers
i
Another possible use for a refuse -fired boiler would be to preheat
the feedwater used in the existing system. However, this is not a very
good alternative for a number of reasons.
70
r
The first disadvantage of using an auxiliary boiler to heat
feedwater is that large quantities of water would be required. The
potential heat gain per pound of feedwater in the auxiliary boiler would
l
be about 250 Btu. The rate of refuse firing is about 35 TPH. At 4500
Btu/lb and a boiler efficiency of 68 percent the total heat addition to
the feedwater would be 214 million Btu/hr. This will heat 857,000 lb/hr
of feedwater. The four steamboilers together only use 640,000 lb/hr at
r�
i
full load. Thus it would be difficult to burn all the refuse available.
i
Another disadvantage to using an auxiliary boiler to heat feed -
water is that the existing boilers would all have to be cross tied since
all the feedwater would be going through the auxiliary boiler. Since
^`
the existing boilers are at different pressures (two at 975 psia and two
at 600 psia) two separate parallel boiler paths would be required. This
r
r
increases the cost of the auxiliary boiler. The actual cross ties and
associated piping, values and fittings would be quite expensive.
r`
High temperature corrosion will not be a problem. However,
since the feedwater is at a low temperature the auxiliary boilers final
pass may be so low that back end corrosion could be a problem. To correct
(�
this problem, the exiting exhaust temperature could be raised. This
I"
3
will reduce the boilers efficiency though.
i
If the auxiliary boiler is used in place of the turbine feed -
water heaters the turbine cycle efficiency would drop. The extraction
i'
stages are normally used to heat the feedwater. This increases the turbine
r•
cycle efficiency. So part of the gain by using refuse fuel would be
offset by turbine cycle losses. Also, since the water in the turbine
r.
cycle is at a very low temperature, this approach would lead to corrosion
as discribed above. The heating of feedwater in the auxiliary boiler as
r.
a replacement to heating water in the boiler preheater would have fewer
t'
corrosion problems since the water would be at higher temperatures.
r„
However, the boiler cycle efficiency would drop since the boiler exhaust
gas temperature would increase. An air preheater could be used to reduce
r„
this effect but it would add additional costs to the system.
Thus, it is felt that using an auxiliary refuse fired boiler
to heat feedwater is not practical. Cost is prohibitive, system
r
71
flexibility is reduced, the system would be complex, and efficiencies
would suffer. Battelle does not recommend this alternative as a solution
to Lubbock's refuse disposal problems.
4.4 Evaluation of Other Potential Energy Markets
r
n In addition to Lubbock Power and Light, other potential energy
markets that were evaluated were:
• Texas Tech University
• Reese Air Force Base
• Southwestern Public Service
r'^
is
• Texas Instruments
r.,
• The Methodist Hospital
• St. Mary of the Plains Hospital
• New Industrial Steam User (e.g., Michelin or
t^ others)
Following is a discussion of each of these markets.
Texas Tech University. At the present time, the major steam
r
user in Lubbock is Texas Tech University. The University produces steam
for central heating and cooling for both its main campus and its Health
Sciences Complex. In this regard, the University completed in 1967 a new
gas -fired steam plant for its main campus and completed in 1971 a new
~ gas -fired steam plant for its Health Sciences Campus. The steam plant
'r
for the main campus consists of two Vogt 200,000 lbs of steam/hr boilers
and one CE 125,000 lb of steam/hr boiler. The steam plant for the Health
' Sciences Campus Center consists of two Riley 80,000 lbs of steam/hr boilers.
In order to be able to burn solid waste, these facilities would
require grates to handle the resultant ash from the burning of solid
waste. Neither of the Universities steam plants possess such grates,
thus are incapable of burning solid waste. As such, the only feasible
i alternative would be to produce and sell steam to the University. In
this regard, the approximate cost that Texas Tech is presently paying for
natural gas is $2.35/mcf. Hence, the approximate cost that Texas Tech
72
could conceivably justify paying for steam would likewise be $2.35/1000 lbs.
of steam (based upon its 1980 fuel displacement cost only since it would
r-
still have to amortize its existing boilers, and it has no need or plans
to expand its facilities).
Reese Air Force Base. Reese Air Force Base is perhaps the
second largest steam user in Lubbock, though one disadvantage of it as
r
an energy customer is the fact that it is located 10 miles outside
Lubbock. Other than energy consumed by vehicles or residences on the
base, its primary steam users are the Base Hospital, Hangar 82, Maintenance
f
Hangar 59, and Corrosion Control Hangar 102. Each has its own boiler
which produces steam by burning natural gas. While figures for gas con-
sumption are not available for each hanger, totally these major facilities
r consumed thus far for 1980 a low of 7,126 kcf in the month of June and a
high of 33,148 kcf in February. Based upon its current cost of $2.41/mcf
r' that it is paying for natural gas, the approximate cost that Reese Air
Force Base could conceivably justify paying for steam would be $2.41/
1000 lbs of steam. Like Texas Tech, Reese has no current plans for ex-
pansion and hence the above cost is based only upon its projected fuel
t displacement costs.
Southwestern Public Service. Southwestern Public Service has
a facility outside of Lubbock consisting of two 256 MW gas -fired units,
r' and additionally is building a coal-fired facility 60 miles northwest
{ of Lubbock in Muleshoe that will consist of two 550 MW units (the first
r` unit to go on-line in 1982, and the second in 1985). From a practical
1
point of view, the only potential for utilizing solid waste would be to
r- prepare a refuse -derived shredded fuel to be co -fired with coal in the
{ new facility to be built in Muleshoe, and to either truck or rail -haul
n the refuse -derived -fuel the 60 miles from Lubbock. This is something
that Southwestern Public Service is already investigating as an
r• alternative, and has contracted with CE KOL Laboratories to test -fire
samples of refuse from Lubbock in their laboratories to determine ash
r-
P
I
73
r. content, etc. A disadvantage of Southwestern Public Service as a market,
however, is the cost of transporting the waste the 50 miles to Muleshoe
�.. and the relatively low cost that it proposes to pay for coal. Given
the fact that it expects to pay $23-25/ton for low -sulfur Wyoming coal,
r. conceivably the amount that Southwestern Public Service could justify
paying for a refuse -derived fuel would be $6.70/ton of input unprocessed
waste.
r Texas Instruments. Texas Instruments produces steam for
j heating and cooling of its manufacturing plant in Lubbock. In this re-
._ gard, it has two 400,000 HP boilers, one 300,000 HP boiler, and one
100,000 HP boiler. All are relatively new boilers (first was installed
in early 1975) burning relatively cheap natural gas (approximately
r
$2.80/kcf). The plant's highest energy demand is in February when it
consumes approximately 13 x 103 kcf of natural gas, and its lowest energy
demand is in August when it consumes approximately 3.8 x 103 cf. Pre-
sently, Texas Instruments is considering the installation of a small
modular incinerator to burn its own waste (12-15 tons per day, 5 days/
week) and produce steam, but it generally is not interested in building
a facility larger than necessary to burn its own waste. Assuming, however,
that it were willing to purchase steam from a larger facility implemented
r
by the City to burn all of the City's refuse, conceivably the most
that it could justify paying for such steam would be $2.80 per 1000 lbs.
of steam (based upon Texas Instrument's fuel displacement cost only
since, like the other energy markets mentioned, it would not be avoiding
the capital costs of its own existing or proposed new boilers).
r" The Methodist Hospital and St. Mary of the Plains Hospital.
` Site interviews were not made to these two potential markets as were to
others previously described, but telephone interviews were conducted.
In this regard, it was determined that St. Mary of the Plains has three
500 HP boilers and two 50 HP boilers; with one 500 HP boiler being two
years old, one 50 HP boiler being two years old, and the rest being
r
74
r. ten years old. The Methodist Hospital, on the other hand, has one 300 HP
boiler built fn 1974 and two ]50 HP boilers built in 1952. Both have
excess boiler capacities, though neither was willing to reveal the level
f
of their specific steam demands. Nor were they willing to reveal their
r, costs for natural gas. Given a cost for natural gas similar to that
f
being paid by other large energy users in the Lubbock area, however,
it can be estimated that the most that either hospital could justify
paying for steam would be $2.40 per 1000 lbs. (again, based only on
their fuel displacement costs).
