p. 1 

# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 15)11-1- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:18 AM Sheet 15 of 142P. 2

t- 

# I , U-l- 7 «*"""»«* > UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y \ OFFIC E O F RESEARC H AN D DEVELOPMEN T | AI R AN D ENERGY ENGINEERIN G RESEARC H LABORATOR Y \ sP

RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK , NORT H CAROLIN A 2771 1 

### DATE : Septembe r

14 , 199 3 SUBJECT : Analysi s o n Landfil l Ga s Utilization^oxjh e Soon-to-be-Promulgate d

Clea n Ai r

Ac t Regulation s forsMuFllcipal^li dWast e Landfill s FROM : Fran k

TyfiWioU a D i recto/(MD-60 ) TO : Pete r

Preuss . Directo r Offic e o f Science , Plannin g an d Regulator y Evaluatio n (H-8105 ) Thi s mem o provide s th e result s o f AEERL' s analysi s t o develo p estimate s o f th e benefit s associate dwit h th e utilizatio n o f

landfil l ga s tha t

wil l resul t

from th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t (CAA ) regulation s bein g considere dfo r municipa l soli dwast e (MSW ) landfills . A decisio n b y OA Ron th e stringenc y leve l o f th e rul e i s expecte dt o b e mad e withi n th e nex t few weeks . Onc e thi s decisio n i s made , Work Grou p Closur e wil l follo w an d the n th e packag e wil l b e submitte dint o OM B review . Thi s analysi s wa s undertake n t o provid e additiona l informatio n t o OA Rwhic h wil l hopefull y hel p in reachin g adecisio n o n th e rule . Thi s analysi s wa s conducte din collaboratio n wit h you r offic e an d th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s (OAQPS) , th e Offic e o f Policy . Plannin g an d Evaluatio n (OPPE) , th e Offic e o f Atmospheri c Program s (OAP) , an dth e Departmen t

o f Energ y (DOE) . Th e analysi s undertake n wa s fo r th e tw o stringenc y level s unde r

consideratio n - 5 0 an d 7 5 M g o f Th e impact s fo r

th e stringenc y level s o f

th e regulatio n ar e th e mos t recen t se t o f impact s an d wer e provide db y OAQPS . Thi s mem o provide s ase t o f table s wit

h th e result s o f

thi s analysi s an d documentatio n o f th e informatio n tha t

wa s used . Tabl e 1 provide s estimate s o f baselin e methan e an d th e potentia l methan e reductio n from(MSW ) landfill s fo r th e tw o stringenc y level s (5 0 an d 7 5 Mg/yr ) unde r consideratio n fo r

th e year s 200 0 an d 2010 . Thes e year s wer e chose n to correspon dt o th e timefram e bein g considere dfo r th e Nationa l Actio n Pla n t o reduc e greenhous e ga s emissions . A distinctio n i s mad e fo r thos e site s wher e recover y ma y exis t

wit h o r withou t th e rul e (i.e. , excluded ) versu s thos e site s wher e ga s recover y woul dno t b e considere di n absenc e o f th e rul e (i.e. , included) . Thi s distinctio n wa s determine da s aresul t of aanalysi s conducte db y OA P i n Decembe r

(Memorandu mfromOA P to OAQPS , Landfil l Rul e Energ yP. 3

Tabl e 1 . Estimate d Methan e Reduction s fo r CA A Rul e fo r Municipa l Soli d Wast e Landfill s - Tota l Emission s fo r Ne w& Existin g Landfill s (Teragrams ) 

# 4 , *SE* ,

Stringenc y Leve l 5 0 mg/y r 7 5 mg/y r Yea r Exclude d 4. 2 4. 0 200 0 Include d 4. 3 3. 6 Tota l

8. 5 7. 6 Exclude d

5. 3 4. 9 2

201 0 Include d 4. 7 4. 0 Tota l

10. 0 8. 9 Th e baselin e estimat e b y OAQP S of MS W landfil l methan e i s 1 4 T g i n 2000 . Thi s estimate , whe n adjuste d fo rth e ga s collectio n efficiency , i s 1 8 Tg . Th e baselin e estimat e b y OAQP S o f (MSW ) landfil l methan e i s 1 6 T g i n 2010 . Thi s estimate , whe n adjuste d fo rth e ga s collectio n efficiency , i s 2 0 Tg .

Tabl e 2 . Energ y Valu e Availabl e fo r Electricit y Generatio n fro m Ne w& Existin g Landfill s Affecte d b

y CA A Rul e (Quads ) Stringenc y Leve l 5 0 mg/y r 7 5 mg/y r Yea r Exclude d 0.2 2 0.2 1 1

200 0 Include d 0.2 2 0.1 9 Tota l

0.4 4 0.4 0 Exclude d

0.2 8 0.2 5 2

201 0 Include d 0.2 4 0.2 1 Tota l

0.5 2 0.4 6 Th e baselin e estimat e fo r200 0 (no t adjuste d fo rga s collectio n efficiency ) i s 0.7 3 quad s o r0.8 8 quad s whe n adjuste d fo rth e ga s collectio n efficiency . 2 Th e baselin e estimat e fo r201 0 (no t adjuste d fo rga s collectio n efficiency ) i s 0.8 3 quad s o r1. 0 quad s whe n adjuste d fo rga s collectio n efficiency .P. 4



### Recover y Cos t

Analysis , 12/16/92) . Thi s analysi s wa s undertake n becau.s e NMO C emission s ar e no t

directl y correlate dwit

h methan e emissions . Industr y trend s an dinformatio n o n marke t barrier s wer e use dt o evaluat e th e potentia l amoun t o f methan e tha t

ma y b e utilize da s aresul t o f th e rule . Th e estimat e o f

baselin e methan e an dpotential methan e reduction s fo r th e CA A rul e fo r

ne w an dexistin g landfill s ar e presente din Tabl e 1 . Tli e correspondin g estimat e of potentia l energ y availabl e for electricit y generatio n i s presente din Tabl e 2 . A s yo u ca n see , th e energ y valu e in quadrillio n Btu s (i.e. , quads ) i s 0.8 8 fo r

th e year 200 0 an d1. 0 fo r

th e year 201 0 fo r

th e baselin e estimat e adjuste dfo r

th e ga s collectio n efficiency . W e includ e bot h categorie s o f sit s (i.e. , include dan dexcluded ) a s wel l a s th e combine dtotals . Th e OAQP S ha s estimate d8. 5 teragram s (Tg ) of methan e ar e reduce di

n 200 0 fo r th e su mo f

th e exclude dan dinclude dsite s i n 200 0 an d1 0 T g o f methan e ar e reduce din 201 0 fo r th e 5 0 Mg/y r

stringenc y level . Thi s i s equa l t o 5 1 millio n ton s o f

carbo n equivalent s (MMTCE ) i n 200 0 an d6 0 MMTC E in 2010 . Th e 7 5 Mg/y r

stringenc y leve l result s in areductio n o f 7. 6 T s o f

methan e (4 6 MMTCE ) i n 200 0 and^8. 9 T g o f methan e (5 3 MMTCE ) in 2010 7 Th e estimate s presente di

n Tabl e 1 wer e calculate da s describe db y docke t ite mA-88

- 09 , IV-M-4 , Methodolog y Use dt o Revis e th e Mode l Input s in th e Municipa l Soli d Wast e Landfill s Inpu t

Dat aBases , 4/28/93 . Sinc e i t i s onl y thos e site s designate da s "included " wher e ther e i s potential fo r energ y recover y a s aresul t o f th e option s unde r

consideration , w e hav e determine dth e potentia l electrica l energ y an dassociate dby-produc t emissions . Th e OAQP S develope destimate s o f th e amoun t

o f electricit y generate db y thos e landfill s that

ar e predicte dt o recove r energ y a s aresul t

o f th e rule . Thes e estimate s ar e presente di n Tabl e 3 . Usin g th e result s fromthi s table , w e calculate dth e ton s o f

carbo n dioxid e (CO2) , sulfu r dioxid e (SO2) , an dnitroge n oxide s (NOx ) tha t

woul db e generate di

f thi s sam e amoun t

o f energ y wer e produce db y conventiona l energ y sources . Th e result s ar e presente di n Tabl e 4 . Tli e "margina l emissio n factors " that wer e use dwer e develope db y IC F Resource s fo r

th e U.S . DOE , Offic e o f Buildin g Technologies , usin g ICF' s Nationa l Integrate dPlannin g Model , adetaile delectri c utility dispatc h an d capacit y plannin g model . Th e underlyin g assumption s (e.g. , electricit y deman d growth , fuel prices , etc. ) ar e base do n th e forecast s an dassumption s o f th e Annua l Energ y Outlook , 1993 . Th e result s o f thi s stud y ar e documente din Impact Assessment

of Advanced

Equipment

for the Building Sector, Electric Utility Impact

Methodology, Fina l Report , Draft , Forthcoming . Th e margina l factor s use din thi s report ar e weighte dto reflec t

nationa l averag e factors . Th eP. 5

««*• •

Tabl e 3 . Estimate d Electricit y Productio n fo r New& Existin g Landfill s fo r th e Site s Predicte d t o Us e Energ y Recovery * 'Exclude s site s determine d t o b e profitabl e o ralread y utilizin g energ y recovery ( kWhxI O 9 ) Stringenc y Leve l

5 0 mg/y r 7 5 mg/y r Yea r New 0.4 1 0.2 1 200 0

Existin g 6. 3 5. 6 Tota l

6. 7 5. 8 Ne w

0.8 9 0.8 0 201 0

Existin g 5. 8 5. 0 Tota l

6. 7 5. 8

Tabl e 4 . Emission s Generate d i f Energ y Produce d b y Fossi l Fuel s fo r Energ y Produce d b

y Landfill s Predicte d t o Us e Energ y Recover y (tons) * Stringenc y Leve l

5 0 mg/y r 7 5 mg/y r (tons ) COaxlO 6

4. 2 3. 6 SO2X10 3

1. 3 1. 2 NOxxlO 3

1 2 1 0 *Fo rbot h ne w an d existin g landfill s usin g margina l emissio n factor s develope d usin g informatio n include d i n Attachmen t 2 . Th e factor s develope d fo r200 5 wer e use d base d o n a nationa l weighte d average . Th e emission s generate d ar e th e sam e fo rbot h 200 0 an d 2010 . 3 6 Estimat e of CO 2 emission s i n U.S
. i s 4,80 0 x 1 0 ton s i n 198 8 (Nationa l Academ y Press , 1991)
. b Estimat e of tota l SOx emission s i n U.S
. i s 2 3 x 1 0 6 ton s i n 199 1 (EPA , 10/92)
. ° Estimat e o f tota l NO x emission s i n U.S
. i s 2 1 x 1 0 6 ton s i n 199 1 (EPA , 10/92)
.P. 6



### titl e pag e fro mthi s report an dth e margina l emissio n factor s use dt o calculat e th e impact s i n Tabl e 4 ar e include da s Attachmen t 1 . Ful l credi t

can b e take n fo r

asaving s i

n both th e SO 2 an dCO 2 emissions . Ther e i s asaving s o f

4. 2 millio n ton s o f

CO 2 for th e 5 0 Mg/y r

stringenc y leve l an d3. 6 millio n ton s fo r

th e 7 5 Mg/y r

stringenc y leve l fo r

both th e year

200 0 an d 2010 . Ther e i s asaving s o f 1. 3 thousan dton s o f

SO 2 fo r th e 5 0 Mg/y r

stringenc y leve l an d1. 2 thousan dton s fo r th e 7 5 Mg/y r

stringenc y level . Thes e SO 2 saving s ma y b e use db y electri c utilitie s in reducin g th e complianc e cos t t o mee t th e CAA A requirement s fo r

SO 2 emissions . Ther e wil l b e a

n offset i n th e NO x emission s whic h need s to b e considere d betwee n th e NO x generate dusin g th e preaSen t mi x o f conventiona l energ y source s versus that

generate dutilizin g landfil l gas . However , dat aar e insufficien t a t th e presen t tim e t o b e abl e t o calculat e th e NO x an dC O emission s bein g generate db y boilers , interna l combustio n engine s an dturbine s bein g fuele dwit h landfil l gas . Researc h planne dthroug h th e Nationa l Actio n Pla n woul dresul t

in dat athat

wil l allo w u s t o determin e th e offse t i n emissions . W e thin k that ther e wil l b e a saving s i n NO x bu t

les s than what

i s presente di

n Tabl e 4 . T o illustrat e th e significanc e o f th e potentia l energ y value s presente di n Tabl e 2 , w e compare dthes e value s t o th e amoun t o f energ y use db y electri c utilitie s t o generat e electricity . Thi s informatio n i s presente din Table s 5 an d6 . Fro mtheaS

e comparison s w e use drecen t statistic s publishe db y DO E i n Januar y 1993 , Annua l Energ y Outloo k with Projection s t o 2010 . W e recogniz e tha t

th e value s presente din thes e table s mak e differen t assumption s abou t

th e exten t

o f utilizatio n o f

landfil l gas . Unfortunately , barrier s exis t tha t discourag e energ y recovery . Som e o f th e nontechnica l barrier s include :

- unfavorabl e economic s a s aresul t o f lo w energ y cost s fo r

landfil l ga s t o energ y project s tha t

generat e o r

pipelin e qualit y gas ,

- n o near-b y custome r

fo r direc t ga s use ,

- ai r permit s fo r

interna l combustio n engines , ga s turbine s an dboiler s no t bein g approve dfo r

project s i

n nonattainmen t

regions ,

- extensiv e permittin g requirement s i n both attainmen t

an dnonattatinmen t region s resultin g i

n hig h cost s associate dwit h complyin g wit

h applicabl e Federa l an dStat e regulations ,Tabl e 5 . Percentag e o f Landfil l Methan e t o Annua l Consumptio n o

f Coa l b y U.S . Electri c Utilitie s (% ) P. 7

*«* •

Assumptio n Yea r 200 0 201 0 Baselin e estimat e o f landfil l methan e

- w/ o collectio n efficienc y correctio n

- w/collectio n efficienc y correctio n 4.5 % 5.4 % 5.1 % 6.2 % Stringenc y Leve l (mg/yr ) Estimat e o f landfil l methan e fo rne w & existin g site s tha t ar e "excluded" 2 Estimat e o f landfil l methan e fo rne w & existin g site s tha t ar e "included" 3 Estimate s o f tota l (exclude d & included ) methan e t o b e controlle d by regulatory optio n 5 0
1.40 %
1.40 %

2.70 % 7 5

1.30 %
1.20 %

2.50 % 5 0

1.70 %
1.50 %

3.20 % 7 5

1.50 %
1.30 %

2.80 %

1 I n 1990 , electri c utilitie s consume d 16. 2 quad s o f coal . 2 Exclude d i s defined a s thos e site s wher e i t i s "profitable " t o recove renerg y o rproject s alread y exist . Thes e site s ar e predicte d t o utiliz e th e ga s i n absenc e o f th e role . Thi s wa s determine d by OA P memo , 12/92
. 3 Include d i s define d a s thos e site s tha t may utiliz e th e ga s a s a resul t o f th e rule . However , som e site s ma y decid e t o flar e th e gas .Tabl e 6 . Percentag e o f Landfil l Methan e t o Annua l Consumptio n o

f Petroleu m b

y U.S . Electri c Utilitie s 1 (% ) P. 8

Assumptio n Yea r 200 0 201 0 Baselin e estimat e o f landfil l methan e

- w/o collectio n efficienc y correctio n

- w/collectio n efficienc y correctio n 60 % 68 % 72 % 81 % Stringenc y Leve l (mg/yr ) Estimat e o f landfil l methan e fo rne w & existin g site s tha t ar e "excluded " Estimat e o f landfil l methan e fo rne w & existin g site s tha t ar e "included " Estimate d tota l (exclude d & included ) - methan e t o b e controlle d b y regulatory optio n 5 0
18 %
18 %

36 % 7 5

17 %
15 %

32 % 5 0

23 %
1 9 %

42 % 7 5

20 %
17 %

37 %

1 I n 1990 , electri c utilitie s consume d 1.2 3 quad s of petroleum . 2 Exclude d i s define d a s thos e site s wher e i t i s "profitable " t o recove renerg y o rproject s alread y exist . Thes e site s ar e predicte d t o utiliz e th e ga s i n absenc e of th e role . Thi s wa s determine d b

y OA P memo , 12/92
. 3 Include d i s define d a s thos e site s tha t may utiliz e th e ga s a s a resul t o f th e rule . However , som e site s ma y decid e t o flar e th e gas .P. 9

8



### - difficultie s in negotiatin g powe r contracts ,

- powe r contract s wit

h utilitie s resultin g i

n aminimizatio n o f

th e ga s bein g recovere dfo r

utilization . Ther e ar e othe r

barrier s whic h w e hav e worke dto documen t an dar e identifie di

n a n EPA repor t

prepare db y AEERL , Landfil l Ga s Energ y Utilization : Technolog y Option s an dCas e Studies . EPA-600/R-92-116 , Jun e 1992 . Als o tw o paper s b y Susan Thornelo e o n m y staf f hav e describe dthes e issue s an dthes e ar e provide di n Attachmen t

3 . W e hav e ongoin g effort s i n collaboratio n with th e Internationa l Energ y Agenc y (IEA ) t o identif y bot h th e technica l an d nontechnica l barrier s associate dwit h utilizatio n o f

landfil l methane . Tlies e factor s imped e th e viabilit y o f landfil l ga s to energ y project s an dconsequentl y discourag e th e utilizatio n o f landfil l gas . W e als o woul dlike t o poin t ou t that ORD' s researc h bein g conducte db y AEER L t o minimiz e som e o f th e technica l barrier s associate dwit h energ y equipment . A s yo u ma y b e awar e w e ar e workin g t o demonstrat e th e u.s e o f fuel cell s t o recove r

energ y fro mlandfil l ga s whic h wil l enhanc e th e nation' s abilit y to utiliz e landfil l methane . Fue l cell s hav e minima l by-produc t emission s a s compare dt o interna l combustio n engine s an dturbines . The y als o hav e ahighe r energ y efficienc y (-40% ) a s compare dt o conventiona l technologie s i n us e whic h approac h -30% . Fue l cell s ar e als o bette r suite dt o smalle r

landfill s an dremot e installations . Thi s researc h will.resul t i n helpin g t o minimiz e som e o f th e existin g barrier s tha t

exis t particularl y in nonattainmen t area s wher e NO x an d C O emission s ar e o f

concern . Thi s researc h i s als o directe dtoward s makin g advance s in ga s pretreatmen t processe s fo r

fuel cel l applicatio n t o landfil l methane . Anothe r projec t that w e ar e coordinatin g throug h th e IEA i s o n the . differen t philosophie s both i n th e U.S . an dEurop e an dga s pretreatmen t an d energ y equipmen t

modification s fo r

landfil l ga s t o energ y projects . Advance s i n technolog y ar e occurrin g an dw e ar e workin g t o documen t th e curren t

stat e o f technology . Differen t

approache s are in us e an dhav e differen t tradeoffs . W e se e thi s wor k a s wel l a s ou r

earlie r wor k t o b e adirec t

benefi t t o landfil l owner/operator s respondin g t o th e CA A regulations . W e woul dlik e t o se e th e preambl e o f

th e regulatio n identif

y thi s research . T o summarize , thi s rul e wil l resul t i n substantia l saving s t o ou r globa l fossi l fuel reserves . I

t wil l als o resul t

i n areductio n o f

byproduc t

emission s a s illustrate di n Tabl e 4 . Thi s regulatio n ha s anumbe r o f benefit s includin g th eP.1 0



### reductio n o f

apoten t greenhous e gas , emission s contributin g t o tropospheri c ozone , toxic s o f

concern to huma n health , an dth e reductio n i n th e explosiv e potentia l o f

th e ga s whe n it

migrate s offsite o r

onsite . Landfil l methan e i s apotentia l pollutio n preventio n source . W e think i t i s importan t tha t th e decisio n maker s fo r

thi s regulatio n b e mad e awar e o f th e curren t barrier s fo r

landfil l ga s utilization . W e thin k that th e EP A need s t o develo p amethodolog y tha t wil l allo w consideratio n o f th e overal l environmenta l an denerg y benefit s includin g th e conservatio n o f ou r globa l fossi l fuel resources . Ther e ar e tradeoff

s betwee n NO x an dVO C reduction s a s wel l a s C O an dcarbo n emissions . Presentl y ou r existin g regulator y structur e doe s no t evaluat e thes e benefit s o r

tradeoffs . D o no t

hesitat e contactin g m e a t (919 ) 541-282 2 o r

Susan Thornelo e a

t (919 ) 541-270 9 if

yo u hav e an y question s abou t th e informatio n provide din thi s memo . Reference s - U.S . DOE , Impact

Assessment

of Advanced

Equipment

for the Building Sector

- Electric Utility Impact

Methodology, Fina l Report , Augus t 1993 . Memorandum . Methodolog y Use dt o Revis e th e Mode l Input s i n th e Municipa l Soli dWast e Landfill s Inpu t Dat aBases . Apri l 1993 . Docke t Ite mIV-M-4 , A-88

- 09 . U.S . DOE , Annual

Energy Outlook

1993 with Projections to 2010, DOE/EIA

0383(93) , Januar y 1993 . Memorandum . Landfil l Rul e Energ y Recover y Cos t Analysis . Fro mKathlee n B . Hogan , Chie f

an dCind y Jacobs , Modelin g an dMethan e Reductio n Branch , Globa l Chang e Division , OAP , Decembe r 16 , 1992 . U.S . EPA , National

Air Pollutant

Emission Estimates, 1900-1991. EPA-454/R

92-013 . Prepare db y Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an dStandards . Octobe r 1992 . U. S EPA , Landfill

Gas Utilization: Technology Options and Case Studies, EPA

600/R-92-116 . Prepare db y Ai r an dEnerg y Engineerin g Researc h Laboratory , RTP , NC , 27711 . Jun e 1992 . Thorneloe , S . A. , "Landfil l Ga s Utilizatio n - Options , Benefits , an dBarriers'" , Publishe di

n th e Proceeding s fromTh e Secon dUnite dState s Conferenc e o n Municipa l Solid'Wast e Management , Arlington , VA , Jun e 1992 .P.1 1

1 0 

### Thorneloe , S.A . "Landfill Ga s Utilizatio n - Option s an dEconomics " Publishe di

n the Proceeding s fro

mthe Sixteent

h Annua l Conferenc e by th e Institute o f Ga s Technolog y o

n Energ y fro

mBiomas s an

dWastes , Orlando , FL , March 1992 . Nationa l Academ y Press . Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. Washingto n D.C . 199 1 Memorandum . Informatio n o n Landfill Methane . FromFran k T . Princiotta , Director , AEER

L t o Peter Preuss.Director , OTTRS , Februar y 22 , 1990 . 2 Attachment s cc : J . Brodrick , DO

E D . Doll , OAQP S D . Drehmel , AEER

L S . Durkee , OSPR

E T . Eagles , OPA

R A . Geswein , OS W B . Hangebrauck , AEER

L K . Hogan , OAP J. . Kessler , OPP

E K . C . Hustvedt , OAQP S J . Kilgroe , AEER

L W . Lamason , OAQP S B . Landreth , RRE

L S . Lingle , OEET D B . Martin , AEER

L M . Maxwell , AEER

L L . Smith , OEPE

R R . Spiegel , AEER

L S . Thorneloe , AEER

L D . Trout , OEPE

RP.1 2 

# &EP A ATTACHMEN T /

Unite d Slate s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 

# Researc h an d Developmen t EPA-600/R-92-U 6 i 

### Jun e 199 2

LANDFIL L GA S ENERG Y UTILIZATION : TECHNOLOG Y OPTION S AN D CAS E STUDIE S 

# Prepare d fo r

Offic e o f

Ai r an d Radiatio n an d Offic e o f

Policy , Plannin g an d .Evaluatio n 

# Prepare d b y Ai r an d Energ y Engineerin g Researc h Laborator

y Researc h Triangl e Par k N C 2771 1

Stt&fcWS WFOREWOR D

Landfil l ga s ha s bee n successfull y use d fo renerg y a t man y location s i n th e U.S
. an d worldwide , providin g economic , environmental , an d othe rbenefits . However , landfil l ga s energ y use s ar e als o relativel y new , an d technologie s ar e fa rfro m "cu t an d dried. " Ther e ar e limitation s an d specia l consideration s wit h landfil l ga s energ y use ; a numbe ro f landfil l ga s energ y project s hav e experience d problems , o reve n faile d entirely . Ther e i s curren t nee d fo rdocumentatio n of experienc e an d consolidatio n of informatio n i n severa l area s regardin g th e us e of landfil l ga s a s a fuel . Thi s repo n review s th e variou s landfil l ga s energ y uses , an d thei rassociate d issue s an d constraints . I t als o present s cas e studie s of si x landfil l ga s energ y project s i n th e U.S
. Th e report' s purpose s Includ e • Presentin g overview s of us e an d equipmen t options , an d technica l an d othe r consideration s wit h landfil l ga s energ y applications . • Providin g informatio n o n project s tha t illustrat e commo n landfil l ga s energ y uses . • Providin g a n awarenes s o f limitation s an d potentia l pitfall s existin g wit h landfil l ga s energ y use . I n additio n t o providin g backgroun d o n energ y uses , i t i s anticipate d tha t th e repor t wil l hel p identify area s needin g attention , fo rentitie s suc h a s researchers an d equipmen t manufacturers . I t i s als o hope d tha t th e repor t ca n provid e informatio n usefu l i n identifyin g way s t o facilitat e th e beneficia l use s o f landfil l ga s b y reducin g nontechnica l barriers . Th e complexitie s o f landfil l ga s energ y use s ar e suc h tha t th e discussion s of man y issue s mus t b e limite d t o overviews . Wher

e detai l i s availabl e elsewher e th e repor t refer s t o availabl e literatur e containin g tha t :. information . Thi s i s als o tru e fo rth e cas e studies ; thes e attemp t t o provid e infonnatio n s o tha t a typica l reade r wft h tom e limite d backgroun d wil l hav e a reasonabl e understandin g of th e operation , base d o n a : representativ

e descriptio n o f a particula renerg y application . Thi s documen t i s no t intende d t o provid e th e 7 degree o

f detai l neede d t o desig n an d operat e a landfil l ga s energ y facility . l i Th e cas e studie s rel y o n Informatio n provide d b y man y individua l operators , equipmen t manufacturers , an d other s suc h a s engineerin g firms . A n effor t ha s bee n mad e t o verify statement s an d dat a a s muc h a s possible . I n particular , al l section s of th e repor t have bee n reviewe d b y th e providers o f th e origina l informatio n an d others wit h appropriat e expertise . Backgroun d informatio n i s cite d fro m literatur e an d othe rsource s considere d reliable , an d i t ha s als o bee n reviewed .

PJ G G640101A.A0 WP.1 4

ABSTRAC T

Combustible , methane-containin g ga s fro m refus e decomposin g i n landfills , o r "landfil l gas, " ca n b e fue l fo r a variet y o

f energ y applications . Thi s repor t present s cas e studie s o f project s i n th e Unite d State s wher e i t ha s bee n use d fo r energy , t t als o present s overview s o f som e o

f th e importan t issue s regardin g landfil l ga s energ y uses , includin g appropriat e equipment , cost s an d benefits , environmenta l concerns , an d obstacle s an d problem s o f suc h energ y uses . Wit h allowanc e fo r its properties , landfil l ga s can b e use d i n muc h commerciall y availabl e equipmen t tha t normall y use s mor e conventiona l fuel s suc h a s pipelin e natura l gas . Thi s include s equipmen t fo r spac e heating , boilers , proces s hea t provisio n an d electri c powe r generation . Landfil l ga s energ y uses , alread y significant , coul d increas e base d o n estimate s o f th e landfil l ga s tha t coul d b e recovered , an d providin g tha t othe r factors , particularl y economi c ones , are favorable . Suc h energ y use s hav e environmenta l an d conservatio n benefits . Factor s t o b e considere d i n usin g landfil l ga s fo r energ y includ e contaminants , whic h ca n corrod e equipmen t an d caus e othe r problems , an d its lowe r energ y content , resultin g i n moderat e equipmen t derating . Othe r issue s tha t ar e o f norma l concer n fo r landfil l gas , suc h a s forecastin g its recoverabl e quantit y ove r time , an d its efficien t collection , als o bea r importantl y o n its us e fo r energy . Th e cas e studie s revie wlandfil l ga s energ y us e at si x site s i n th e U.S . Th e energ y application s includ e electri c powe r generatio n by reciprocatin g interna l combustio n engines , electri c powe r generatio n b y ga s turbine , spac e heating , an d stea m generatio n i n a larg e industria l boiler . Cas e stud y application s ar e considere d t o represen t attractive candidat e use s fo r implementatio n a t additiona l U.S . landfil l sites . Th e cas e studie s presen t th e relevan t site features , backgroun d regardin g th e developmen t o f th e cas e stud y project , equipmen t used , operatin g experience , economics , an d future plan s a t th e sites . Obstacle s an d problem s a t th e site s are discussed . Th e cas e stud y site s exhibi t wid e variatio n i n feature s suc h a s cost an d degre e o

f operatin g difficult

y experienced . Suc h variatio n i s typica l o f landfil l ga s energ y projects , whic h ten d t o b e sit e specific . Literatur e containin g infonnatio n o n othe r relevan t cas e studies , i n bot h th e U.S . an d othe r countries , i s als o referenced . Importan t conclusion s includ e
• Landfil l ga s can b e a satisfactor y fue l fo r a wid e variety o f applications . Suc h use s hav e environmenta l an d conservatio n benefits . Man y type s o f energ y equipmen t designe d fo r "conventional " fuel s ca n operat e o n landfil l ga s wit h output s reduce d by abou t 5 t o 2 0 percent . • Allowance s mus

t b e mad e fo r th e uniqu e propertie s o f landfil l ga s an d particularl y it s contaminants . Pitfall s possibl e i n landfil l ga s energ y application s includ e equipmen t damag e du e t o suc h ga s contaminants , an d shortage s resultin g fro m over-estimatio n o f it s availability . • Th e degre e o

f ga s cleanu p an d th e method s use d var y widely ; th e necessar y amoun t o f cleanu p an d th e optimu m tradeoff s betwee n cleanu p stringency an d th e frequenc y o l maintenanc e step s (suc h a s oi l changes ) ar e no t wel l established . • Cost-to-benefi t ratio s can var y widely ; a t som e site s the y ar e excellent , whil e at other s the y ar e a majo r limitin g factor . Economic s ar e probabl y th e mos t importan t laclo r limitin g landfil l ga s energ y uses . Economic s currentl y ten d t o preclud e smalle r scal e uses , use s wher e electri c powe r sal e price s ar e low , an d use s a t remot e site s lackin g convenien t energ y application s o r outlets . Muc h o l th e landfil l ga s generate d toda y i s no t use d fo r energ y becaus e o f economics .