New Industrial Steam User (such as Michelin). A final energy
market alternative considered was to sell low-cost steam to a new indus-
trial complex as an inducement to locate in Lubbock. The advantage to
industry to locate in Lubbock and purchase such steam is that it would
be guaranteed a long-term supply of cheap energy, and would avoid the cost
of having to build its own boiler facility. The advantage to Lubbock
is that it would not only be able to burn its solid waste to produce
energy, thus reducing its costs and space needed for landfilling, but
it would thus also be able to attract new industry to Lubbock. In this
P"
regard, Battelle contacted the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce and determined
that the only major energy user presently considering locating in Lubbock
within the fairly immediate future was the Michelin Tire Corporation.
Consequently, Battelle contacted Michelin so as to determine what might
be their steam requirements or interests. The response that Battelle
received was that Michelin could not properly respond to either of these
r
two questions unless it first knew more specifics of a project proposed
by the City. Thus they neither rejected the concept nor encouraged it,
fand
since this was not the primary scope of work of Battelle there was
not adequate time or resources in this study to pursue the matter further
with Michelin. Conceivably, if Michelin were not interested, some
other industry might be interested. Also, conceivably such industry
could justify paying a cost of $3.50 per thousand pounds of steam since
not only would there be a fuel savings, but they would avoid the costs
!`
of building their own boiler(s).
75
r
SECTION V
EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Overview
As a result of the existing system, market development, and
waste -to -energy technology analyses presented in previous chapters,
r Battelle in this section of the report has examined alternative solid
waste management options for the City of Lubbock, contrasting the
^
feasibility of implementing different waste -to -energy projects with
the approach of continued reliance primarily upon landfilling.
All of the alternatives considered here are based upon the
C.
assumption that only 242 tons per day of residential waste are collected
7 by the City (and are thus controllable), hence a facility should be
sized accordingly. If a larger facility were implemented, there might
i.
be some economies of scale, though it might be difficult to find an
energy market that could use all of the plant output (except for LP&L
r or Southwestern Public Service).
` All the alternatives presented were furthermore selected not
because they are necessarily economically feasible (the purpose of this
section was to determine economic feasibility), but because they are
^ illustrative of the broad range of alternatives available. In this regard,
i
following is a discussion of the solid waste management alternatives
studied:
• Implement a refuse -derived -fuel system with sale of a
processed waste fuel to Southwestern Public Service.
• Implement a mass -burning refractory combustion system
with the sale of steam to either LP&L or a new industrial
steam user (such as Michelin).
• Implement a starved -air combustion system with the sale
of steam to either an existing steam user (Texas Tech,
Texas Instruments) or a new industrial steam user (such
as Michelin).
• Implement a new landfill.
76
5.2. Implement a Refuse -Derived Fuel System With Sale of a Processed
Waste Fuel to Southwestern Public Service
One alternative considered here is the implementation of a
system to process the City's solid waste into a refuse -derived -fuel (RDF)
and then truck or rail -haul such RDF to Muleshoe to be co -fired with
coal in Southwestern Public Services new coal-fired plant presently
under construction.
Cost estimates and related assumptions for this alternative are
as follows:
• Waste would be processed to remove non -combustibles and
achieve a 1/4-inch uniform particle size by two -stage
shredding and air classification. Approximately 62 per-
cent of the waste by weight would be recoverable as fuel.
• First stage shredding and air classification would take
place at a central processing plant located in Lubbock.
Wastes would then be compacted and trucked to Muleshoe.
• Second stage shredding would take place at the Muleshoe
plant to break up the compacted waste and further reduce
its particle size. Wastes would then be pneumatically
conveyed and co -fired with coal in one of the Southwestern
Public Services' boilers.
• Because of the amount of waste that is controllable
by the City to assure an adequate waste supply, the
facility would be sized for 242 tons per day.
• Residues would amount to 38 percent by weight of the
input waste tonnage. Residue disposal would cost $5.00/ton.
• Capital and operating costs and revenues would be as follows:
P_
77
TABLE 5.1 REFUSE -DERIVED -FUEL
Project CAPITAL COST (242 TPD)1
Item 1980 Dollars
Equipment
Land $ 50,000
Processing Plant 5,797,000
Pneumatic Conveyors 225,000
Storage Bin and Foundation 1,030,500
Supporting Electric 171,000
Minor Equipment and Start-up 150,000
Boiler Modifications 268,500
Engineering 412,500
Subtotal $8,104,500
Contingency $810,450
Financing Costs $2,050,439
Total Bond Issue $10,965,389
'Actually, the plant would have a design capacity of 50 tons per hour or
500 TPD (assuming a 10 hour day). This is deemed to be the smallest
capacity shredders that are feasible for processing municipal solid
waste.
78
TABLE 5.2 REFUSE -DERIVED -FUEL
Projected Operating Cost (242 TPD)
Item 1980 Dollars
Labor
$343,160
Power
214,640
r
(
Other Utilities and Supplies
10,800
i
Maintenance
112,620
Misc.
119,260
Residue Disposal
167,830
r
Contingency ($1.00/input ton)
88,330
i
Management for ($.05/input ton)
44,165
P.
Total
$1,100,805
`
Dollars/Throughput Ton
$ 12.46
79
TABLE 5.3 REFUSE -DERIVED -FUEL
Projected Project Economics (242 TPD)
Costs
Debt Servicel $1,201,220
0 6 M 1,100,805
Subtotal $2,302,025
Revenues
RDF $ 591,811
Ferrous2 132,495
subtotal 724,306
Net Annual Cost $1,577,719
Cost Per Ton $17.86
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus Cost of
Transportation of RDF to Muleshoe3 $741,972
Adjusted Net Annual Cost $2,319,691
Adjusted Cost Per Ton $26.26
Notes
1Financing at 9 percent interest for 20 years
2Assumes .075 percent in waste and 90 percent recovery, or a total of 133 lbs.
of ferrous recovery/input ton of waste. At $25.00 per ton of ferrous, this
provides revenues of approximately $1.50/input ton of waste.
3Assumes a one-way haul distance of 60 miles, 1-1/2 hours travel time each way
plus a turn -around time of 1/2 hour at each end. Transportation cost is based
upon 3.5 cents/ton minute.
80
r• 5.3 Implement a Mass -Burning Refractory Combustion
System With the Sale of Steam to Either LP&L or
a New Industrial User (Such as Michelin)
A second alternative considered here is the implementation of
r"
a 242 ton per day mass -burning refractory combustion system with the sale
of steam to either Lubbock Power and Light or some new industrial user
r'
(Michelin or some other).
If steam were sold to Lubbock Power and Light, steam would
*"
ideally be produced at 600 psia and 650°F. This is because the facility
f
would generate only 43,390 lbs. of steam/hr, as opposed to the requirements
r-
of Lubbock Power and Light's smaller 11.5 MW turbines of 120,000 lbs of
steam/hr each, thus steam would have to be produced at a steady 600 psia
..
so as to be able to be mixed with that produced by LP&L's existing
turbines. The temperature of the steam, on the other hand, should be
650°F or less so as to protect the refractory.
Meanwhile, if steam were sold to a new industrial user, the
,..
temperature and pressure would be selected to correspond to the user's
needs, though again the temperature should be less than 650°F. Also,
while the following costs are based upon a 242 ton per day system that
r„
would generate 42,390 lbs of steam/hr, if an industrial user's steam
demand were less, a smaller facility could be built.
Cost estimates and related assumptions for such an approach are
as follows:
• The facility would be located either adjacent to LP&L's property
r�
or that of a new industrial energy user.
i
• The system would consist of three (3) 100 ton per day modules.
This would give the plant an 80 percent availability factor
ri
assuming a 300 TPD design capacity and a 242 TPD throughput
capacity.
-
• Because there would be no front-end processing, there would
be no ferrous recovery.
• Residues would be 30 percent by weight and cost $5.00/ton
for disposal.
r�
• Capital and annual operating costs and revenues for the
facility would be as follows:
r
81
r" TABLE 5.4 REFRACTORY COMBUSTION
Projected Capital Cost (242 TPD)
1980 Dollars
Item Option w/out turbo-gen. Option with turbo-gen.
Land (5 acres)
$50,000
50,000
�..