PJ G G640101A.A0 W ii iP.1 5

• Energ y equipmen t emissio n limits i n som e U.S . location s may als o restric t landfil l ga s energ y use , despit e a n environmenta l balanc e sheet that generall y appear s t o b e positive . Thi s repor

t identifie s technica l area s wher e energ y use s ar e likel y t o benefi t fro m improvements . Som e o f thes e ar e allude d t o above . Thi s repor t als o comment s briefl y o n incentive , barrie r elimination , an d othe r approache s tha t ma y facilitat e landfil l ga s use . Finally , fo r presen t an d future landfil l ga s users , furthe r detaile d documentatio n o f th e problem s experienced , an d th e result s o f approache s t o the m (bot h successfu l an d unsuccessful) , woul d b e very helpful . Thi s repor

t wa s submitte d by EMCO N Associates , i n fulfillmen t o f subcontract 275-026-31-0 5 fro m Radia n Corporation , a s wel l a s subcontract 93. 3 fro m E.H . Pecha n an d Associates , an d performe d unde r th e overal l sponsorshi p an d directio n o f th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Globa l Emission s an d Contro l Division . Thi s repor t cover s a perio d fro m Februar y 199 1 t o January 1992 , an d wor k wa s complete d a s o

f Februar

y 1992 .

PJ G G640101A.A0 W I VP.1 6

FOREWOR D | | ABSTRAC T Jl l ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S jel l CONVERSION S Xl v 1 . INTRODUCTIO N AN D BACKGROUN D 1 1. 1 Landfill s an d Landfil l Gas : Genera l 1 1. 2 Compositio n o

f Landfil l Ga s 2 1. 3 Estimatin g th e Ga s Recoverabl e fo r Energ y Use s . ' 3 1. 4 Ga s Extractio n System s 3 1. 5 Environmenta l an d Conservatio n Aspect s o f Landfil l Ga s Energ y Us e 4 1. 6 Regulator

y Issue s 4 2 . US E O F LANDFIL L GA S A S A FUEL—TECHNICA L ISSUE S 5 2. 1 Ga s Compositio n Analysi s 5 2. 2 Corrosio n Effect s 5 2. 3 Particulate s an d Thei r Effect s 6 2. 4 Ga s Cleanu p 6 2. 5 Dilutio n an d Othe r Performanc e Reductio n Effect s Wit h Landfil l Ga s 7 2. 6 Loa d Facto r ("Us e it o r los e it" ) 8 3 . ENERG Y APPLICATION S AN D EQUIPMEN T 9 3. 1 Curren t Application s an d Equipmen t 9 3.1. 1 Spac e heatin g (an d cooling ) 9 3.1. 2 Proces s heatin g an d cofirin g application s 1 0 3.1. 3 Boile r fue l 1 0 3.1. 4 Reciprocatin g interna l combustio n engine s wit h electri c powe r generatio n 1 0 3.1. 5 Ga s turbine s 1 1

PJ G G640101A.A0 WP.1 7



## CONTENT

S
3.1. 6 Steam-electri c 1 2 3.1. 7 Purificatio n t o pipelin e quality methan e 1 2 3. 2 Potentia l Future Technologie s 1 2 3.2. 1 Fue l cell s 1 2 3.2. 2 Compresse d ga s vehicl e fuel s 1 3 3.2. 3 Syntheti c liqui d fuel s an d chemical s 1 3 4 . COS T AN D REVENU E COMPONENT S 1 4 4. 1 Component s of Cos t an d Incom e 1 4 4. 2 Cos t Data : Example s 1 5 4.2. 1 Hypothetica l generatin g facilit y example : Cos t componen t range s 1 5 4.2. 2 Reporte d electri c facilit y capita l costs : GA A Yearboo k

1 5 4. 3 Othe rEconomi c Issue s 1 7 4.3. 1 Revenu e requiremen t fo relectri c powe r generatio n 1 7 4.3. 2 Initia l cos t estimatin g 1 7 4.3. 3 Economi c impediment s t o energ y application s . . .1 7 5 . Cas e Studie s 1 9 5. 1 Electri c Powe rGeneratio n an d Spac e Heatin g Usin g Landfil l Gas : Princ e George' s County , Marylan d .1 9 5.1. 1 Introductio n an d genera l overvie w 1 9 5.1. 2 Histor

y o f projec t implementatio n 1 9 5.1. 3 Landfil l an d landfil l ga s syste m 2 3 5.1. 4 Energ y facilit y an d equipmen t 2 3 5.1. 5 Environmental/emission s 2 7 5.1. 6 Operatio n an d maintenanc e 2 7 5.1. 7 Economic s ." 3 5.1. 8 Discussio n 2 9 5.1. 9 Calculatio n bases—energ y us e an d financin g 3 0 5. 2 Electricity Generatio n Usin g Cooper-Superio rEngin e a t th e Otay Landfil l 3 1 5.2. 1 Introductio n an d genera l overvie w 3 1 5.2. 2 Otay landfil l an d landfil l ga s syste m 3 1 5.2. 3 Ga s preprocessin g an d energ y plan t equipmen t 3 3

PJ G G640101A.A0 W V IP.1 8 afljMttai M



### CONTENT S
5.2. 4 Environmental/emission s 3 6 5.2. 5 Operatio n an d maintenanc e 3 6 5.2. 6 Revenu e an d cos t item s 3 7 5.2. 7 Discussio n 3 7 5. 3 Electri c Powe rGeneratio n Usin g Waukesh a Engine s a t th e Marin a Landfill . . 3 8 5.3. 1 Introductio n an d genera l overvie w .3 8 5.3. 2 Histor

y o f projec t 4 0 5.3. 3 Landfil l an d landfil l ga s extractio n syste m 4 1 5.3. 4 Ga s preprocessin g an d energ y plan t equipmen t 4 3 5.3. 5 Environmental/emission s .4 6 5.3. 6 Economic s 4 7 5.3. 7 Operatio n an d maintenanc e 4 8 5.3. 8 Discussio n 4 8 5. 4 Electri c Powe rGeneratio n Usin g Ga s Turbine s a t Sycamore Canyo n Landfill . 4 9 5.4. 1 Introductio n an d genera l overvie w .4 9 5.4. 2 Histor

y o f syste m implementatio n 5 1 5.4. 3 Landfil l an d landfil l ga s syste m 5 1 5.4. 4 Plan t equipment : Ga s preprocessin g an d energ y 5 2 5.4. 5 Environmenta l 7 5 5 5.4. 6 Economic s 5 5 5.4. 7 Operatio n an d maintenanc e 5 6 5.4. 8 Discussio n 5 6 5. 5 Landfil l Ga s Fuele d Boiler : Raleigh , Nort h Carolin a 5 7 5.5. 1 Introductio n an d genera l overvie w 5 7 5.5. 2 Histor

y o f projec t implementatio n 5 7 5.5. 3 Landfil l an d landfil l ga s syste m 5 9 5.5. 4 Energ y equipment : Blowe rstation , pipelin e an d boile r6 0 5.5. 5 Performanc e 6 1 5.5. 6 Emission s 6 2 5.5. 7 Operatio n an d maintenanc e 6 2 5.5. 8 Economic s 6 3 5.5. 9 Discussio n 6 3 5. 6 Electrica l Powe rGeneratio n Usin g Caterpilla rEngine s a t th e Centra l Landfill , Yol o County , Californi a 6 3 5.6. 1 Introductio n an d genera l overvie w 6 3 5.6. 2 Histor

y o f projec t implementatio n 6 5 5.6. 3 Landfil l an d landfil l ga s extractio n syste m 6 6

PJ G G640101A.AOW VI IP.1 9

•<»-*.•



## CONTENT

S
5.6. 4 Ga s preprocessin g an d energ y conversio n equipmen t 6 8 5.6. 5 Performanc e an d availability issue s 6 9 5.6. 6 Environmental/emission s .7 1 5.6. 7 Operatio n an d maintenanc e 7 1 5.6. 8 Economics 7 1 5.6. 9 Discussio n 7 1 5. 7 Othe rRelevan t Cas e Studie s an d Informatio n 7 2 5. 8 Othe rSupplementa l Literatur e 7 5 6 . REVIEW , COMMENTARY , AN D CONCLUSION S 7 6 

### 6. 1 Conclusion s 7 6 6. 2 Furthe rNeed s .7 7 6. 3 Facilitatin g Landfil l Ga s Energ y Us e 7 7 REFERENCE S .79 

### Appendices Appendi x A Estimatin g Ga s Availability fo rEnerg y Use s A- 1 Appendi x B Ga s Extractio n System s B- 1 Appendi x C Comment s o n Environmenta l an d Conservatio n

Aspect s o

f Landfil l Ga s Energ y Us e C- 1 Appendi x D Regulator y Issue s wit h Landfil l Ga s Us e D- 1 Appendi x E Ga s Compositio n Analysi s E- 1 Appendi x F Cost , Revenue , an d Othe rEconomi c Component s F- 1 Appendi x G Sit e Plan , Otay Electrica l Generatio n Facility G- 1 Appendi x H Equipmen t Specifications , Ota y Generatio n Facility . ..... . H- 1 Appendi x I PG& E Powe rPurchas e Rates , Marin a 1-1 Appendi x J Cleaver-Brooks Boile rSpeci f ication s J- 1 Appendi x KUnite d Kingdo m Cas e Studie s K- 1 Appendi x L Th e Economic s o f Landfil l Ga s Project s i n th e Unite d State s L- 1 Appendi x M Wast e Managemen t o f Nort h America , Inc . Landfil l Ga s Recover

y Project s M- 1 Appendi x N I-95 Landfil l Ga s t o Electricity Projec t Utilizin g Caterpilla r351 6 Engine s N- 1

PJ G G640101A.A0 W 

### v m
va* :P.2 0



### ILLUSTRATION S

Fioure Pag e 1 Cost Pe rKilowat

t Versu s Siz e 1 8 2 Waukesh a Engin e - Generato rSet s a t Brow n Statio n Roa d Landfil l 2 0 3 Energ y Facilit

y a t Brow n Statio n Road : Simplifie d Bloc k Diagra m 2 4 4 Cooper-Superio rEngine : Ota y Landfil l 32 5 Electri c Powe rFacility a t Otay Landfill : Simplifie d Bloc k Diagra m " 3 4 6 Marin a Landfil l Electrica l Generatin g Facility : Trailer s Housin g Genset s 3 9 7 Electri c Powe rFacilit y a t Marin a Landfill : Simplifie d Bloc k Diagra m 4 4 8 Sycamore Canyo n Electri c Generatin g Facility : Gense t Buildin g 5 0 9 Ga s Turbine/Electri c Powe rFacility a t Sycamor

e Canyon : Simplifie d Bloc k

Diagra m 5 4 1 0 Cleaver-Brooks Boile ra t Plan t o f Ajinomoto , U.S. A 5 8 1 1 Electrica l Generatio n Facilit y a t Yol o Count

y Centra l Landfil l 6 4 1 2 Electrica l Powe rGeneratio n a t Yol o Count

y Centra l Landfill : Simplifie d Bloc k

Diagra m 6 7

PJ G G640101A.A0 W I XP.2 1 ATTACHMEN T /



### Landfil l Ga s Utilizatio n - Options , Benefits , an d Barrier s

Susa n A . Thornelo e (MD-63 ) Globa l Emission s an d Contro l Divisio n Ai r an d Energ y Engineerin g Research Laboratory U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1

Presente d at : 

### Th e Secon d Unite d State s Conferenc e o n Municipa l Soli d Waste Managemen t

a t 

### Hyat tRegency Crystal Cit

y Arlington , V

A

Jun e 3 - 5 , 199 2P.2 2



### LANDFIL L GA S UTILIZATION - OPTIONS , BENEFITS , AN D BARRIERS Susa n A . Thornelo e Globa l Emission s an

dContro l Division (MD-63 ) Air an dEnergy Engineering Researc h Laborator

y UnitedState s Environmenta l Protection Agency Research Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a Introduction O f the mor e tha n 6,00 0 active municipa

l solidwast

e (MSW ) landfill s i

n th e Unite dState s (U.S.) , ther e ar e 11 4 landfil

l ga s (LFG) to energ y projects . Thi s pape r describe s the differen

t option s fo

r LFG t o energ y project s andprovide s statistic s o n th e U.S . LF G industry . Thi s pape r als o provide s a

n overvie w of

th e benefit s associate dwit h LF G utilizatio n andidentifie s som e o f the curren t barrier s i n the U.S . tha

t affec t LFG utilization . The suppor t fo r thi s research i s fromth

e U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agency' s (EPA's ) Globa l Climat e Chang e Progra

mo n emission s an dmitigation fromlandfill s an dothe r wast e managemen

t facilitie s tha

t produc e greenhous e gase s (Thorneloe , 1991) . EPA' s Ai r andEnerg y Engineerin g Researc h Laborator y (AEERL ) ha s responsibility fo

r EPA' s research o

n emission s an

dmitigatio n fo

r th e majo r source s contributing t

o globa l climate change . Landfill s are considere dasignificant contributo r

o f methan e (CH4) emission s andare bein g considere dfo r contro l in negotiation s regardin g globa l climate chang e (U.S . EPA , 1989) . Energy Utilizatio n Option s Landfill ga s result s fro

mthe anaerobicdecompositio n of landfille dwast

e andca n b e asourc e o

f pollutio n as well a s aresource. Th e composition o

f LFG i s typicall

y 5 0 t o 55 % CH4 , 4 5 t o 50 % carbo n dioxid e (CO2) , and<1 % nonmethane organi c compound s (NMOCs) . The concentration o f NMOC s ca

n rang e from24 0 to 14,300 ppm(U.S.EPA , 1991) . LFG ca n als o contain chlorinated andfluorinate dcompounds , particulate , water vapor , andoccasionall y air . Air infiltratio n i s minimize dbecaus e i t

(1 ) ca n kil l th e anaerobi c bacteri atha t are neede dt o decompos e organi c refuse , (2 ) ca

n caus e landfil l fires , and(3 ) dilute s th e ga s which increase s th e cos t o f recoverin g energ y fromthe gas . The averag e heatin g valu e o f LFG range s fro

m1 7 t o 2 0 MJ/dscm(45 0 t o 55 0 Btu/dscf) . Laidla w Technologies , Inc. , wit

h responsibility fo

r 1 2 LFG energ y recover y projects , estimate s tha

t betwee n 1,25 0 an

d1,60 0 k\V e 

### o f energy i s generatedfrom28,00 0 scm d( 1 million scfd) o

f LFG a t 1 7 MJ/scm(45 0 Btu/scf

) (Jansen , 1992) . Consequently LF G i s recovere dt

o tak e advantag e o

f the energ y potential . Thi s result s i n reducin g emission s o

f CH4 , NMOCs , an

dtoxics . I n addition , emission s ar

e reduce da

t coal-firedpowe

r plants , an dgloba l resources o

f fossil fue l ar e conserved .P.2 3

• __.- 

### The EPA' s AEER

L initiatedaproject

i n 199 1 t o documen

t the option s fo

r LFG utilization . Thi s wor k include dgatherin g dat ao n th e operatin g andmaintenanc e requirements, th e financing and contractua l arrangements , and"lesson s learned " fro mth e six site s include da s cas e studies . A summar y o f thi s wor k (Thorneloe , 1992) include s alis t o f U.S . LFG t o energ y projects . Th e final report being preparedb

y Emcon Associate s wil

l contain detaile

dinformation fo

r six U.Sv LFG t

o energ y project s includin g capita l andoperatin g costs , proces s flow diagrams , anddat aregardin g th e environmenta

l benefit s o

f LFG utilization . Thi s sectio n provide s abrie f overvie w o f

th e option s fo r LF G utilizatio n an

dasummar

y o f th e results o

f th e EP A survey of

LFG t o energy projects . Th e EP A survey identifie d11 4 LFG to energ y project s i n th e U.S.(Thorneloe , 1992) . Detailed results o f thi s EP A surve y ar e scheduledt

o b e publishe dthi s fall . Thi s survey wa s conductedi n coordination wit

h the SolidWast

e Association o

f Nort h Americ a(SWANA) . Figure 1 provide s a breakdown of

the type s of

LFG t o energy project s i

n th e U.S . Mos t

of the project s (i.e. , -75% ) generat e electricit y whic h i s eithe r use don-sit e o r soldto aloca

l utility . O

f th e project s generating electricity , approximately 344 MW e 

### o f powe r i s bein g produce dwit

h 6 1 project s usin g interna l combustio n (IC ) engines , 2 1 project s usin g gas-fe dturbines , and3 project s usin g steam-fe d turbines . Pipelin e qualit

y ga s i s produce da

t si x sites , an don e sit e i s processin g LFG t o produc e diese l fuel . The mos t

economica

l option s fo

r LF G utilizatio n ten dt o b e direc t use s such a s fo

r proces s hea

t an da s boile r fuel . Direc t

us e o f LF G a s medium-heating valu e fue l i s occurrin g a

t 2 1 sites . Figur e 2 provide s abreakdown o f di e U.S . LF

G t o energy project s b

y stat e indicating the numbe

r of project s fo

r state s wher

e ther e ar e a t leas t three active LF

G utilization projects . Californi aha s th e larges t numbe r of LF G to energ y project s partially du e to stat e an dloca l requirement s resulting i n th e collectio n an

dcontro l o

f gas . However , man

y LF G to energ y project s hav e bee n initiate d becaus e o f attractiv e economic s particularly i n th e early 1980 s whe

n th e pric e of

energ y helpe

d mak e thi s mor e economical . Wast

e Managemen

t o f Nort h Americ aha s installedga s collection an d control s a s par

t of thei r operatin g policy . Wast

e Managemen

t ha s LFG t o energ y project s a t 2 5 site s wit h plan s to star

t ne w project s a

t 5 additiona

l site s (Markham , 1992) . Th e Clea n Ai r Ac t regulation s proposedMa

y 30,1991 , are,expecte dt

o result i n additiona

l LFG utilizatio n projects . Direct-Ga s Us e (Medium-Heating Value") . Th e option s fo

r medium-heating valu e LFG [i.e. , -1 9 MJ / "dry " sc m(-50 0 Btu/dscf) ] includ e us e a s boiler fuel , spac e heatin g andcooling , and industria l heating/cofiring applications . Th e mos t typica l us e i s a s boile

r fue l to produc e steam . The majorit

y o f th e 2 1 site s sellin g LF

G for direc t us e ar e supplyin g fue

l fo r boilers . Thi s i s a particularl y attractiv e optio n sinc e conventional equipment ca n b e use dwit

h relativel y littl e modification. . I

n addition , boiler s ten dto b e les s sensitiv e t o LFG trac e constituent s an d consequentl y les s ga s cleanup i s require dcompare dt o th e othe r alternatives . A limitatio n i n the selection o f thi s option i s tha

t aLF G custome r mus t b e relatively near , typicall

y les s tha n 1,60 0 to 3,20 0 meter s ( 1 t o 2 miles ) i s considere ddesirabl e t o avoi dexcessiv e cost s anddifficultie s obtainin g access . Th e othe r option s fo

r medium-heatin g valu e ga s includ e industrial application s suc h a s lumbe

r drying , kiln operations , an

dcemen t manufacturing . A

n advantag e o

f man y industria l application sP.2 4

•a & c o •a



## . 3
• a

c U J o 

### I C Engine s MedHeating-Valu e Ga s

Turbine s p . High Heating-Valu e Ga s 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 Numbe r o f LF G Project s Figur e 1 . Numbe

r o f U.S . Landfill Ga s Project s by Energ y Utilizatio n Option

0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 Numbe r o f LF G Project s 3

0 3 5 4 0 Figur e 2 . Numbe

r o f U.S . Landfill Ga s Project s b y Stat e fo r thos e State s wit

h Thre e o r Mor e .Project sP.2 5



### i s tha t fue l i s require dcontinuously , 2 4 hour s pe r day . LF G ca n als o b e use da s asupplementa l fue l tha t meet s aportio n of

th e tota l demand . LFG t o produc e spac e heatin g i s in limitedus e primarily du e to pipin g cost s an ddifficult y i n matching u

p the LF G energ y output

wit h nearb y use

r needs . Depending on climat e an dothe r factors , hea

t energ y suppliedby 14,00 0 scm/ d(500,00 0 scf/d ) LFG correspond s to heating need s o f a n 18,60 0 t o 93,00 0 m* (200,00 0 to 1,000,00 0 ft2) facility . Th e main difficult y wit h spac e heatin g i s tha

t load s ten dto b e variabl e over

time , bot h durin g th e da

y andby season . Electricit y Generation . Of

th e 11 4 U.S . LFG t o energ y projects , 6 1 project s generat e electricit y usin g I C engine s an

d2 4 project s generat

e electricit y using turbines . Of

the 344 MW

e 

### o f electricit y produce da

t thes e sites , 51 % i s generatedusing turbine s an d49 % i s generatedusin g I C engines . The typ e o f equipmen t i s generall

y determinedb

y th e volum

e o f ga s availabl e an

dthe air pollutio n requirement s o

f th e are ai n which th e projec t

i s located . Th e rul e o

f thum b fo r th e selectio n o

f engine s versu s turbine s i s tha t engin e project s ar

e typicall y use da t site s wher

e ga s quantit

y i s capabl e o f producin g 1 t

o 3 MW

C 

### . Turbine s ar

e typicall y use da t site s producin g mor

e tha n 3 MW

e 

### (Jansen , 1992) . Typicall y there ar e thre e t o five engine s pe r

projec t andon e t o tw o turbine s pe r project . Th e distributio n o f U.S . LF G to energ y project s basedon gros s output is : Numbe r o f Project s Using : MW . 1- 5 5-1 0 10-1 5 15-2 0 20-2 5 25-3 0 30-3 5 35-4 0 40-4 5 45-5 0 Turbine s

1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 IC Engine s

5 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTA L 2

4 6 1 Reciprocating I C engine s driv e electrica l generator s t

o produc e electrica

l powe r whic h i s typicall

y sol dt o th e loca

l electri c utility . Engine s usedin thi s applicatio n are soldb y dire e manufacturer s - Caterpillar , Cooper-Superior , an dWaukesha . Eac

h o f the 3 manufacturer s ha s in plac e mor e tha n 2 0 engine s a

t U.S . landfill site s (GRCDA , 1989) . Thes e manufacturer s desig n engine s tha t ar e specific to LF

G application s (i.e. , corrosio n resistant) . Typically , warrantie s tha t guarantee engine performanc e requir e th e operato r t o agre e to certai n condition s regardin g engin e operatio n an d maintenance . Reciprocating engine s use dfo r LFG application s ma

y be eithe r stoichiometri c combustio n o r lea n combustio n engines . The "lean-bum " engine s are turbochargedan dbumfue l wit h exces s air . The stoichiometricall y carburete do r "naturall y aspirated " engine s hav e air i n th e fuel/air

mi x jus t sufficien t t o bur n th e fuel . The lean-bu

mengine s ar

e typicall y usedwher

e nitrogen oxide s (NO x 

### ) andcarbo n monoxid e (CO ) emission s ar e o f concern . Stoichiometri c combustio n ca n resul t i n relatively hig

h NO x 

### emission s whic

h ca n var y widel y due t o carburetor

setting an dothe r variables .P.2 6



### Anothe r facto r t o conside r i s tha t ther e i s atrade-of

f betwee n low NO x 

### emission s an

ddi e reduction o f NMOCs . Gas-fedturbine s ar

e als o useda

t landfill s to generat

e electricity . Ga s turbine s tak e larg e amount s of ai r fromthe atmosphere , compres s it , bumfue l t o hea t it , the n expandi t i n di e powe

r turbin e t o develo p shaf

t horsepower . Thi s horsepower ca n b e use dto driv e pumps , compressors , o r electrica l generator s (McGe e andEsbeck , 1988) . Ga s turbine s are use da t 2 1 U.S . landfill s t

o produc e 10 8 MW C 

### of power . Wast

e Managemen

t o f Nort h America , Inc . ha s foun

dtha t gas-fed turbine s typicall

y have parasiti c energ y losse s o f 17 % o f gros s output

a s comparedt o 7 % fo

r I C engines . A factor

t o consider

i s tha t turndown performanc e i s poor i n compariso n t o tha

t of I C engines . Turbine s perfor mbes t whe n operate da

t ful l load , anddifficultie s ca

n occu r whe n operate da

t les s tha n full load . I

n addition , trac e constituent s hav e been reporte dt o caus e corrosion , combustio n chambe r melting , an

ddeposit s on blades . However , thes e difficultie s ca n b e overcom

e a s demonstrate db

y Wast e Managemen

t o f Nort h Americ a(Schlotthauer , 1991) . Steam-fedturbine s are i n us e a t thre e site s t o produc e 6 4 MW e 

### o f power . Th e larges t

LF G t o energy plan

t i s the Puent

e Hill s Energy Recover

y fromGa s facilit

y (PERG) , locate da

t the Puent e Hill s Landfil

l i n Whittier , California . Thi s sit e bega n recoverin g LF

G fo r energ y utilizatio n i

n November

1986 . I t i s operate dby th e Lo s Angele s Count y Sanitatio n Districts . Th e facilit y consist s of

twi n Zur n Industries , Inc . gas-firedstea mgenerators . Eac

h o f di e unit s fires 420,00 0 scm d(10,30 0 scfm

) of LFG , producin g 95,34 0 k g (210,00 0 lb ) o

f stea mpe r hou r a t 9. 3 MP a (135 0 psig) , heate dto 540° C (1000°F) . Thi s stea mdrive s aFuj i Electri c Co . Ltd . turbin e tha t generate s approximatel

y 5 0 MW

e 

### net , tha t i s sol dt o Souther n Californi aEdison (Valenti , 1992) . High-Heating Valu

e Gas . Seve

n site s in the U.S . upgrad

e LF G t o pipeline quality . Thi s option was considere dmor

e attractiv e i

n the earl y 1980 s whe

n th e pric e o f oi l an dnatura l ga s helpedmak

e thi s mor e economical . The site s tha t ar e producing pipeline qualit

y ga s wer e initiatedi

n the earl y 1980 s whe n ga s price s on aheating-valu e basi s wer e comparabl e wit

h thos e of oil . Thes e site s hav e a n averag e LF G flo w rat e o f 142,00 0 scm

d( 5 millio n scfd) wit

h th e lowes t

ga s flow rat e being 31,15 0 scm

d(1. 1 millio n scfd

) an dth e highes t

being 269,00 0 scm

d(9. 5 millio n scfd) . Stringen t cleanu p technology i s appliedto purif y th e ga s t o pipeline qualit

y b y removing th e trac e constituent s an dCO2 . Simila r t o th e medium-heatin g valu e applications , anearb y natural ga s pipelin e i s needed . The larges t operato r o f facilitie s producin g pipelin e qualit y ga s fromLF G i s Air Product s an

dChemicals , Inc . Lo

w natura l ga s price s i

n the lat e 1980 s forcedsevera

l previou s project s t o shu

t down , an dcontinu e to inhibi t the developmen

t of new high-heating valu e project s i n th e U.S . However , site s i n the Netherland s ar

e finding mor

e favorable economic s (Scheepers , 1991) . A sit e tha t bega n operatio n las t

yea r i n Pueblo , Colorado , i s producin g liqui ddiese l fue l from LFG . Thi s sit

e i s operate db

y Fue l Resource s Development , Inc . an dbega n producin g commercia

l produc t i n January . A secondsit

e i n th e U.S . ma

y be use dt o produc e vehicula

r fue l fro mLFG . The Sout h Coast Air Qualit y Managemen

t District ha s awardedacontract

to demonstrat

e aproces s fo r producin g methanol fromLFG . Th e sit e selectedfo

r thi s demonstration i s th

e BK K landfill , where ther e wa s co-disposa l of hazardou s andmunicipa l waste . TeraMet

h Industrie s i s responsibl e fo

r th e demonstration , andresearc h i s bein g coordinate dwit h th e EPA . Th e demonstratio n i s anticipate dto begi n i n 1993 .P.2 7



### Othe r Option s fo

r Landfil l Gas . Fue l cell s ar e apotentially attractiv e optio n fo r LFG becaus e o

f higher energ y efficiency , availabilit y to smaller

a s wel l a s larger

landfills , an

drecognitio n fo

r minima l byproduc t

emissions . Other

advantage s include minima l labo r andmaintenance , an

d (becaus e ther

e ar e n o moving parts ) the nois e impact i s minimal . Hydroge

n fro mthe landfill ga s i s combinedelectrochemically wit h oxygen fromth e ai r

t o produc e dc electricit

y andby-produc t water . Th e fue

l cel l i s designe dfo

r automatic , unattende doperation , andca n b e remotely monitored . The EPA' s AEER L initiatedaproject

in 199 1 t o demonstrat

e the us e o

f fue l cell s fo r LFG application . Th e typ e of fue l cel l bein g demonstrate di s acommercially availabl e 20 0 kW e 