Site Development Work
150,000
150,000
Grading, Bldg. Excay.,
Sewers, Paving, Sidewalks,
r,
Curbs, Driveways, Fencing,
Lighting, Landscaping, etc.
Scales and Scale House
50,000
50,000
`
Plant Building
1,000,000
1,000,000
Including Offices,
w
Construction and
General Work
Major Equipment
4,653,000
4,653,000
`
Including APC System,
Incinerators -Boilers,
.�.
Instrumentation
Stand-by Boilerl
--
1,200,000
Misc. Plant Equipment
170,000
170,000
r+
Movable Equipment
Spare Parts
Steam Lines
275,000
275,000
Turbo-Generatorl
--
1,500,000
Subtotal
$6,348,000
$9,048,000
Engineering (10%)
$634,800
$904,800
$2,289,144
Financing Costs (23%)
$1,606,044
$1,805,040
Total Bond Issue
$8,588,844
$11,757,840
1Stand-by boiler would be used only in supplying steam
to a new industry that does
�.
not install its own boiler.
This would be to assure
reliability of steam supply.
2Is optional, and would only
be utilized if a new industry
needed low -temp. steam
thus making it possible to use a turbo -generator to extract
some of the heat
.�
value of the initial steam produced so as to generate
electricity (e.g., go from
650 F to 150 F).
r-
r-
82
Assumptions for Table 5.4 Refractory
Combustion Projected Capital Cost
Land - Battelle has projected that the land requirement would
r not exceed five acres.
Site Development Work - Site development work includes grading
of land, building excavation, water and sewer excavation, paving, sidewalks
and curbs, driveways, fencing, outdoor lighting, landscaping, foundations,
and retaining walls.
r
Scales and Scale House - Included is a weight scale and scale
house of the latest design for computerized operation.
Plant Building - Included is the plant building, offices, all
construction and general contracting work.
Mechanical, Electrical and Instrumentation Work - All mechanical
work including plumbing, air conditioning, equipment installation and
r
pressure and process piping; all electrical work including building lighting,
primary and secondary power system, equipment installation, control center
installation, distribution system, instrumentation installation and all
0
electrical materials are included.
Incinerator -Boilers - Included is the complete incinerator -boiler
plant, boiler auxiliary system, and air pollution control system.
Stand-by Boiler - Included is one standby dual -fired natural gas
or oil boiler with a steam generation capacity of 45,000 lbs, of steam/hr.
Miscellaneous Plant Equipment - Included are utility air compressors,
laboratory equipment, water softening equipment, hot water equipment, mainten-
ance cranes and hoists, maintenance equipment, steer tractor leaders and spare
parts.
Steam -lines - Included is the installatin of lines and meters for
both steam transmission and condensate return. (1000 ft of 10" steam main
and 1000 ft. of 3" condensate return line).
Turbo -generator - Included is a topping extraction turbine and all
"" auxiliaries with a capacity of 45,000 lbs. of steam/hr.
83
TABLE 5.5. REFRACTORY COMBUSTION
Projected Operating Cost (242 TPD)
Item
1980 Dollars
Labor
Plant Superintendant
$
25,000
Secretary/Clerk
9,000
Scale Operator
9,000
Operating Engineers (4)
60,000
Maintenance Mechanics (1)
15,000
Assistant Maintenance Mechanics
44,000
and Auxillary Loader Operators (4)
Loader Operators (4)
44,000
Labor Fringes (20%)
41,200
Subtotal
$
247,200
Utilities
Electricity (.022/Kw)
$
117,900
Oil
93,200
Other Utilities
15,000
Boiler Treatment
$
25,000
Maintenance
$
162,400
Office Supplies
$
2,000
Residue Disposal
$
132,495
G&A
$
10,000
Contingency ($1.00/ton of throughput)
$
88,330
Management Fee ($0.50/ton of throughput)
$
44,165
Total
$
937,690
Dollars/Throughput Ton
$10.62
84
{., Assumptions for Table 5.5 Refractory
Combustion Projected Operating Cost
T"
i
Labor - Labor salaries projected for the plant include a plant
superintendent, a secretary/clerk, and a scale operator. Four operating
engineers are projected, one for each shift and one for rotation.
g P , j
f
A maintenance engineer is projected with four assistant main-
i
tenance mechanics, one assistant maintenance mechanic for each shift
and one for rotation. The assistant maintenance mechanics may also be
I
utilized as leader operators.
Four loader operators are projected, one leader operator for
T^
t
each shift and one for rotation. Also projected is 20 percent overhead
for labor fringes.
i
Fuel - Fuel is projected on the basis of the use of No. 2
'
oil for start-up and warm-up of the furnaces, use in the stand-by boilers,
^
and for the operation of the steer tractor loaders.
t
Boiler Treatment - Projected is the cost of chemical treatment
for boiler make-up water. The calculations used to determine the amount
of make-up water required have been estimated on the basis of 85 percent
►'
return at condensate and a 5 percent boiler blowdown. Chemical cost has
been estimated at $2.40 per thousand gallons of make-up water..
a`
Plant and Office Supplies - Projected are miscellaneous plant
'
and office supply items.
r4
General and Administrative - Projected are miscellaneous general
and administrative expenses, including facility insurance.
,..
Maintenance Costs - Projected on the basis of the following: the
complete replacement of all grates once per year; a refractory maintenance
�.,
reserve to completely replace the refractory every 5 years; a general main-
tenance reserve for periodic maintenance of fan systems, refractory and general
maintenance items, and boiler maintenance at a rate of 5.5 cents per thousand
pounds of steam generated. A breakdown of costs is as follows:
i,
Dollars
Incinerators - boilers $110,661
r
APC Equipment 3,030
Other Equipment 48,750
85
TABLE 5.6. REFRACTORY COMBUSTION
Projected Project Economics (242 TPD)
1980 Dollars
Steam Only Co -generation to
Item to LP&L New Industrial User
Costs
Debt Servicel $ 940,878 $1,288,030
O&M 937.690 937.690
Subtotal $1,878,568 $2,225,720
Revenues
Steam to LP&L2 2 $ 846,647 --
Steam to New Industry -- $1,299,677
Electricity -- 247,558
Ferrous -- --
Subtotal $ 846,647 $1,547,235
Net Annual Cost $1,031,921 $ 678,485
(Annual Tipping Fee)
Net Cost Per Ton $11.68 $7.68
(Tipping Fee/Input Ton)
NOTES:
l Financing at 9 percent interest for 20 years.
2 Assumes the production of 42,390 lbs at medium temperature
steam per hour for sale to Lubbock Power & Light at $2.28 per
thousand pounds of steam.
3 Assumes the production of 42,390 lbs at medium temperature
steam per hour for sale to a new industry (who would not build
their own boilers) at $3.50/1000 lbs of steam.
4 Assumes 30 lbs of steam/kwh at $0.02/kwh.
86
of Steam to Either an Existine Steam User (Texas Te
Another alternative considered here is the implementation of a
starved -air combustion system with the sale of steam to either an exist-
ing steam user such as Texas Tech or Texas Instruments, or a new industrial
steam user such as Michelin.
As previously described in Section IV, Energy Markets, the
advantage to Texas Tech or Texas Instruments of purchasing such steam is
not to avoid the cost of building a new boiler as both have relatively new
boiler systems. Rather the advantage to either would be to purchase
relatively cheap steam, and to reduce their haul costs (and possibly tipping
fees) for the disposal of their own solid wastes. Meanwhile, the difference
between refractory combustion and starved -air combustion is that with a
starved -air system only low -temperature steam would be produced, thus one
would not attempt to use part of the heating value of the steam to also
generate electricity.
Cost estimates and related assumptions for such an approach are
as follows:
• The facility would be located adjacent to the site of the
proposed energy user.
• The facility would consist of six (6) 50-ton-per-day modules.
This would give the plant an 80 percent availability factor
assuming a 300 TPD design capacity and a 242 TPD throughput
capacity.
• Residues would amount to 45 percent by weight and would cost
$5.00/ton for disposal.
• Capital and operating costs and revenues would be as follows:
r
87
TABLE 5.7. STARVED -AIR COMBUSTION
Projected Capital Cost (242 TPD)
Item
1980 Dollars
Land
$ 50,000
(5 acres)
Site Development Work
150,000
Grading, Building, Excavating,
Sewers, Paving, Sidewalks, Curbs,
Driveways, Fencing, Lighting,
Landscaping, etc.