### phosphori c acidfue

l cell powe

r plant . The 1-yea

r full-scale demonstratio n i s schedule dfo r 1993 . Th e majo r issu e associate dwit

h thi s demonstratio n i s designin g aLF G cleanup proces s tha

t will remove th e trac e constituent s fromth e LFG an da t th e sam e tim e not b e cos t prohibitive . Sinc e the compositio n o f

LFG varie s over

time , designin g aproces s tha t ca n allo w fo r thi s variabilit

y i s difficult . A cleanup proces s ha s bee n propose dandi s t o b e evaluate dlater thi s year . Th e fue

l pretreatment

systemincorporate s tw o stage s o f refrigeratio n combine dwit h thre e regenerabl e adsorben t step s (Sandelli , 1992) . I t

i s hopedthat , if

the EP A demonstratio n o

f the us e o f fue l cell s i s successful , more landfil l owner/operator s wil l consider fue l cell s a s a

n optio n for

LFG utilization . Give

n the highe

r energy efficienc

y an dpotentia l fo r minima l byproduct

emissions , fue

l cell s ma y b e the mos t

attractiv e option fo

r area s wher

e ther e ar e stringen t requirements fo

r NO x 

### an d C O emissions . Benefits o f Landfil l Ga s Utilizatio n The five majo

r healt h an dwelfar e effect s o f air emission s fro

mMSW landfill s ar

e (1 ) explosio n hazards , (2 ) globa

l warming effects fro

mCH 4 emissions , (3 ) huma

n healt h an dvegetation effect

s cause db y ozon e formedfromNMOCs , (4 ) carcinogenicit y an dother possibl e noncance

r healt h effect s associate dwit

h specifi c MS W landfill emissio n constituents , and(5 ) odor nuisance . Th e first concern , the explosiv e potentia l o f LFG , ha s resulte di

n 4 0 case s o

f ga s migratio n in th e U.S . which have resultedi

n explosion s an

dfires. O

f thes e 4 0 cases , 1 0 resulted i n injurie s an

ddeat h (U.S.EPA , 1991) . Th e secondconcer n i s the contributio n o

f landfill CH

4 t o globa l warming . Landfill s ar

e asignifican

t sourc e o f CH4 , rankin g thir

di n anthropogeni c source s afte r rice paddie s andruminant s (Pee r

e t al. , 1992 , Khali l andRasmussen , 1990) . A thirdconcer n i s th e contributio n o

f NMOC s t o tropospheri c ozon e which affects huma n healt h andvegetation . Th e EP A ha s estimatedtha

t roughl y 1 % (i.e. , 260,00 0 Mg/yr ) o f the NMO C emission s fromstationar y source s i n th e U.S . are emitte db

y MS W landfills . Toxi c constituent s typicall y foun di n LFG include viny l chloride , toluene , an dbenzene which ma

y contribut

e t o possibl e cancer

an dnon cance r healt h effects . The fifth concer n i s th e odo r nuisanc e associate dwit

h LFG . Becaus e of

the healt h andenvironmental concerns , th e EP A ha s designate d"MS W landfil l emissions " a s a pollutant t o b e regulate dunde

r Section s 111(b ) and111(d ) of the Clea n Air Act . Th e EP

A ha s propose dEmissio n Guideline s fo r existin g landfill s andNe

w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r ne w landfill s (Federa

l Register , 1991) . The regulations ar e scheduledt

o b e promulgate dthi s Fall . The regulator

y alternativ e proposedb

y the Qean Ai

r Ac t regulation s wouldresult

i n requirin g 62 1 landfill s to collec t

an dcontro l MS W landfil l emission s (p . 24480 , Federal Register , 1991) . .Althoug h the rul e doe s no

t requir e utilization o

f the gas , it

i s hope dtha t the site s affecte

db y thes e regulation s wil

l conside r LF G t o energ y a s oppose dto flaring the gas . The us e o f energ y recoveryP.2 8



### fo r th e contro l o

f MSW landfil

l air emission s will result

i n decreasedemission s o

f CH4 , NMOCs , an dtoxics . I

n addition , emission s are reduceda t coal-firedpowe

r plants , andgloba

l resources of fossil fue l are conserved . Although increase dCO 2 emission s ar

e bein g trade dof

f fo r reduced CH

4 emissions , thi s i s ane

t benefi t du e t o the differenc e i

n th e radiativ e forcing capacit

y betwee n CO 2 an dCH4 . The radiativ e forcin g capacit y o f CH 4 t o CO 2 o n amolecula

r basi s i s 2 1 time s tha

t o f C0 2 

### (p . 53 , IPCC , 1990) . There are als o benefit s associate dwit h th e developmen

t o f a n alternativ e sourc e of

energ y which results in decrease demission s a t coal-firedpowe

r plants , conservatio n o

f fossi l fue l resources , and reduce ddependenc e on importe doil . I n addition , LF

G utilizatio n ca

n resul t in asubstantia

l cos t saving s t o publi c entitie s tha t own the landfil

l a s wel l a s royalt y payments . Fo r

example , Pacific Energ y - wh o ha s develope d2 5 LFG energ y project s - ha s pai dout $1 3 millio n in royalties , mosd y t o publi c entities . O

n average , Pacific Energy' s project s ar e in the sixt

h yea r o f operation under anticipate dtwenty-yea

r project live s (Wong , 1992) . Othe r economi c benefit s includ e th e purchas e of

good s an dservices . I

n 1991 , Pacifi c Energ y purchase dove r $ 4 millio n in outsid e good s an dservice s t o suppor

t it s LFG project s plu s apayrol l o f >$ 3 million . LFG t o energy project s ten dto b e capita

l intensiv e andare typicall y built on wha t i s considere dundevelopable acreage . Pacifi c Energy' s eight LFG t o energ y project s in Californi apa y >$350,0O0 pe r

yea r in propert y taxe s i n Californi aan

drequire fe

w publi c service s (Wong , 1992) . Barrier s to Landfil

l Ga s Utilizatio n A majo r factor in helpin g t o encourag e LF G to energ y project s i s th e Publi c Utilit y Regulator

y Policy Ac t

(PURPA) . I

t guarantee s tha

t utilitie s purchas e powe

r tha t wa s generatedfromlandfill s a t apric e relatedt

o the cost s tha

t utilit y wouldexperienc e t

o produc e the sam

e amoun t o f power . Althoug h thi s guarantee s apurchaser fo r the power , th e power

sal e revenues ma

y b e lo w if

th e utilities ' own generatin g cost s are low . I n addition , ta

x credit s hav e bee

n availabl e tha

t als o encourag e renewabl e energ y projects , such a s LF G utilization . However , curren t trend s ar e towar dlowe r energ y prices , reduce dta

x incentives , an

dincreasing environmenta

l liability . Althoug h ther

e ar e mor e tha n 600 0 landfill s i

n the U.S. , there are les s tha n 12 0 LFG t o energ y projects . Durin g th e oi l crisi s i n th e 1970s/1980 s whe

n th e pric e of

oi l increase dfrom$6- 8 per barre l to $3 5 per

barrel , ther

e wa s muc h mor e interes t i n developing alternativ e source s of energy , includin g utilization o

f landfill gas . Wit

h the curren

t price s o f energy , i t i s muc h mor e difficul t t o findproject s tha

t ar e economical . Mor

e tha n 3 0 U.S . project s have ha dto ceas e operatio n du e t

o economics . Man

y of the project s tha

t wer e upgrading t

o pipelin e qualit

y are n o longe

r i n operatio n primaril y du e t o economics . Th e pipelin e cos t ca n b e excessiv e whic h i s wh y site s ten dno t

t o transpor t the ga s farthe

r tha n 1,60 0 to 3,200 meter s ( 1 t

o 2 miles) . Laidla w Technolog y Inc . suggest s tha t "successful " LF

G project s nee

dt o b e ove

r 1 MWe 

### an

dhav e a n electrica l pric e o f a t leas t $0.06-0.07/kW

h including an

y capacit y payments . Royaltie s shoul d no t excee d12.5 % a

t thi s energ y pricin g (Jansen , 1992) . Laidla w als o suggest s that , i

f highe r royaltie s are offered , the percentag e shouldb e afunctio n o f energy pricin g ove

r an dabov e the bas e energy rate a s inflation occurs . The early LF G project s wer

e basedo n a

n establishe dfirmpric e fo

r ne t energ y which provide dasubstantia l degre e o f securit y t o developers . Contract s fo

r man y LFG project s d o no t

allo w fo r fluctuation s in energ y rate s andcosts . Revenue s for energ y sale s ar

eP.2 9



### usuall y base do n price s o f th e "competition " o f

equivalen t

energ y source s (e.g. , petroleu m products) . Sinc e the valu e of th e energ y bas e commodit

y ca n fluctuate , thi s ca

n impac t profi t Administration an

ddevelopmen

t cost s hav e increaseda s revenue s hav e decreased . Administrativ e an ddevelopmen

t cost s includ

e lega l fees , permit

applications , an

dcontract negotiation s includin g ga s leas e agreement s an

dpowe r purchas e agreements . Thes e cost s ma y var y widel y dependin g on th e environmenta

l issues , development

considerations , andregulator y requirements . John Pacey of Emcon Associate s ha s foun dma t thes e cost s ca

n var y from$30,00 0 t o $1,000,00 0 pe r kW h fo r a1 MW

e 

### LF G energ y project . Ta x credit s ar

e benefit s proportiona

l t o ga s energ y deliver

y which wer

e legislate dby Congres s (Section 2 9 o

f di e IR S Code ) i

n 197 9 t o encourag e non-fossil fue

l use . Thes e credit s ar

e adirect offse t to taxe s an

dca n onl y b e usedto offse

t aprofit . The ta

x credit s wil

l extendto the yea

r 200 3 an dar e allowabl e fo

r extraction system s installedprior t o di e en do f di e yea r 1992 . However , the mos t recen t versio n of

the ta x bill being considere db

y Congres s doe s no t

provid e a n extensio n fo

r thes e ta x credits . Rober

t F . Hatc h of

Cambria n Energ y System s - whos e company ha s bee n involve di n arrangin g financin g fo

r many U.S . LFG to energ y project s - think s tha t many o f th e project s woul dno t

b e i n existenc e if

th e ta x credit s wer

e no t available . Som

e project s toda

y are financedonl

y becaus e o

f the ta x credit s sinc e energy price s ar e relatively low . Th e ta

x credit s hel

p promot e the developmen

t o f adomesti c resourc e a s oppose dt o usin g foreig n oi l (Hatch , 1991) . Thes e ta x credit s hel

p to encourag e LFG to energy project s an dals o hel p municipalitie s defra

y the cos t of environmenta

l regulations . Anothe r banie r to LF G utilizatio n ca

n b e environmenta

l regulations . Unfortunately , the overall environmenta

l benefi t o f utilizin g LF

G i s no t necessaril y considered , let

alone energ y an

d economi c benefits . Georg e Janse n o f Laidla w Technologie s i s findin

g tiiat the cos t o f condensat e disposa l i s becoming amajo

r expense . The condensat

e i s forme dwhe n the ga s i s compressed . The LF G condensat

e i s being classifieda s ahazardou s wast e which require s disposa

l a t aSubtitl e C facility . Thi s cos t

[i.e. , $0.18/

L (~$0.70/gal) ] ca

n b e significan

t fo r asit e wher e lean-bum engine s or turbine s ar

e use da s comparedt

o th e us e o f flare s wher

e minima l condensat

e i s collecte d (3,80 0 L/da

y (100 0 gpd ) fo

r lean-bumengine s or

turbine s versu s 76 0 L/da

y (20 0 gpd) fo

r flares ) (Jansen , 1992) . Som e LF G energ y industr

y expert s hav e foun

dtha t the air , water , an

dsolidwast

e agencie s hav e conflictin g goals . LFG energy project s hav e bee n force dto shu t down du e to concern s fo

r by

produc t emission s of

NO x 

### an dCO . I n Californi alas t

year , 4 8 piece s o

f stat e legislatio n affectin

g soli dwast e wer e enacte d(SWANA , 1992) . Prioritie s ofte n appea r t o conflict . Ther

e ha s bee n extensiv e coordinatio n betwee n th e EP A Office s responsibl e fo

r the Subtitl e D regulations (e.g. , Office of SolidWaste ) an

dthe propose dCA

A regulation s (e.g. , Office of Ai r Qualit y Plannin g Standards ) fo

r MSW landfill s t

o ensur e tha t thes e regulation s ar

e complementary . However , additiona l effor t appear s neededt

o evaluat e wha t ca n b e done to hel

p encourag e an

dpromot e LF G to energ y projects . Conclusion s U.S . LFG to energy project s ar e currently recoverin g approximatel y 1.2 millio n tonne s of

CH 4 an dproducin g 34

4 MWe 

### o f power . Th e propose dCA

A regulation s fo

r MSW landfill air emission s ar

e expectedt

o resul t i n additiona

l emission reduction s rangin g from 5 to 7 million 

### 8P.3 0



### tonne s o f CH4 . Utilizatio n of

LFG fo r thos e site s affecte

dby di e propose dCA

A regulations ha s the potentia

l to result in increase dbenefit s t

o ou r economy , energy resources, an dgloba l environment . Th e utilizatio n o f alternativ e energy source s suc h a s LF G extend s ou

r globa l fossil fue l resources. Not

only are emission s direcd

y reduce dwhe

n LFG i s collecte dandrecovere dfo r utilization , bu

t emission s ar

e als o indirecd

y reducedwhe

n secondar y air emission impact s associate dwitii fossil fue

l us e ar e considered . Reference s 1 . Federa

l Register . Vo l 56 . No . 104 . Ma y 30,1991 , pp . 2446 8 - 24528 . 2 . GRCDA/SWANA . "Engin e an dTurbine Panel Presentations. " Proceeding s fromthe GRCD A 9t

h Internationa

l Landfill Ga s Symposium , 1989 . 3 . Hatch , R.F . "Th e Federa l Ta x Credit fo r Non-Conventiona

l Fuels : It s Statu s an

dRol e i n th e Landfill Ga s Industry. " Proceeding s fromSWANA' s 14t h Annua l Internationa

l Landfill Ga s Symposium , 1991 . 4 . Intergovernmenta

l Panel on Climat

e Change . "Climat

e Chang e - The IPC C Scientifi c Assessment. " WorldMeteorologica l Organization/UnitedNation s Environmen t Programme . Edite dby J.T . Houghton , G.J . Jenkins , an dJ.J . Ephraums , 1990 . 5 . Jansen . G.R . "Th e Economic s o f LF G Project s in the Unite dStates. " Presente da t di e Symposiumon LFG/Application s an dOpportunitie s i

n Melbourne , Australia , Februar y 27 , 1992 . 6 . Khalil , M.A.K . an

dR.A . Rasmussen . "Constraint s o n the Globa

l Source s of

Methane an

d a n Analysi s o

f Recen t Budgets. " Tellus, 42B , 229-236 , 1990 . 7 . Markham , M.A . "Landfill Ga s Recover y t o Electri c Energy Equipment : Wast e Management' s 199 1 Performanc e Record. " Proceeding s o f SWANA' s 15t

h Annua l Landfill Ga s Symposium , 1992 . 8 . McGee , R.W . andD.W . Esbeck . "Development , Application , an dExperienc e o f Industria l Ga s Turbin e System s fo

r LF G to Energ y Projects. " Publishe di n di e Proceeding s o

f GRCDA' s 11t

h Annua l Internationa

l LF G Symposium . March 1988 . 9 . Peer , R.L. , S.A . Thorneloe , an dD.L . Epperson . " A Compariso n o f Method s fo

r Estimatin g Globa

l Methane Emission s fromLandfills. " Chemosphere, 199 2 (Ln Press) . 10 . Sandelli , G.J . "Demonstratio n o f Fuel Cell s to Recove

r Energ y fromLandfill Gas. " EPA

600-R-92-00 7 (NTI S PB92-137520) , Januar y 1992 . 11 . Scheepers , M.J.J . "Landfil l Ga s i n the Dutch Perspective. " Publishe di n Proceeding s of di e Thir dInternationa

l Landfill Symposium , Sardinia , Octobe r 1991 .P.3 1

««* • 

### 12 . Schlotdiauer , M . "Ga s Conditionin g Ke y t o Succes s in Turbin e Combustio n System s Usin g Landfill Ga s Fuels. " GRCDA/SWANA' s 14t h Annua l Landfill Ga s Symposiumi n Sa n Diego , CA . Publishe di

n the Proceeding s fromthe Symposium . March 1991 . 13 . SWANA . Lis t

o f SolidWast

e Legislatio n Enactedi

n 1991.1992 . 14 . Thomeloe , S A . "Landfill Ga s RecoveryAJtilization - Option s an dEconomics. " Publishe d i n Proceeding s o

f di e Sixteent

h Annua l Conferenc e b

y di e Institut

e o f Ga s Technolog y o n Energ y fromBiomas s an

dWastes . March 1992 . 15 . Thomeloe , S.A . "U.S . EPA' s Globa l Climat e Chang e Progra

m- Landfill Emission s and Mitigation Research. " Publishe di n Proceeding s o

f di e Thir dInternationa

l Landfill Symposium , Sardinia , Octobe r 1991 . 16 . Unite dState s Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . "Air

Emission s fromMunicipa

l Solid Wast e Landfill s - BackgroundInformation fo r ProposedStandard s an

dGuidelines. " EPA

450/3-90-0 1 l a(NTI S PB91-197061) , March 1991 . 17 . UnitedState s Environmenta l Protection Agency , Offic

e o f Policy , Planning an

d Evaluation . Polic y Option s fo r Stabilizin g Globa

l Climate . Draf

t Repor t t o Congress . Februar y 1989 . 18 . Valenti , M . "Tappin g Landfill s fo r Energy. " Mechanica

l Engineering , Vol . 114 , No . 1 , Januar y 1992 . 19 . Wong , F.P . "Alternativ e Energ y & Regulator y Policy : Til l Deau

i D o We Part. " Presente d a t AWM A Conferenc e o

n "Cooperativ e Clea

n Ai r Technology - Advance s Uiroug h Governmen

t an dIndustria

l Partnership " i

n Sant aBarbara , CA , March 2 1 - Apri l 1,1992 .



### 1 0ATTACHMEN T /



### Landfil l Ga s Recovery/Utilizatio n Option s an d Economic s
Susan A . Thornelo e (MD-63 ) Global Emission s an

d Contro l Divisio n Air an d Energ j Engineerin g Researc

h Laboratory U . S . Environmental Protectio n Agency Research Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1

Presente d at : Th e Sixteent

h Annua l Conferenc e b y th e Institute of

Ga s Technolog y o n 

### Energ y fro m Biomas s an

d Waste s Orlando , Florid a

Marc h 5 , 1992P.3 3



### LANDFILL GA S RECOVERY/UTILIZATION OPTION S AN

D ECONOMIC S Susa n A . Thomelo e Global Emission s an

d Control Divisio n Ai r an d Energ y Engineerin g Researc h Laborator y Unite d State s Environmental Protectio n Agenc y Researc h Triangl e Park, Non h Carolina 2771 1

ABSTRAC T Th e decompositio n o f

landfille d wast e results i n a ga s whic h can b e a sourc e o f pollutio n a s wel l a s a resource . O f di e mor e than 6,00 0 activ e municipa l soli d wast e landfill s i n th e Unite d State s (U.S.) , there ar e 11 4 landfil l ga s 07-FG ) energ y projects . Thi s pape r describe s the option s an d economic s fo r LF

G utilization , a

s wel l as ongoin g researc h associate d wit h encouraging/facilitatin g energ y recover y from LFG . Th e healt h and environmenta l concern s ar e describe d as wel l as th e economic , environmental , an d energ y benefit s associate d wit

h LFG utilization . Si x cas e studie s ar e als o provide d to illustrate di e option s fo r LF G utilization . I n addition , th e results o f a recentEP

A surve y o f

U.S . LF G utilizatio n ar

e provided . Th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) research thati s describe d i n thi s pape r wa s conducte d a s pa n o f EPA' s Globa l Climate Chang e Progra m o n emission s from landfill s an

d othe r waste facilitie s tha tcontribute to globa l climat e chang e (Thomeloe , 1991) . EPA' s Ai r an d Energ y Engineerin g Researc h Laborator y (AEERL ) ha s responsibility fo r EPA' s research o n emission s an d mitigatio n fo r th e majo r source s contributin g t o globa l climat e change .P.3 4



### LANDFILL GA S RECOVERYAJTILIZATIO N OPTION S AN

D ECONOMIC S
INTRODUCTIO N LFG i s generate dfro

mth e anaerobi c decompositio n of landfille dbiodegradabl e waste . Th e compositio n of th e ga s i s typicall y 5 0 t o 55 % metiiane , 4 5 to 50 % carbo n dioxide , an

d<1 % nonmethan e organi c compound s (NMOCs) . Th e concentratio n o f NMOC s can rang e fro

m24 0 t o 14,30 0 ppm(EPA , 3/91) . LFG ca n als o contai n chlorinate dan

dfluorinate dcompounds , particulate , wate r vapor , an doccasionally air . Ai r i s present fro mai r intrusio n into th e landfil l (i.e. , i t doe s no t resul t fro mdi e anaerobi c decompositio n of

wastes) . There ar

e economi c incentive s a s wel l a s safet y consideration s t o operate th e ga s extractio n well s s o tha t ai r intrusio n i s minimized . Ai r intrusio n ca

n (1 ) kil l the anaerobi c bacteri atha t ar e neede dto decompos e organi c refus e an d(2 ) caus e a landfil l fire. Ai

r infiltratio n i s als o minimize dbecaus e it dilute s di e ga s an

dincrease s th e cos t of recoverin g energ y fro

mth e ga s The averag e hea

t conten t o f LF G range s fro

m1 7 to 2 0 MJ/dscm(45 0 to 55 0 Btu/dscf) . Laidla w Technologies , Inc. , wit h responsibilit

y fo r 1 2 LFG energ y recovery projects , estimate s tha

t betwee n 1,25 0 an

d1,60 0 kW e of energ y i s generate dfro

m28,00 0 scm

d( 1 millio n scfd) o

f LF G a t 1 7 MJ/scm(45 0 Btu/scf

) (Jansen , 1992) . Consequentl y LF G i s recoveredto tak

e advantag e o

f the energ y potential . Thi s results in reducing emission s of methane , NMOCs , an

dtoxics . I

n addition , emission s ar

e reduceda

t coal-fire dpower plants , an dgloba l resource s o

f fossil fue l ar e conserved . Th e environmental an

dhealt h concern s associate dwit h municipa

l soli dwast

e (MSW ) landfill s hav e been wel

l documented . In di e U.S. , EP A ha s documente d4 0 case s o f ga s migratio n resultin g i n explosion s an

dfires. O

f thes e 4 0 cases , 1 0 resultedi n injurie s an

ddeatii (EPA , 3/91) . The metiiane i s als o aconcer n becaus e of

it s contributio n t o global warming . Landfill s ar e asignificant

sourc e o f

methane , rankin g thirdin anthropogeni c source s afte r rice paddie s an

druminant s (Pee r

e t al. , 1992 , Khali l an

d Rasmussen , 1990) . A thir dconcer n wit h LF G emission s i s the contributio n o f NMOC s to tropospheri c ozon e which affect s huma n healti i an

dvegetation . Th e EP

A ha s estimate d dia t roughly 1 % (i.e. , 260,00 0 Mg/yr ) o f the NMO C emission s fro

mstationar

y source s i n di e U.S . ar

e emitte db

y MS W landfills . Toxi c constituent s typicall y foun din LF G includ e viny l chloride , toluene , an dbenzene . Th e toxi c constituent s ma y contribute t o possibl e cancer an dnon-cancer

healti i effects . A fift

h concer n i s the odo r

nuisanc e associate dwiti i LFG . Becaus e of

di e healt h an denvironmenta

l concerns , th e EP

A ha s designate d"MS W landfil l emissions " a s apollutant . Th e EP A ha s propose dEmissio n Guideline s fo r existin g landfill s an

dNe w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r new landfill s (F.R. , 5/91) . Th e regulations ar

e schedule dt

o b e promulgate dthi s Fall . Th e regulatory alternativ e propose dby di e Gea n Air Act regulations woul dresult i n requirin g 62 1 landfill s to collec t an dcontro l MSW landfil l ai r emissions , (p . 24480 , F.R. , 5/91) . It

i s hope dtha

t th e site s affectedb

y thes e regulations wil l utiliz e th e ga s a s oppose dto flarin g th e gas . Th e us e o f energ y recovery fo

r th e contro l o

f MSW landfil l ai r emission s wil l resul t

i n decrease demission s of metiiane , NMOC , andtoxics . I n addition , there ar

e benefit s associate dwit

h di e development

o f a n alternativ e sourc e o f energ y which result s i

n decrease demission s a

t coal-firedpower

plant s an dadecrease dus e of fossil fuels . Th e focu s o f thi s pape r i s t o identif y di e option s fo

r LF G ga s utilizatio n an dprovide a

n overview o

f th e economic s associate dwit h eac h option . Cas e studie s ar e presente dto illustrate the option s fo r LF G utilization .P.3 5

Enprg v Utilizatio n Option s A recentEP

A survey identifie d 11 4 LF G energ y recovery project s i n the U.S . Th e results fro

m thi s surve y ar

e summarized i n Tabl e I . Detaile d results o f ihi s EP A surve y ar e schedule d t o b e publishe d thi s summer . Thi s surve y wa s conducte d i n coordinatio n wit h th e Soli d Wast

e Associatio n o f

Nort h America an

d use d the result

s o f recentU.S . LFG survey s (Bereny i an

d Gould , 1991 , Wast

e Age , 1990) . Onl y site s tha tar c actuall y operatin g LF G energ y projects ar e include d i n Tabl e 1 . Figure 1 provide s a breakdow n o f di e typ e o f

energ y projects i n th e U.S . Mos to f the project

s (i.e. , -75% ) generat

e electricity which i s eithe r use d on-sit e o r sol d to a loca l utility . O f

the projects generatin g electricity , approximatel y 34 4 MW e o f powe r i s bein g produce d wit

h 6 1 projects usin g interna l combustio n (IC ) engines , 2 1 projects usin g gas fe d turbines , an

d 3 project

s usin g steam-fe d turbines . Pipelin e qualit y ga s i s produce d a

t6 sites , an d 1 site i s processin g LFG to produc e diese l fuel . Th e mos teconomica l option s fo r LF G utilizatio n tend t o be directuse s such as fo r proces s heatan d a s boile r fuel . Direc tus e o f

LF G a s medium-heatin g valu e fuel i s occurrin g a t2 1 sites . Figur e 2 provide s a breakdown o f tii e U.S . LFG projects b y state indicatin g th e numbe r o f

projects fo r state s where ther e ar e a tleas tthre

e activ e LFG utilizatio n projects . Californi a ha s th e larges tnumbe r o f LF G project s partiall y du e t o stat e an d loca l requirements resultin g i n th e collectio n an d contro l o f

gas . However , many LFG energ y projects hav e bee n initiate d becaus e o f attractive economic s particularly i n the earl y 1980 s whe n th e pric e o f

energ y helpe d make thi s more economical . Waste Managemen to f Nort h Americ a ha s installe d ga s collectio n an d control s a s par

to f tiieir operatin g policy . Wast e Managemen thas LFG energ y recovery projects a t2 5 site s wit

h plan s t o star

tne w projects a

t5 additional sites . Th e Clea n Ai r Ac tregulation s propose d Ma y 30 , 1991 , ar

c expecte d t

o resulti n additiona

l LF G utilizatio n projects . Direct-Ga s Us e (Medium-Heatin g Value) . Th e option s fo r medium-heatin g valu e LFG (i.e. , -1 9 MJ/dsc

m (~500'Btu/dscQ ) includ e us e as boile r fuel , spac e heatin g an d cooling , an

d industria

l heating/cofirin g applications . Th e mos ttypical us e i s a s boile r fue l to produc e steam . Th e majorit y o f the 2 1 site s sellin g LF

G fo r directus e ar

e supplyin g fue l fo r boilers . Thi s i s a particularly attractive optio n sinc e conventiona l equipmen tcan b e use d wit

h relatively littl e modification . I n addition , boiler s tend to b e les s sensitiv e t o LF G trace constituent s an d consequentl y les s ga s cleanu p i s required compare d t o th e othe r alternatives . A limitatio n in th e selectio n o f

thi s optio n i s tha

ta LF G custome r mus t b e relativel y near , typicall y les s tha n 1,60 0 t o 3,20 0 meters ( 1 t o 2 miles ) i s considere d desirable . Th e otiie r option s fo r medium-heatin g valu e ga s includ e industrial application s suc h a s lumbe r drying , kil n operations , an d cemen tmanufacturing . A n advantag e o f man y industria

l application s i s tha

i fue l i s required continuously , 2 4 hours pe r day . LFG can als o b e use d a s a supplemental fuel tha tmeet s a portio n o f

th e tota l demand . LF G t o produc e spac e heatin g i s i n limite d us e primaril y du e to pipin g cost s an d difficult y i n matchin g up th e LFG energ y outpu twit h nearb y use r needs . Dependin g o n climat e an d otiie r factors , hea

tenerg y supplie d b

y 14,00 0 scm d (500,00 0 scfd ) LF G correspond s t o heatin g need s of a 18.600-93,00 0 m * (200,00 0 t o 1,000,00 0 s q ft ) facility . Th e mai n difficulty with spac e heatin g i s tha tload s tend t

o be variabl e ove r time , bot h durin g th e da y an d b y season . One o f

di e cas e studies , however , demonstrate s th e successfu l us e o f LF G fo r producin g spac e heating . Electricity Generation . O f th e 11 4 U.S . LFG energ y recovery projects , 6 1 projects generate electricit y usin g I C engine s an d 2 4 projects generate electricit y usin g turbines . Of the 34 4 MW e o f

energ y produce d a

tthes e sites , 50 % i s generate d usin g turbine s an d 50 % i s generate d usin g I C engines . Th e typ e o f

equipmenti s generall y determine d b y th e volum e o f

ga s availabl e an

d di e air pollutio n requirement s o f th e area i n whic h th e project

### TABL E 1 . U.S . LANDFIL L GA S ENERG Y PROJECTS USEPA. Thomeloe, 5/7/92

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 Landfil l Nam

e

Northsld e Huntsvlll e Olind a Burban k Temesca l Roa d Duart e (* ) Southeas t Regiona l Industry Hill s Altamon t Mountai n Gat e Toyo n Canyo n Montere y Regiona l Acm e Mars h Roa d Mountai n Vie w America n Canyo n Coyot e Canyo n Oxnar d Powe r Statio n (" ) Pal o Alt o Spadr a Palo s Verde s Locator . (City )