Scales and Scale House
50,000
Plant Building
2,600,000
Including Offices,
Construction, and
General Work
Major Equipment
4,513,000
Incinerator -Boilers
Instrumentation
Stand-by Boiler
1,200,000
Miscellaneous Plant Equipment
333,000
Movable Equipment
Spare Parts
Steam Lines
275.000
Subtotal 8,571,000
Engineering (10 percent) 857,100
Financing Costs (23 percent) 2,168,963
Total Bond Issue 11,596,563
rw
7
88
TABLE 5.8. STARVED -AIR COMBUSTION
Projected Operating Cost (242TPD)
Item
1980 Dollars
Operational Personnel
Labor
$ 204,000
Supervisory
138,000
Other
119,000
Subtotal
461,000
Utilities
Electricity
104,000
Water
6,000
Oil
85,000
Other
4,000
Subtotal
199,000
Plant Maintenance
Labor
15,000
Supervisory
20,000
Supplies and Spare Parts
107,000
Subtotal
142,000
Raw Materials
15,000
Contract Services 37,000
Equipment and Service Maintenance 44,000
Residue Disposal 198,743
Office Supplies 2,000
G&A 10,000
Contingency ($1.00/Ton of Throughput) 88,330
Management Fee ($.50/Ton of Throughput) 44,165
TOTAL 1,241,238
Dollars/Throughput Ton 14.05
r
r
89
TABLE 5.9. STARVED -AIR COMBUSTION
Projected Project Economics (242 TPD)
1980 Dollars
Steam to Steam to New
Item Existing User Industry User
Costs
Debt Server' $1,270,363 $1,270,363
G&M 1,241,238 1,242,238
Subtotal 2,511,601 2,511,601
Revenues
Steam to Existing User2 891,207 --
(e.g., Texas Tech, Texas
Instruments)
Steam to New Industry3 -- 1,299,677
Subtotal 891,207 1,299,677
Net Annual Cost 1,620,394 1,211,924
(Annual Tipping Fee)
Net Cost Per Ton 18.39 13.72
(Tipping Fee/Input Ton)
'Financing at 9 percent interest for 20 years.
2Assumes the production of 42,390 lbs of low temperature steam
per hour for sale at $2.40 per thousand lbs of steam.
3Assumes the production of 42,390 lbs of low temperature steam
per hour for sale at $3.50 per thousand lbs of steam.
P.
r 90
C" 5.5 Implement a New Landfill
i
r- The final alternative considered here is to implement a new
Jlandfill. Landfill costs are based upon both a projection of existing
rcosts and the conceptual design of new landfill features necessary to
t comply with the provisions of RCRA. Finally, the landfill would be
sized to handle only Lubbock's residential waste.
Costs and related assumptions (calculations) for this alter-
native are as follows:
1. Calculate Land Acreage Required:
r, (a) Assume in ground bulk density = 1000 lb/yd3 (waste and
cover):
242 TPD x 1000yd3
1b x 2000onbs = 484 yd3 per day
(b) Calculate total yd3 disposal over 20-yr life, for 1.46
annual increase in generation:
484 yd3/day x 365 days/yr x 20 yr x 1.01419 - 4,601,393 yd3
(c) Calculate land area required --assume trench fill is 24'
(8 yd) deep:
4,601,393 _ 8 x 9 ft2/yd2 - 5,176,567 ft2
(d) Convert to acres:
5,176,567 ft2 x acre = 118 acres
4.356 x 10 ft
Assume that this is enough land for disposal site, roads
i
and buildings, etc.
(e) Additional acreage required to serve as buffer: 118 acres
(f) Total acreage required: 236 acres
2. Calculate Land and Site improvement Costs:
(a) 236 acres x $2000/acres - $472,000 for land
(b) Site preparation and engineering =
118 acres x $1500/acre = $177,000
" (c) Clay liner - 118 acres x $26,000/acre - $3,068,000
(d) Leachate Collection/Recirculation System = $20,000
(e) Methane Vents = $48,000
(f) Scales and scale house - $50,000
F.
91
(g) Monitoring Well - $11,000
i
(h) Revegetation = 236 acres x $1,000/acre - $236,000
(i) Total land improvement costs - $4,082,000
1
(j) Amortized at 9% interest for 20 years, annual debt
r
service - $444,938/yr.
3.
Calculate Equipment Costs:
(a) One D8 or equivalent dozer - $275,000
t
(b) One Cat. No. 9776 or equivalent loader $135,000
r-
(c) One Cat. 613B or equivalent Pan Scraper = $100,000
(d) Total equipment cost = $510,000
r
(e) Amortized at 9%.interest for 5 years, annual debt
l
service = $131,117/yr.
r.
4.
Calculate Labor Costs:
.(a) Assume following labor force:
i.
1 supervisor
1 cover equipment operator
r,
1 scale operator
l dozer operator
r„
2 back-up operators
(b) Assume average salary of $15,000/yr each and fringes
n
at 20 percent:
j
6 x $15,000 x 1.2 - $108,000/yr.
5.
Calculate Maintenance Costs:
n
(a) Assume annual maintenance and repair cost 16-18% of
equipment cost
$510,000 x .17 - $86,700/yr.
6.
Calculate Fuels and Utilities at 10% of Equipment Cost:
n
$510,000 x .10 = $51,000/yr.
7.
Total 1980 Estimated Annual Landfill Operating Cost - $798,220
8.
1983 Estimated Annual Operating Cost/Ton = $9.04
r
r' •
r
92
5.6 Comparison of Alternatives and Life -Cycle
Cost Estimates
r
i
I In order that the reader may follow the various multiplications
r+ and divisions performed on the cost figures to arrive at cost per ton
jl estimates, the previous cost per ton estimates were stated to the nearest
r.. cent. This could cause a reader to interpret them as representing a
i
higher degree of accuracy than they really imply. In fact, because they
.. are based only upon gross cost estimates and not detailed engineering
cost estimates or vendor bids, they should be interpreted as representing
r, only relative orders at magnitude of cost. Actual costs, on the other
hand, could be significantly different due to specific design and site
r„ specifications, specific energy revenues negotiated with energy markets,
costs of financing, inflation etc.
r
Furthermore, the previous cost estimates were based on 1980
cost and revenue assumptions for illustrative purposes. In fact, probably
the earliest that an energy recovery facility could be procured, constructed,
t
and made operational would be late 1983, and by then operational costs
and revenues would have escalated due to inflation while debt service
r
would have remained fixed. Assuming that operational costs and revenues
r..
escalated at the same rate, this means that an alternative where operational
costs exceeded revenues would become increasingly more costly, while an
alternative where revenues exceeded operational costs would become in-
creasingly profitable. The rate of change for either would depend upon
the assumed rate of inflation.
,+ Following, then, are projected life -cycle costs for each
alternative assuming that each would become operational in late 1983 and
operational costs and revenues have been escalated accordingly at 10 per-
cent per year for the first five years of operation. Beyond that, no
attempt has been made to project costs because of the uncertainty as to
what would be an appropriate rate of inflation. Furthermore, to reflect
7 that such costs are only meant to be gross estimates, costs have been
presented in a format ranging from plus 50 percent to minus 50 percent of
projected costs.
Based upon these life -cycle cost estimates, it appears that a
refractory combustion system involving co -generation and the sale of steam
r-
I
93
to a new industry and the sale of electricity to LP&L or Southwestern Public
Service would be the most cost-effective solid waste management alternative
for the City of Lubbock. This assumes, of course, that a new industry could
be obtained as a steam purchaser.
Until such time as a new industry could be developed as a steam
customer and on appropriate waste -to -energy project implemented, the most
cost-effective solid waste management alternative for the City would appear
to be continued landfilling.
Frankly, other energy recovery alternatives do not appear to be
economically competitive within the near future with the cost of landfilling
given current assumptions regarding energy costs, environmental regulations,
rates of inflation etc. As these assumptions change, however, the feasibility
of other energy recovery alternatives should again be renewed.