Birmingha m Huntsvlll e Bre a Burban k Coron a Duart e Fresn o Industr y Livermor e Lo s Angele s Lo s Angele s Marin a Martine z Menl o Par k Mountai n Vie w Nap a Count y Orang e Count y Oxnar d Pal o Alt o Pomon a Rollin g Hill s Estate s Locator ) (Stale )

A L A L C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A 2 2 I Sacrament o : Sacrament o ! C A Us e o

t Landfil l ga

s

Pipelin e Qualit y Ga s Direc t Ga s Use r - Boile r Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Direc t Ga s Use r - Me d Bt u Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbin e (2 ) Direc t Ga s Use r - Boile r Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Direc t Ga s Use r - Me d Bt u Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - Stea m Fe d Turbine/Direc t Us e I n Boile r Electricit y Ge n - Stea m Fe d Turbine/Direc t Us e I n Boile r Date Ga s Recover y Bega n Apr-8 8 May-9 0 Nov-8 4 Aug-8 8 Jan-8 6 Oc»-8 7 Feb-8 9 Feb-8 1 May-8 9 Nov-8 4 Dec-8 5 Dec-8 3 Apr-8 2 Jan-8 3 Dec-8 5 Dec-8 5 Feb-8 9 Mar-8 5 Apr-9 0 Feb-9 0 Mar-8 8 2. 7

2. 3 3. 0 4. 4 1. 0 0. 5 0. 7 0. 5 2. 0 5. 0 4. 0 0. 9 1. 7 1. 4 2. 2 0. 8 14. 4 3. 5 0. 8 4. 3 11. 0 Gros s Energ y RecoVd (MW)

N A N A 5. 7 0. 8 2. 3 1.6 * 0. 7 NA 6. 0 N A 10. 0 1. 2 N A 2. 0 3. 5 1. 5 20. 0 5. 1 1. 1 5. 0 9. 0 Tota l landfill Acreag e 10 0 4 5 13 5 8 6 9 0 3 3 7 0 15 0 22 5 8 0 9 0 47 8 27 0 16 0 30 0 12 2 30 0 14 0 8 0 21 0 17 3 Devote d IMIW M Recover y ' (acres )

8 0 1 2 13 5 2 4 9 0 3 3 7 0 15 0 22 5 8 0 9 0 6 0 27 0 10 0 20 0 7 0 30 0 14 0 6 0 21 0 17 3 Direc t Ga s Use r - Boile r 9Q ! 1 Q ! N A 113 ; 4Q Refus e Burie d On Sit e (ml.T )

5. 8 0. 5 12. 0 1. 4 4. 0 1. 6 2. 0 1. 5 14. 3 10. 0 16. 0 3. 7 5. 0 4. 0 3. 0 •> 50. 0 2. 7 2. 5 9. 0 18. 0 2. 6 LF G Dovotopor/Operato r

Birmingha m Ga s Resource s Th e Magulr e Grou p Inc . GS F Energ y J.W . Operatin g Co . O'Brie n Energ y System s O'Brie n Energ y System s Montere y Landfil l Ga s Corp./J.W . Oper . Co . Cit y o f Industr y Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a GS F Energ y Pacifi c Energ y Montere y Regiona l Wast e Mgm t GS F Energ y Laidla wGa s Recover y System s Laidla wGa s Recover y System s Laidla wGa s Recover y System s Laidla wGa s Recover y System s Pacifi c Energ y Montere y Landfil l Ga s Corp . L A Count y Sanitatio n District s L A Count y Sanitatio n District s Laidla wGa s Recover y System s
8 1 f, 3 = 0.02 8 rr.3 ; 1 acr e = 4046. 9 m2 ; 1 to n = 90 7 k g N A = No t Applicable . ? = No t Availabl e (Continued ) #

t o c n2 3

2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 Lsndfia

f Nam e

Craz y Hors e Canyo n Ota y Landfil l (« ) Sycamor e Canyo n Newb y Islan d Davi s Stree t Sa n Marco s Sant a Clar a Guadalup e Sant a Cru z Austi n Roa d Bradle y Penros e (## ) Sheldon-Ariet a BK K Puent e Hills - RI o Hond o (Mr* ) Puent e Hills-Ga s Turbine s (### ) Puent e HITIs-PER G («*« ) Yol o Count y Templ e to n Ga p Count y Lin e Synhltec h Ne wMllfor d Locatio n (City )

Salina s Sa n Dieg o Sa n Dieg o Sa n Jos e SanLeandr o Sa n Marco s Sant a Clar a Sant a Clar a Co . Sant a Cru z Stockto n Su n Valle y Su n Valley-L A Su n Valley-L A WestCovln a Whlttle r Whlttle r Whlttle r Yol o Count y Colorad o Spring s Littleto n Puebl o Ne wMllfor d 

### TABL E 1 . U.S . LANDFIL L GA S ENERG Y PROJECT

S

laoca Ito o (SWB )

C A C A C A CA C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C D G O 0 0 C T Us e o

f Landfil l gas

Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n • Ga s Turbin e Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Olrec t Ga s Use r - Me d Bt u Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbin e Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbin e Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Direc t Ga s Use r - Me d Bt u Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Direc t Ga s Use r - Me d Bt u Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Direc t Us e - Boile r & Coge n Engin e Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbin e Electricit y Ge n - Stea m Fe d Turbine/Direc t Us e I n Boile r Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Pipelin e Qualit y Ga s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s ( 1 ) Upgradin g Ga s Int o Diese l Fue l Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s d ) Dat e Ga s rtecnwr y Bega n

Dec-8 6 Dec-8 6 Dec-8 8 Aug-8 4 Jul-8 1 Dec-8 8 Dec-8 6 Apr-8 4 Nov-8 8 Dec-8 5 Jun-8 9 Dec-8 5 Jan-8 8 8 6 Mar-8 4 Dec-8 3 Nov-8 6 Nov-8 9 Jun-9 1 Dec-8 6 Jul-9 1 Jun-9 1 LF

G Reeo/ d (mfim ) (scfd )

0. 8 1. 9 1. 2 3. 0 1. 9 1. 2 0. 9 1. 1 0. 6 0. 4 3. 0 4. 9 0. 8 23. 0 0. 5 4. 0 33. 0 1. 3 2. 4 0. 3 2. 0 2. 0 Gross Energ y Reco/ d (MW )

1. 1 3. 4 1. 7 5. 0 N A 1. 7 1. 1 2. 6 0. 9 0. 8 N A 10. 0 N A 5. 0 0.55 * 4. 0 50. 0 1. 5 N A 0. 8 N A 3. 3 To M landfil l Asm ag e

12 5 52 5 53 2 34 2 10 0 9 5 16 5 11 5 10 0 17 1 20 9 7 2 4 0 50 0 57 0 57 0 57 0 70 0 4 0 9 0 11 4 9 0 Devoted " Me l lan e Recover y (•eras)

12 5 40 0 10 0 17 0 10 0 9 5 12 5 6 5 3 0 14 0 20 9 7 2 4 0 50 0 57 0 57 0 57 0 11 6 3 3 9 0 11 4 9 0 Refus e Buried On Srtf l (mi.T |

1. 8 6. 1 4. 5 ? 9. 7 3. 8 3. 5 3. 5 4. 5 1. 9 13. 4 9. 0 3. 0 25. 0 60. 0 60. 0 60. 0 3. 1 2. 0 3. 1 3. 5 3. 6 USEPA, Thomeloe. 5/7/92

LF G Developer/Operato r

Pacifi c Energ y Pacifi c Energ y Laidla wGa s Recover y System s Laidla wGa s Recover y System s G S F Energ y Laidla wGa s Recover y System s Pacifi c Energ y Laidla wGa s Recover y System s Laidla wGa s Recover y System s Pacifi c Energ y Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Pacifi c Energ y Pacifi c Energ y Dougla s Energ y L A Count y Sanitatio n District s L A Count y Sanitatio n District s L A Count y Sanitatio n District s Montere y Landfil l Ga s Corp . Fue l Resource s Developmen t Co . Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Fue l Resource s Developmen t Co . Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a *

a 1 t t A f. 3 = 0.02 8 m3 ; 1 acr e = 4046. 9 m2 ; 1 to n = 90 7 k g

kl- . »__i;.-.,KI „ "> (Continued )

^ i

### TABL E 1 . U.S . LANDFIL L GA S ENERG Y PROJECTS USEPA. Thomeloe. 5/7/92

<T> 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 6 1 Landfil l Nam e

Kenllwort h Par k Cherr y Islan d Centra l Disposa l (CDSL ) Watt s R d Landfil l Maco n Kapa a Settler' s Hil l Blu e Islan d CI D Tazewel l Mila m Lak e Landfil l Penningto n Av e Brow n Statio n R d Gud e Southlaw n Wayn e Disposa l Woo d Stree t 6 2 Rlvervie w Locatio n (CHy )

Washingto n Wilmingto n Pompan o Beac h Atlant a Maco n Kaltua , Oah u Batavl a Blu e Islan d Chicag o Eas t Peori a Madiso n Northbroo k Baltimor e Princ e George' s Count y Rockvifl e Bedevfll e Lansin g Rlvervie w Locatio n (Stale )

D C C E P L G A G A H I 1 I L I L I L I L 1 M D M O M D M M M Us e o

f Landfil l ga s

Direc t Ga s User - Me d Bt u Direc t Ga s Use r • Me d Bt u Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s ( 5 ) Pipelin e Qualit y Ga s Direc t Use r - Bric k

Kil n Electricit y Ge n • Ga s Turbine s Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s ( 2 ) Direc t Ga s Use r - Me d Bt u Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s ( 3 ) Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s ( 2 ) Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s ( 2 ) Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s (2 ) Direc t Ga s Use r • Me d Bt u Electricity Ge n - I C Engine s & Direc t Us e Electricit

y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit

y Ge n - I C Engine s & Direc t Us e Electricit

y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit

y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s Dat e Ga s Rejcomw y Bega n

Nov-8 2 Oct-9 0 May-8 9 Apr-8 6 Jan-8 5 May-8 9 Oct-8 8 Nov-8 3 May-8 9 Jul-8 9 Apr-9 1 Jul-8 8 Apr-8 4 Jun-8 7 Dec-8 5 Jun-8 4 Oct-8 5 Dec-8 7 tF G

RecoV d (mitora ) (scfd )

0. 3 0. 9 10. 0 1. 1 1. 1 2. 1 2. 5 1. 0 6. 0 0. 8 0. 9 4. 0 0. 9 1. 0 1. 4 0. 8 0. 7 3. 8 Gros s Energ y RecoV d (MW )

N A N A 15. 0 N A N A 3. 3 3. 9 N A 9. 0 1. 6 1. 6 6. 0 N A 2. 6 2. 5 1. 4 ? 6. 1 Tota l land fif l Acre ag e

14 5 3 0 21 0 5 5 12 0 4 2 17 9 13 0 17 3 12 5 11 0 18 7 6 0 4 0 9 1 30 0 2 0 0 25 0 UftQft N

MvKtW W HeJCOKeJlr y (acres )

1 2 1 7 21 0 5 5 6 9 4 2 17 9 13 0 17 3 11 0 11 0 18 7 5 0 2 0 9 1 30 0 5 5 14 5 Refus e Burie d On Sit e (mi.T )

2. 7 0. 8 15. 3 3. 0 3. 5 1. 2 7. 7 5. 0 20. 0 2. 2 4. 3 12. 6 2. 0 4. 0 4. 8 12. 0 1. 6 10. 0 LF G Dflvetoper/uperalo r

Nationa l Par k

Servic e Delawar e Soli d Wast e Authorit y Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Brownin g Ferri s Industrie s Ga s Resource s Corp . Laidla wGa s Recover y System s Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a GS F Energ y Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Marylan d Recyclin g & Rehandlln g Th e Magutr e Grou p Inc . Pacifi c Energ y Wayn e Energ y Recovery . Inc . Grange r Renewabl e Resources . Inc . Rlvervie wEnerg y Systems . Inc . e 1 ft. 3 = 0.02 8 m3 ; 1 acr e = 4046. 9 m2 ; 1 to n = 90 7 k g N A = No t Applicable . ? = No t Availabl e (Continued ) 

# f

o o6 3

6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 0 8 1 8 2 8 3 Landfil l Nam e

Gran d Ledg e Woodlan d Meadow s Anok a Nort h Sanitary Littl e Dixi e Rowlan d Wllder' s Grov e Mancheste r Turnke y Kinsle y Ediso n Hackensac k Meadowland s H.S.L . L & D Hig h Acre s Mohaw k

Valle y Orang e Count y Blydenbur g Roa d Eas t Northpor t A l Tur i Hempstea d Locatio n (City )

Watertow n Wayn e Anok a Marylan d Ht s Jackso n Raleig h Raleig h Mancheste r Rocheste r Deprfor d Townshi p Ediso n Kearn y Lafayett e Moun t Hotl y Falrpor t Frankfor t Goshe n Haurjpaug e Huntingto n Mlddletow n Oceansld e 

### TABL E 1 . U.S . LANDFIL L GAS ENERG Y PROJECT S

lea flon (Site )

M M ) M N M D M S N C N O N H N H N J N J N J N J N J N Y N V NY NY NV NT * NY Us e o

f Landfil l gas

Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Direc t Ga s Use r - Boiler s Direc t Ga s Use r - Me d Bt u Direc t Ga s Use r - Me d Bt u Direc t Ga s Use r • Me d Bt u Electricit y Ge n - I C Engines Direc t Ga s Use r (Boile r Fuel ) - Me d Bt u Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Pipelin e Qualit y Ga s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s ( 2 ) Electricit y Ge n • I C Engine s ( 2 ) Electricit y Ge n • I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Dat e Ga s RGCWw y Bega n

Apr-9 1 Jan-9 1 Nov-8 9 Jun-8 1 Sep-9 0 Jun-8 4 Dec-8 9 Jul-8 8 Feb-9 2 Jun-8 5 Sep-9 0 Dec-8 9 Aug-9 0 Mar-9 0 Apr-9 1 Oct-9 1 Dec-8 8 Dec-8 8 Apr-8 4 Jun-8 7 Dec-9 0 IF G

ReceV d (mmm ) (sdd )

1. 2 2. 1 0. 8 0. 3 1. 6 0. 0 1. 5 0. 5 1. 3 1. 3 3. 0 7. 2 0. 7 2. 5 0. 5 0. 4 2. 1 2. 3 0. 8 2. 5 2. 9 Gros s Energy ReeoV d (MW )

2. 4 N A N A N A N A 0. 1 N A 0. 8 2. 4 2. 4 4. 4 N A 1. 0 3. 9 1. 6 0. 8 3. 3 4. 0 1. 2 4. 1 4. 0 Tota l land fill Acreag e

20 0 20 3 10 0 5 0 3 0 2 5 12 5 3 0 9 6 13 6 3 0 35 0 3 0 17 5 9 2 8 0 7 0 7 0 4 4 7 2 18 0 Devote

d Metran e Recover y (seres)

6 0 17 5 10 0 3 0 3 0 4 9 0 3 0 S O 7 0 3 0 30 0 3 0 17 5 9 2 5 0 7 0 4 0 3 7 7 2 11 0 Refus e Burie d On Sit e («*T )

f 7. 0 3. 8 ? 1. 8 0. 1 3. 5 1. 2 3. 1 6. 0 2. 5 30. 0 1. 5 3. 3 3. 4 1. 7 4. 0 2. 0 USEPA. Thomeloe. 5/7/92

LF G Developer/Operato r

Grange r Renewabl e Resources . Inc . Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Fre d Webe r Compan y Brownin g Ferri s Industrie s Natura l Powe r Natura l Powe r Energ y Tactic s Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Unite d Environmenta l Services , Inc . O'Brie n Energ y System s G S F Energ y O'Brie n Energ y System s Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Laidla wGa s Recover y System s JWP . Inc .