94
TABLE 5-10 PROJECTED DISPOSAL COSTS (DOLLARS)
WASTE -TO -ENERGY ALTERNATIVES
Sale of Steam
Sale of RDF to
to LP&L or
Sale of Steam
SW Public Service
Existing Industry
to new Industry
New Landfill
1983
24-36
11.70-12.20
4.50-6.70
7.90-11.90
1984
29-30
11.80-12.30
3.90-5.90
8.60-12.90
1985
26-39
11.90-12.40
3.40-5.00
9.30-13.90
1986
27-41
12.60-12.50
2.80-4.20
9.90-14.90
1987
28-42
12.10-12.60
2.30-3.40
10.60-15.90
r 95
^ SECTION VI
ENERGY RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION: PROCUREMENT, FINANCING,
AND RISK MANAGEMENT
The purpose of this section is to discuss some of the structural,
management, and financial factors which will need to be considered
by the City of Lubbock in deciding whether to proceed with the imple-
mentation of a waste -to -energy project and, if it decides to proceed, how to
achieve successful implementation. The discussions in the three parts
of this section will deal with three complex decision areas that are
integral to the successful implementation of an energy recovery pro-
ject: (1) procurement approaches; (2) financial alternatives; and
(3) risk management.
The first two parts discuss the various alternatives and
the advantages and disadvantages of each. The third part discusses
the concept of Risk Management and the methods of sharing risks in
relation to the goals of the proposed energy recovery system owner,
the suppliers of the waste materials, the system operator, and the
buyer of the recovered product (energy).
1
In this regard, procurement and financing represent the
means or method of implementing a project. Risk management, on the
other hand, represents the overall strategy of risks versus rewards
^ that should ultimately dictate what procurement and financing approaches
will be utilized. An understanding of all three is critically important
to such a complex undertaking as a major energy recovery project in
that not only is it an organized method of approaching any project,
^ but an energy recovery project potentially represents one of the most
capital -intensive investments a community might ever make. Additionally,
^ an energy recovery facility is essentially a manufacturing plant which
uses as its feedstock the discards of society to produce valuable
.� products (energy and materials), and such public sponsorship of a
manufacturing business is a new activity for state and local govern-
ments.
al
A
Unfortunately, for many other similar projects delays in
implementation and financing have been caused by the lack of under-
standing of risk management issues related to waste stream control,
r,
methods of procuring a system, or duration of contracts etc. Because
project sponsors have not understood the implementation process and
r
i
requirements, they have failed to recognize and resolve early these
risk management issues. The penalties for this failure generally
have been costly in terms of time and money. In two cases, it is
known that about six to twelve months were lost on projects costing
r
$80-$100 million because of this failure. Due to inflation, costs
for those two projects increased $70,000 to $80,000 for each month
of delay. Risk management, financing, and procurements issues thus
must be considered early in the implementation process.
r
Following, then, is a discussion of each of these issues
'-
as they relate to Lubbock's situation:
6.2 Procurement Approaches
Architectural and Engineering Approach
This is the traditional approach municipalities have taken
to procure Public Works facilities such as schools, bridges, etc.
It involves two main steps, the retention of an architect and engineer
r to draw up plans and specifications for the desired capital improvement
and the hiring of a construction contractor to construct the facility
�j from these plans.
k ' This ap
proach is almost always coupled with city ownership
and operation and with public financing.
One of the advantages of an Architectural and Engineering
Approach is that it is easier to perform organizationally since the
"rule book" for it is "tried and tested". Another advantage to the
Architectural and Engineering Approach is that it could be potentially
' the lowest cost solution to the city. If a city hires a system con-
tractor to design, construct, and possibly operate a recovery facility
for the city, the cost to the city would include management fees and
.� a profit for this contractor. The city would pay a lower total price
97
r
r., for the physical facility by managing the procurement itself via
the Architectural and Engineering Approach mode.
The key disadvantage of the Architectural and Engineering
Approach is that if the system fails to operate at the expected price
or does not operate at all, the city alone bears the full financial
burden.
Another key disadvantage of the Architectural and Engineering
n
Approach is that it is not applicable to those technologies that
are patented by system contractors that require a turnkey or full ser-
vice arrangement (as many energy recovery technologies are).
Turnkey Approach
In a Turnkey Approach, the city hires a system contractor
` to design, build, and start-up a recovery system for the city for
.- a fixed price. Alternatively, pricing arrangements may be a cost
plus fixed or percentage fee, or a target price with incentives or a
r guaranteed maximum price.
In any event, the Turnkey Approach usually puts the city
~' in the position of not having to accept the facility until it has been
shown that the facility operates in accordance with the technical and
performance specifications agreed to prior to construction. As such,
the Turnkey Approach involves much less risk to the city than an
A & E approach, though the city still assumes the risks of operation and
long-term performance of the facility. A disadvantage, of course,
is that the private sector will expect to be paid for taking a greater
risk.
98
r• Full Service Approach
i
In the Full Service Approach, the system contractor offers
the city an energy recovery disposal service instead of a plant. The
contractor finances and builds the facility to perform this service.
i
i
The contractor owns it and is responsible for insuring that it performs
the recovery service throughout the life of the city's disposal contract.
17
The system contractor will usually charge a set tipping fee
for each ton of solid waste delivered by the city for process. This
r
fee will vary over the life of the plant according to escalator and
renegotiation clauses in the contract between the city and the contractor..
r+
'
The contractor will make its profit and pay for its plant with revenues
from the tipping fee and revenues from the products sold. Contract
life must be long enough to enable plant pay-off. Usually this is 15
to 20 years.
A Full Service contract shifts even more risk from the city
to the system contractor since the system contractor is obligated to
perform a certain service at a stipulated price. Cost escalators
in the contract may transfer to the city some of the risks of higher
r
than anticipated capital and operating costs, but, as in the Turnkey
Approach, catastrophic failures would be the contractor's responsibility.
The Full Service Approach is especially important in the
light of the state of energy recovery technology, which is complex,
~
expensive, and still largely unproven. Under the best circumstances,
system debugging will be necessary and thus from a stand -point of
risk, it can be ascertained that a Full Service Approach offers two
key benefits to municipalities: these being deferred acceptance and
direct experience. Under deferred acceptance, the city bears only a
fraction of the risk involved with the facility since it pays for the
^
facility only after it is working and pro -rated over the life of the
project. Direct experience means that the system developers provide
^
the design, construction, start-up, and operation of the plant increasing
the likelihood of success because they developed the concept and they
■^
have the most experience with it.
r
99
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT APPROACHES.
Process Steps
Design
Services
Construction
Services
Construction
Supervision
Services
Equipment and
Materials
Shakedown
Services
Operation and
Maintenances
A S E
Turnkey Full Service
A & E
Firm
Contractor
A 8 E
Facility System
Firm
Contractor Contractor
Vendors
Operator
Operator
Operator
rr
F�
100
r.,
Another advantage of the Full Service Approach is that it
exempts the city from the problems of marketing the recovered products,
,.
transferring that responsibility to the contractor, who may have more,
proficiency in that role.
r.,
Most of the disadvantages of the Full Service Approach are
the higher costs and the difficulties of obtaining private firms who
f,
are willing to take the large capital risk of constructing and operating
f
a plant under a Full Service contract when the costs and profits are un-
certain. Another is potential legal obstacles to this form of procure-
ment under State law which normally favors an A & E turnkey procure-
ment (e.g. prohibits long-term service contracts, prohibits the
selection of a service contractor on any basis other than lowest cost,
prohibits competitive "negotiated" procurements, etc.). In the State
r
of Texas, the State Health Department has indicated that there does not
1
appear to be any explicit legal cases or statutes that either provide
`
for or explicitly prohibit such procurement methods, and it is unclear
as to whether the Courts would rule that consequently the statutes
r.
should be interpreted permissively so as to grant local governments such
authority or not.
T
6.3 Financial Alternatives
Municipalities commonly draw from two basic sources to obtain
r capital for facilities and equipment: current revenues and borrowing.
Current revenues or capital budget financing is not feasible
with capital intensive purchase.
Borrowing is the local government's second alternative for
financing purchases of equipment and facilities. Borrowing options
incorporate such borrowing mechanisms as General Obligation Bonds,
Municipal Revenue Bonds, bank loans and leasing.
A third alternative is to contract with private firms for
the service, thereby shifting the capital raising burden to the private
r
101
r. firm. Private financing can incorporate financing mechanisms such as
Industrial Revenue Bonds, Pollution Control Bonds, bank loans, leverage
�.. leasing and private capital.
Following is a description of specific alternatives.
r
General Obligation Bonds
General Obligation Bonds are long-term, tax-exempt obligations
secured by the full -faith -and -credit of a political jurisdiction which
r
has the ability to levy taxes. This full -faith -and -credit is based on
h the municipality's ability to levy on all taxable real property such as
valorem taxes as may be necessary to pay the principal and interest on
the bonds.
rR
A typical General Obligation Bond is offered competitively
for sale to bidders. A competitive bid solicitation invites investment
' banking underwriters and banks to make sealed bids for the right to
purchase and resell the bonds. The bidder offering the lowest net interest
cost to the municipality wins the right to place the bonds with its
customers.
General Obligation Bonds typically require a successful referendum
to be held in which more than 50 percent of the qualified electors voting
must vote in favor of the bond.
The advantage to General Obligation Bond financing is that it
r is one of the most flexible and least costly public borrowing methods.
It requires no technical or economic analyses of the project to be financed,
r- and it is the least difficult to the market.
The main disadvantage to a General Obligation Bond financing is
that it requires voter approval (Article 701, Tex. Rev. CIU. Stat. Ann. -
1964) and the holding of special elections may be expensive. Furthermore,
it limits the City's to obtain money for other projects based upon its
"full -faith -and -credit" (i.e., using up a major portion of the City's debt
capacity).
102
r�
i
i
Municipal Revenue Bonds
Municipal Revenue Bonds are long-term, tax-exempt obligations
issued directly by municipalities, authorities and quasi -public
agencies. Project revenues are pledged to guarantee repayment of
r"
debt. A Municipal Revenue Bond is issued to finance a single
.�
project with revenue producing services.
Municipal Revenue Bonds do not have the full -faith -and -
credit clause. This increases the risk associated with Municipal
Revenue Bonds, thus, correspondingly, the interest rate is higher.
The typical Municipal Revenue Bond is negotiated rather than
r
competitively underwritten.
The main advantage to Municipal Revenue Bond financing is
that the project revenues guarantee the payment, and its issuance
is not constrained by municipal debt limitations. These bonds do
r
not require voter approval.
The main disadvantage to Municipal Revenue Bond financing is
r�
that in order for a Municipal Revenue Bond to be issued, it
requires detailed documentation including a summary of the project's
technology, products and economic viability, which requires time in
preparation that can delay the raising of capital. Furthermore,
interest rates are higher than General Obligation Bonds. This can
be approximately 30 to 45 basic points higher than on similar rated
r^
'
General Obligation Bonds (a basic point equals 1/100 of a percent).
Municipal Revenue Bonds pay higher interest rates because the investor
'-
assumes a higher risk when he invests in them. Finally, y, to guarantee
revenues for the project, the City likewise must be abe to control, and
'^
and thus guarantee, its waste supply to the project. while politically
this may be a problem, legally it does not appear to be a problem since
r"
Section 1.3 of the Texas County Solid Waste Control Act establishes publicly
owned and operated solid waste disposal. facilities as utilities and author-
izes local governments offering such services to require their use by all
within the public agency's jurisdiction.
103
Special Revenue Bonds
Special Revenue Bonds may take numerous forms, but
/^ essentially, again a stream of municipal revenues is pledged to
secure the repayment of the bonds issued.
Revenue bonds with an additional secured pledge is one
type of Special Revenue Bond. These bonds are backed by revenues
r. from the project and a pledge of debt service backed up by general
funds of the municipality in case of a project default.
�. Revenue bonds secured by a pledge of controllable revenues
is another type of Special Revenue Bond. These bonds are backed by
promise of the municipality to charge rates for some service, such
as garbage collection, sufficient to cover debt service for the
project.
Revenues for these types of bonds may be from a special
taxation district, an unrelated revenue district, the financed
project, or from some other source.
Pollution Control Revenue Bonds and Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds
` Pollution Control Revenue Bonds and Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds are long-term, tax-exempt obligations issued by a public
instrumentality on behalf of a private enterprise. The instrumentality
'^ acts as a vehicle through which a corporation may obtain low-cost
financing. Pollution Control Revenue Bonds and Industrial Develop-
ment Revenue Bonds are secured by the assets of the corporation and
by the projected revenues of the project. The credit -rating of the
corporation determines the cost to that corporation of a Pollution
Control Revenue Bond and Industrial Development Revenue Bond.
Interest rates are usually over 50 basic points higher than those
rates on General Obligation Bonds. Correspondingly, they are usually
r..
r-
104
i
a
r" nearly 200 basic points below the current corporate debt rate. To
make the bonds marketable, Pollution Control Revenue Bonds and In-
dustrial Development Revenue Bonds often require a corporate guarantee
of the debt service payments.
�.� For either, the City technically owns the facility and the
equipment, which it then leases to the private firm. The lease
vy payments are tailored to meet the scheduled payment of principal and
interest on the bonds. If the payments between the corporation and
the municipality are structured as an "installment sale" or as a
"financing lease", the corporation may claim ownership for tax
purposes. This gives the corporation tax benefits in the form of
accelerated depreciation or investment tax credits. Furthermore,
should the corporation fail to make payments or go bankrupt for some
reason, the City is not liable to continue making payments on the
bonds.
The main advantage of this type of financing is that it
does not require voter approval, and municipal debt limitations do
T^
not apply.
' The main disadvantage to this type of financing is that
r
detailed documentation similar to that required under Municipal
Revenue Bonds must be prepared, and the community must sign long-
term contracts to provide a minimum supply of solid waste.
Leverage Leases
Leverage leases are technicallv not financial instruments.
Rather they are packages that combine several financial options.
The concept is based upon the benefits (lower long-term capital and
7
` interest costs) that accrue to a city if a financial intermediary,
a corporation or individual, is interposed between a long-term
source of capital and the municipality. This type of financing
involves two major participants, a financial intermediary (lessor)
i
and the city (lessee). It differs from traditional Leasing in that
both lessor and the City provide capital funds to purchase the asset.
Usually the lessor puts up 20 to 30 percent of the cost of the asset, and
f" the local government finances the remaining portion through a typical
105
i
r
borrowing method.
The financial intermediary acquires the tax advantage of
�..,
ownership and, therefore, can pass on to the city a very low
interest rate, usually lower than General Obligation Bond rates,
on his share of the cost of the asset. The intermediary is able
to provide funds to the municipality at a very low interest rate
because he is the owner of the entire facility from tax stand-
point and can depreciate the investment and can claim the invest-
ment tax credit if the facility is run by a_private corporation.
l
Essentially, the depreciation and tax credit acts to shelter the
financial intermediary's other income, which allows him to receive
.v,
r'
an adequate after-tax return on his investment.
The main advantage to Leverage Leasing is that it reduces
demands on municipal capital funds, and interest rates on the
entire financial package may be lower than General Obligation Bond
rates.
The main disadvantage is that it is legally complex, and
r
that the city will not own the asset unless it purchases the
facility upon the completion of the lease period.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Grants
The Environmental Protection Agency has, since its inception,
administered federal grant funds appropriated by congressional and
administration action for specific solid waste programs. However,
r these funds have been extremely limited, and are primarily re-
stricted to demonstration and planning grants or technical assistance
'^ and information services. The recently enacted Public Law 94-580
identified as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
provides authorization for additional limited funding by the
Environmental Protection Agency. However, it is not anticipated
that any funds will be provided in the forseeable to fund the con-
struction of projects.
(0~
r-
106
Farmers Home Administration
r. The Farmers Home Administration of the U.S. Department
j of Agriculture administers federal grants and loan funds for
t.. construction of solid waste and resource recovery facilities.
+ Under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act Section 306,
+� Public Law 92-419, the FmHA can provide grants for basic human
amenities, alleviate health hazards and promote the orderly growth
of the rural areas of the nation by meeting the needs for new and
improved rual water and waste disposal systems. They may provide
project grants, loans, and loan guarantees.
The funds provided by FmHA may be used for the installation,
repair, improvement or expansion of -rural waste disposal systems
including the collection and treatment of sanitary, storm and
solid waste. If a facility were built outside the city limits in
a qualified area, this could be a source of funds or a loan guarantee
for a waste -to -energy project
r
r
Department of Energy
Under Public Law 92-238, Congress has assured Federal
f support to foster a demonstration program to produce alternate fuels
from domestic resources. The Department of Energy has been authorized
to assist, through loan guarantees, construction, start-up and
related elements of demonstration facilities for the conversion
of domestic resources into alternative fuels, and to gather in-
formation about the technological, economic, environmental, and
~ social costs, benefits, and impacts of such demonstration facilities.
I
In addition to this and subject to the rules and regulations of the
Department of Treasury, the Department of Energy has been authorized
to guarantee the payment of interest on, and the principle balance of
^ bonds, debentures, notes and other obligations issued by, or on
r-
107
behalf of, any borrower for the purpose of financing the construction
I
and start-up costs of demonstration facilities for the conversion of
�.
domestic resources into alternative fuels and other desirable forms
of energy. These guarantees shall not exceed 75% of the total cost
of the commerical demonstration facility (as determined by the
Department of Energy) or 90% of the total cost of the facility during
construction and start-up. The Department of Energy is authorize(;
to charge a fee of not more than 1% of the outstanding indebtedness
covered by the guarantee to cover administrative costs and probable
j
losses on the guaranteed obligation.
Finally, these loan guarantees may be made to municipal
facilities where they are either owned or operated by the munici-
pality or they may be made to privately owned and operated facilities.
r
r
If bonds are used as a means of financing such facilities, then the
tax exempt status of the bonds are negated when the Federal guarantees
are attached, thus making the bonds taxable. However, the Treasury
Department will rebate to the facility the difference between the
llk
taxable bond interest rate and the tax exempt bond interest rate.
Presently, the Department of Energy is in the process of
r�
promulgating its rules and regulations to implement its loan
guarantee program, but has already begun to seek applications for
t
what it expects to be its first set of projects selected.
6.4 Risk Management
P
1 In common with all major investments the implementation of
a waste -to -energy system involves certain risks that bear directly upon
r
the ultimate success of a project. Consequently, any decision regarding
the technical and economic feasibility of a project must be based
r upon a full understanding on the part of the City of the nature and
potential impacts of relevant risks and a conclusion by the City that
its risk exposure is consistent with the costs it is willing to bear
r
for solid waste disposal. The risks that the City then decides to
" absorb will dictate the procurement approach and method of financing
r
ri
i
108
f .
to be taken to implement the project. As such, the development of a
risk management strategy is the appropriate means for integrating con-
siderations of financing, procurement, ownership, and cost.
Methods of Risk Management
y,
Risk is the possibility that an action may produce an un-
desirable outcome with the consequence that additional costs are
incurred. In this regard, it is important to realize that every
undertaking, no matter how trivial, involves some risk. This is true
whether one is considering buying a new car where one must measure un-
knowns involved such as how much maintenance will be required, -what
the future trade-in value will be, etc.; or whether a community is
,r
considering a waste -to -energy facility where one is attempting to
ri
predict its future maintenance costs or its useful life. In either case,
the key question is not only the amount of risk involved, but also the
extent to which the various risks can be managed.
In this regard, there are four basic methods of managing
risks:
r'
• Reduce the risk, e.g., by investing in extra equipment
redundancy to minimize system outages.
r-
• Transfer the risk, e.g. by sharing both the risks and
benefits of a project with another.
• Insure against the risk, e.g., by providing for a
back-up system or actually taking out insurance.
• Accept the risk.
r
It should be obvious that the first three options will involve
some additional costs to the City. What might not be so obvious is
..
that the fourth alternative, merely "accepting" risk, also involves
a potential additional cost - if the system does not work properly,
it might be a system that cannot be corrected or that requires sig-
nificant additional expenditures to make it work. Of course, ultimately,
the most expensive system is the one that does not work.
I-
109
Sources of Risk and Risk Management Strategies
r0.
Waste -to -energy projects are activities very different from
those traditionally engaged in by state and local governments. Energy
r.
recovery projects involve the participation of an unusual number of
participants. Some of these are: the waste generators or suppliers;
�.
the system and equipment vendors; the facility operators; the buyers
of the recovered energy; the underwriters; and, of course, the facility
owners. In this regard, an energy recovery project is more like a
j
manufacturing project than the avarage public works project.
r,
Logically, the best allocation of risk places the uncertainty
r
either on the party which can deal best with the problem if it arises,
or on the party best able to prevent a given risk from being realized.
Because risk allocations have long term and far reaching effects on
r
all parties to an agreement, decisions about them must be equitable.
Disproportionate sharing of risks can be detrimental to all involved
parties in the long run.
T�
The goal of the owner or developer of the facility is to
implement a recovery facility that will operate according to specifi-
cations for a known price by a particular time. In order to protect
against risk that would affect his ability to achieve this goal, he
might require from the system contractor: fixed price construction
contracts; guaranteed delivery dates for a fully operational facility;
independent testing and evaluation of the facility operation prior to
delivery and acceptance of the facility; performance bonds or other
r
collectible liability protection in case the system contractor is unable
to meet the delivery date or to deliver a facility that operates according
to specifications; or liability protection provided by the design en-
gineer to compensate the owner for any faulty design or specification.
The system contractor's goal is to construct a facility
r
according to specifications within a realistic and reasonable time
period and at a price that permits him a reasonable profit. To pro-
tect against those risks that could affect his ability to achieve this
n
110
i
goal, he may require from the owner -developer: periodic payment for
j
work in process; a fixed fee; relief from his obligation to meet the
delivery date where situations occur outside of his control, such as work
stoppage at equipment suppliers; or the right to terminate work without
liability where the owners fail to meet payment schedule or fail to
1"
secure necessary legal or permit approvals.
The goal of the supplier of the waste material is to secure
a long term disposal of solid waste at a reasonable cost. To protect
against those risks that could affect his ability to achieve this
r
goal, he may require of the system operator: the provision of a
long term contract for the disposal and processing of the solid waste;
r
the disposal of all waste delivered to the facility; the acquisition of
environmentally approved back-up land disposal site or sites capable of
meetingdisposal needs on a long term basis; fixed tipping fees with
P 8 � PP g
adjustments only for inflation; minimum days and daily hours for operation
of facility for acceptance of delivered waste; rights to acquire other
periods of operation in case of emergency; maximum storage capacity for
delivered waste; performance bonding or other collectible liability
protection for unreasonable amounts of facility down times; assumption
1"
by the operator of the facility for all maintenance, operating and
capital replacement costs of the facility; insurance provided by the
^
system operator against damages to the facility; or the right of
a
termination for nonperformance by the facility operator.
r"
The system operator's goals are to receive sufficient
quantities of processable waste from the supplier, to charge the full
r
cost of operation and marketing, and to realize a reasonable profit.
In order to protect against those risks that could affect his ability
..
to achieve these objectivities, the system operator might require from
the supplier: long term contracts for delivery of waste; guaranteed
annual tonnage to be delivered; guaranteed payment of tipping fees
whether or not delivery is made; establishment of tipping fees to
r�
cover all operating and maintenance costs, local property taxes on
all facilities and equipment and a reasonable profit; automatic annual
r.
adjustment in tipping fees due to inflation; right to adjust tipping
7"
I-
ill
fees or participation in revenues from the sale of recovered products
1
in event that there are significant changes in the composition of the
i
delivered waste, which affect either the cost of operation or the ability
to live up to the terms of the marketing agreement; the right to adjust
l"
tipping fees in event that increases in operating and maintenance costs
'
exceed annual rates of inflation due to events outside the operator's
*"
i
reasonable control; or the deduction of the cost of marketing
recovered products from revenues prior to the establishment of the dollar
amount to be shared with other participants. The system operator,
in order to protect against undesirable risk, might require from the
r
buyer of the energy or recovered materials: long term contracts for
I
purchase of products; guarantees of annual minimum amounts of recovered
r�
products the customer will accept; pricing of recovered fuel based on
price per BTU of fuel that it supplements.
..
The goal of the buyer of the recovered energy is to obtain
a quality product that will not interfere with his normal production
�.
operation. He may require from the system operator: guarantees that
the proposed product meets specifications; or the reimbursement, in the
r.
case of buyers of recovered fuel, for any incremental capital and
operating costs associated with its use.
n
A summary of the most important risks in an energy recovery
facility and alternative risk management scenarios should the City decide
..
to implement an energy recovery facility are as follows:
TABLE 6.1 CONSTRUCTION AND CAPITAL COST RISK STRATEGIES
Methods of Managing Risk
Risk Cateaory Risk Events Reduce Transfer Insure
Facility Construc- Delays in the comple-
tion and Capital tion of construction and
Cost Risk Manage- in start-up can cause
ment cost overruns in a
project and result in an
inability to meet market
commitments.
Inadequate minimum per-
formance during start-up
Inflationary pressures
causing cost overruns.
If these overruns are
large enough, the en-
tire project may be
jeopardized if additional
financing cannot be
secured
Contract disputes or
labor strikes
Over -sized Bond Issue
Build in additional
redundancy
Over -size equipment
Enter into a turnkey Obtain performance
or full -service con- bonds or guarantees
tract
r
r
N
TABLE.6.2 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE RISKS STRATEGIES
Methods for Managing Risk
Risk Category Risk Events
Reduce
Transfer Insure
Facility Operation System Reliability (i.e.
Select a less complex
Enter into a opera- Make available a
Risk Management excessive down -time,
technology or a more
ting of full back-up landfill
excessive maintenance)
proven technology
service contract
that could result in
higher than anticipated
Employ a designer who
disposal fees per ton
has more experience
of waste process and
could result in a
Make equipment more
decision to shut down
accessible for main -
the facility as being
tenance
uneconomic
Employ more experienced
Inferior quality of
and competent individ-
outputs which could
uals
iH
either: (1) result in
lower prices per unit,
Allow for adequate
or (2) could lead to
O+M equipment replace -
cancellation or con-
ment, and debt service
tracts.
research funds
Decreases in labor
productivity
Inflationary pressures may
increase operating costs
faster than revenues are
increasing
Legislation or regulation
i.e. more stringent air
regulations
I ) I ) ` I ) - I A " I I , x _ 1 I • - I _ _x _ _I 1 ---- ) -7 - I I I
TABLE 6.3 MARKET RISK STRATEGIES
Methods for Managing Risk
Risk Category Risk Events Reduce Transfer Insure
Markets Cancellation or non -
renewal of contracts
Reductions in price
Design of a more accept-
able product
Obtain long-term contracts
Design facility so that it
has the flexibility to
serve a variety of markets
Contract with a utility or
some other market that is
unlikely to close down
Enter into an operating Obtain back-up
or full service contract market commitment
r
r
r
TABLE 6.4 WASTE STREAM RISK STRATEGIES
Methods for Managing Risk
Risk Category Risk Events Reduce Transfer Insure
Waste Stream
Changes in Composition
which either: (1)
lower the fraction or
quality of recoverable
resources; or (2)
increases the un
processable wastes
which must be land -
filled.
Changes in waste
quantity which either:
(1) increases the total
fixed cost per ton or
(2) decrease output
and market revenues
Competition from other
disposal alternatives
which cause waste to
be taken to another
facility
Obtain long-term
(for life of project)
waste supply con-
tracts
Mandate that waste
in a jurisdiction
must be taken to
facility
In designing
facility, antici-
pate and plan for
potential changes
in waste quantity
or composition
Build modular units
that can be shut
down should there
be reduced waste
availability
Under -size facility
(There is no way that
the community can
transfer the respon-
sibility of guaran-
teeing the waste
supply).
Arrange for an economical
back-up fuel supply such
as oil or coal that the
facility can burn to
supply energy market
commitments
r
r
TABLE 6.5 CATASTROPHIC EVENT RISK STRATEGIES
Methods for Managing Risk
Risk Category Risk Events Reduce Transfer Insure
Catastrophic Events Sabotage
Storms
Fires and explosions
Design prevention and
control measures
Design for several
processing lines on
modular units that
will not be affected by
a fire or explosion in
one unit
Enter into a full- Obtain casualty
service contract insurance
Obtain personal
liability insurance
Arrange for a back-up
landfill
TABLE 6.6 RISK EXPOSURE/COST TRADEOFFS ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT APPROACHES
A 5 E TURN -KEY FULL -SERVICE
Front -End Planning Costs
Approximately $lM for
$100,000 for RFP Preparation
$100,000 for RFP Preparation
a $10H Facility
and proposal evaluation
and proposal evaluation
Capital Costs
Equipment plus extra
Equipment plus management
Equipment plus management
redundancy, etc., to
fee for transferring risk
fee for transferring risk
reduce risk
Operating Costs
06M only
OSM only
O&M plus management fee
for transferring risk
Lead Time for
At least a year for
At least 6 months for
r
At least 6 months for
Implementation
designing facility.
procuring facility.
procuring facility.
Approximately 2
Approximately 2 years
Approximately 2 years for
years for construc-
for construction
construction
tion
Assumption of
Community
Vendor
Vendor
Construction Risks
Assumption of
Community
Community
Vendor
Operating Risks
Assumption of
Community
Community
Vendor
Waste Supply Risks
Assumption of
Community
Community
Vendor
Market Risks
I ) 1 _ _ 1 ) ) 1 i ) 1 l ) ) __ 1 . ) 1 71 -1 _l l
TABLE 6.7 RISK EXPOSURE/COST TRADEOFFS ALTERNATIVE FINANCING APPROACHES
Public
Pollution Control
Revenue
Industrial Develop-
G. 0. Bond
Bond
ment Revenue Bond
Ultimate Guarantor
City
City
Private Contractor
Issuing Body
City
City
City
Typical Front -End
5-10% of Issue
None
None
Issuance Costs
Typical Back -End
None
20-25% of Issue
20-25% of Issue
Issurance Costs
Responsibility
City - Competitive
Investment Banker-
N
-
Investment Banker00
for Selling
Sales
Negotiated Sale
Negotiated Sale
Bonds
Approximate Interest
7-9%
9-11%
9-11%
Rate
r
119
I
SECTION VIZ
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon its investigations as described in the previous
sections, following are Battelle's conclusions and recommendations
with respect
to this study:
1.
The City should pursue finding some industry who is
willing to locate in Lubbock and purchase steam from
a waste -to -energy facility. If the City can establish
^
the real interest of such a potential industrial steam
user, it should then conduct a preliminary engineering
r"
study of a waste -to -energy facility to refine cost
estimates, determine the appropriate sizing of a facility,
r
develop conceptual drawings, draft procurement documents,
etc.
►- 2.
Preferably, any waste -to -energy facility implemented should
be built to handle only that portion of the City's overall
.�
waste generation that the City can control either through
its own collection, long-term disposal contracts with
private haulers, or legislation mandating control of the
waste. Also, preferably any waste -to -energy facility should
,..
involve co -generation where not only is steam sold to an
industrial steam user, but electricity is also sold either
to Lubbock Power & Light or Southwestern Public Service.
3.
Also, before the planning of any waste -to -energy facility
,.,
proceeds very far, the City should undertake a detailed
analysis of procurement, ownership, financing, and risk
management alternatives. This analysis should involve
both an appropriate bond counsel and an investment banker.
4.
Given the assumptions made in this study, Battelle concludes
that the alternatives of selling steam to Lubbock Power &
Light or to an existing industry, or of selling refuse -
derived -fuel to Southwestern Public Service, would not be
120
cost -competitive with landfilling. Future events that
could alter these conclusions regarding the economic
viability of these markets would be: (a) Lubbock Power
& Light converting its units to the burning of coal
(as potentially required by the Federal Fuel Use Act)
or needing to build a new boiler; (b) Southwestern Public
Service building a coal-fired plant nearer to Lubbock
than Muleshoe or converting its Lubbock unit to coal
(as potentially required by the Fuel Use Act); (c) an
existing industry having the need to expand its steam
generation capacity and build a new boiler; or (d) the
cost of natural gas rising much more sharply than the
overall rate of inflation.
5. Transportation was not considered to be a significant
factor in comparing alternatives in this study, except
for the alternative of selling a refuse -derived -fuel
to Southwestern Public Service, since all sites were
roughly equal distant from the center of waste
generation. Consequently, the only transportation cost
included in the cost estimates presented was the transfer
cost of transporting the refuse -derived -fuel Muleshoe
(60 miles from Lubbock).