. _H . O . Pern

Machinery . Inc .

, g I J.W . Operatin g Co .

_5 1 Energ y Tactic s # a 1 ft ' = 0.02 8 m3 ; 1 acr e = 4046. 9 m2 ; 1 to n = 90 7 k g N A = No t Applicable , ? = No t Availabl e (Continued) C O8 4

8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 Landff l Nam e

Oyste r Ba y Rtverhea d Monro e Livingsto n Smlthtow n Fres h Kill s Onondag a Count y Hors e Bloc k

Roa d Eld a Landfil l Rumpk e Shor t Mountai n F . R . & S . Eas t Permsbor o Mazzar o GROW S Greate r Lebano n Pottstow n Consho-hocke n Taylo r Centra l Chestnu t Ridg e McCart y Roa d DF W tocafto n (CHy )

Oyste r Ba y Rtverhea d Scottsvlll e Smlthtow n State n Islan d Syracus e Yaphan k Cincinnat i Coleral n Lan e Count y Blrdsbor o Enol a Flnle y Townshi p Morrlsvill e N . Lebano n Townshi p Pottstow n Swodolan d Taylo r Johnsto n Herskef i Housto n Lewlsvlll e 

### TABL E 1 . U.S . LANDFIL L GA S ENERG Y PROJECT S

uxa - (Sate )

N Y Nr * N Y N Y N Y W N Y O H O H C R P A P A P A P A P A P A P A P A F l T N T X T X Us

e o f Landfil l ga

s

Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s (4 ) Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Pipelin e Qualit y Ga s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Direc t Ga s Use r • Boiler s Pipelin e Qualit y Ga s Electricit y Ge n • I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricity Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s (2 ) Electricity Ge n - I C Engine s Electricity Ge n - Ga s Turbine s (2 ) Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricity Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s (3 ) Pipelin e Qualit y Ga s Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbin e (1 ) Date Ga s Recover y Bega n

Dec-8 5 Jan-8 5 Dec-8 8 Jan-8 5 Aug-8 2 Dec-8 7 Jan-8 4 Apr-8 8 Sep-8 6 Jan-9 2 Jul-8 7 Sep-8 5 May-8 9 Dec-8 7 Nov-8 5 Apr-8 9 Mar-8 6 May-8 8 Nov-8 9 Jan-9 2 Feb-8 7 May-8 8 LF

G Reco/ d (mtionj ) (Sdd )

1. 4 0. 4 1. 7 0. 7 9. 5 0. 7 1. 9 2. 6 5. 4 0. 9 0. 5 0. 1 2. 0 4. 0 0. 9 4. 0 2. 0 0. 7 6. 9 1. 0 8. 0 2. 0 Gros s Energ y Reco/ d (MW )

2. 6 0. 6 3. 2 1. 0 N A 1. 0 2. 8 N A N A 1. 6 0. 8 0. 1 2. 4 6. 0 1. 2 6. 0 2. 8 2. 0 12. 3 2. 4 NA 3. 0 Tota l land fi n Acreag e

12 0 4 0 9 0 3 0 3.00 0 6 0 10 0 10 6 20 0 27 5 2 5 2 0 9 0 43 4 7 5 17 8 2 5 4 5 15 0 10 8 27 0 41 6 Devote d Ustt W RtKomfy (acres )

6 0 4 0 9 0 2 0 40 0 6 0 6 0 10 6 15 0 5 0 2 5 1 4 3 0 10 0 4 0 9 0 2 5 4 0 10 0 7 5 27 0 12 0 Refus e Buried On Sit e (tni.T )

2. 8 3. 0 2. 9 1. 4 28. 0 1. 3 6. 8 5. 8 14. 0 2. 6 1. 6 0. 4 3. 0 11. 6 1. 0 9. 9 3. 6 2. 0 11. 3 2. 8 14. 0 7. 3 USEPA. Thomeloe, 5/7/92

LF G Develooe7rOpei<daR

Energ y Tactic s Unite d Environmenta l Services . Inc . Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Energ y Tactic s G S F Energ y Energ y Tactic s H . O . Pen n Machinery . Inc . Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a G S F Energ y Emeral d People' s Utilit y Distric t O'Brie n Energ y System s Eas t Permsbor o Townshi p O'Brie n Energ y System s Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a Lebano n Methan e Recovery , Inc . Wast e Mgm t o t Nort h Americ a O'Brie n Energ y System s O'Brie n Energ y System s Palme r Capita l Wast e Mgm t o f Nort h Americ a G S F Energ y ! Wast e Mgm t o t Nort h Americ a
a 1 f. 3 = 0.02 8 rr.3 ; 1 acr e - 4046. 9 m? ; N A = No t Applicable . ? = No t Availabl e 1 to n = 90 7 k g (Continued ) *

T lI O 10 6

10 7 10 8 10 9 11 0 11 1 11 2 11 3 11 4 * • •

« ft* «# « Landfil l Nam

e

Lorto n (I-95 ) Moun t Trashmor e Brattlebor o Pheasan t Ru n Metr o Omeg a Hill s Winnebag o Appleto n Lan d Reclamatio n Locatio n (City )

Fairfa x Count y Virgini a Beac h Brattlebor o Bristo l
Frankli n Menomone e Fall s Oshkos h Outagami e Count y Radn e Supplemente d wit h natura l gas . 

### TABL E 1 . U.S . LANDFIL L GA S ENERG Y PROJECT

S

Loca tio n (Sta» )

V A V A V T W i W l W I W i W i W l Us

e o l Landfil l ga

s

Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s Electricity Ge n - Ga s Turbine s Electricity Ge n - I C Engine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s (2 ) Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s (2 ) Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s (3 ) Electricit y Ge n - Ga s Turbine s Electricit y Ge n - I C Engine s & Direc t Us e Direct Ga s Use r - Me d Bt u Dat e Ga s Recover y Bega n

Nov-9 1 Apr-9 0 Aug-8 2 Feb-9 2 Jan-8 6 Dec-8 5 Jun-9 0 May-9 1 8 7 tF G Reco/ d (mfltara ) (scfd )

2. 0 Temp . Shutdow n 0. 4 0. 8 3. 0 4. 0 2. 0 1. 4 1. 2 Gros

s Energ y Reco/ d (MW )

3. 0 9. 0 0. 7 1. 6 6. 0 9. 0 3. 2 2. 5 N A Total landfil l Acreag e 29 0 35 0 3 0 8 0 10 8 8 3 11 1 46 0 6 1 Ovtote d Merran e Recover y (aova )

2 5 7 0 1 5 8 0 10 8 8 3 10 5 7 7 4 5 Refus

e Burie d OnSit e <m* n

17. 5 7. 0 0. 6 2. 1 8. 3 8. 2 5. 0 3. 0 ? USEPA, Thomeloe, 5/7/92

LF G uowjlopor/Operato

r

M l Co-Ge n Cit y o f Virgini a Beac h Vermon t Energ y Recovery . Inc . Wast e Mgm t o

f Nort h Americ a Wast e Mgm t o

f Nort h Americ a Wast e Mgm t of Nort h Americ a Winnebag o Count y Outagami e Count y Lan d Reclamatio n Co . Include s 185 0 k W projec t expansio n I n 1991 : receive s ga s fro m Ventur a Coasta l L F estimate d a t 2 8 hectare s (7 0 acres ) an d 2. 3 millio n tonne s o f refus e (2/3 ga s Ventur a Coastal . 1/ 3 Sant a Clara) . Include s 185 0 k W projec t expansio n I n 1991 . Receive s ga s fro m 3 landfill s - Penrose , Sheldon-Arieta . an d Bradley . Thi s landfil l ha s 3 separat e energ y recover y projects .

" 1 ft 3 a 0.02 8 nv» ; 1 acr e = 4046. 9 m* ; 1 to n = 90 7 k g N A = No l Applicable , ? = No t Availabl e 

# I (Continued )P.4 2

I C Engine s c o 

### " 5 3 Me d Heating-Valu e Ga s 

# 5

• S Turbine s S L Hig h Healing-Valu e Ga s 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 

### Numbe r o f LF G Project s 6 0 7 0 

### Figur e 1 . Numbe

r o f U.S . Landfil

l Gas Projects b

y Energy Utilizatio n Option

0 

### 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 Numbe r o f LF G Projects 3 0 3 5 4 0 

### Figur e 2 . Numbe

r o f U.S . Landfil

l Ga s Project s b

y Stat e fo r thos e State s wit

h Thre e or Mor e Projects

1 0P.4 3

i s located . Engine s ar

e typicall y use d a

tsite s wher e ga s quantit y i s capabl e o f

producin g 1 t o 3 MW e . Turbine s ar

e typicall y use d a

tsite s producin g more tha n 3 MW e . Reciprocatin g I C engine s driv e electrica l generator s t o produc e electrica l powe r whic h i s typicall y sol d to th e loca l electri c utility . Engine s use d i n thi s applicatio n ar e sol d b y thre e manufacturer s - Caterpillar , Cooper-Superior , an d Waukesha . Eac h o f th e 3 manufacturer s ha s i n plac e more than 2 0 engine s a tU.S . landfil l site s (GRCDA , 1989) . Thes e manufacturer s desig n engine s tha tar e specifi c t o LF G application s (i.e. , corrosio n resistant). Typically , warrantie s tha tguarantee engin e performanc e require th e operato r t o agre e t o certai n condition s regardin g engin e operatio n an d maintenance . Reciprocatin g engine s use d fo r LF G application s ma y b e stoichiometri c combustio n o r lea n combustio n engines . Th e "lean-burn " engine s ar e turbocharge d an

d bu m fue l wit h exces s air . Th e stoichiometricall y carburete d o r "naturall y aspirated " engine s hav e ai r i n th e fuel/ai r mi x jus tsufficien tt o bu m th e fuel . Th e cas e studie s provid e fou r examples-thre e LF G projects usin g lean-bu m engine s an d on e LF G projec tusin g naturall y aspirate d engines . Th e lean-bu m engine s ar e typicall y use d wher e NO , an d C O emission s ar

e o f concern . Stoichiometri c combustio n can resulti n relatively hig h NO , emission s which ca n var y widel y du e t o carbureto r settin g an d othe r variables . Waukesh a suggeste d tha t2. 2 t o 6. 7 Ltg/ J ( 6 t o 1 8 g/hp-hr ) i s a typica l range o f NO , emissio n from stoichiometri c engine s (Stachowicz , 1989) . Lean-bu m engine s ar e availabl e tha

tminimiz e (1 ) th e productio n o f NO , an d (2 ) fue l consumption . A tlandfil l site s wit h ga s flow s belo w -5,70 0 scm d (-200,00 0 scfd) , a

n operato r coul d us e on e o r tw o naturall y aspirate d engines . Th e NO , emission s woul d b e les s tha n 23 0 tonnes/y r (25 0 tons/yr) , an d th e sourc e woul d no tb e subjec tt o ne w sourc e review. A tsite s ove r -5,70 0 scm d (-200,00 0 scfd) , lean-bu m engine s ar

e use d to avoi d ne w sourc e review . Th e destructio n performanc e o f a lean-bu m engin e manufacture d b y Caterpillar (i.e. , th e Caterpillar 351 6 S I Engine ) a tvariou s NO , emission s level s reported b y th e manufacture r i s (Chadwick , 1989) : 

### NO , (Hfi/J ) NO T (g/hp-hr ) NMQCPestructio n Efficienc y (% ) 0. 7 2. 0 98. 3 1. 9 5. 0 98. 7 3. 7 10. 0 99. 1 Not e tha tthere i s a trade-of

f betwee n lo w NO , emission s an d th e reduction o f

NMOCs . Data from 1 5 I C engine s fuele d wit h LF G wer e collecte d b y th e EPA . Th e rang e (at15 % O2) o f

NO , wa s 5 0 to 22 5 ppmvd (0. 6 to 3. 3 g/hp-hr) . Th e range (at15 % O2) o f C O i s 4 3 t o 55 0 ppmv d (0. 6 t o 7. 2 g/hp-hr) . Emission s o f S0 2 wer e measure d fo r onl y on e I C engine : th e concentratio n o f S0 2 (a t15 % O2 ) wa s 1. 5 ppmv d (Thomelo e an d Evans , 1989 ; EPA , 3/91) . Gas-fe d turbine s ar

e als o use d a

tlandfill s t o generate electricity . Ga s turbine s tak e larg e amounts o f

ai r fro m th e atmosphere , compres s it , bu m fue l t o heatit , the n expan d i t i n th e powe r turbin e t o develo p shaf thorsepower . Thi s horsepowe r ca n b e use d to driv e pumps , compressors , o r electrica l generator s (McGe e an d Esbeck , 1988) . Ga s turbine s are use d a t2 1 U.S . landfill s to produc e 10 8 MW e o f power . Waste Managemen to f North America , Inc . ha s foun d tha tgas-fe d turbine s typicall y hav e parasiti c energ y losse s o f 17 % o f gros s outpu ta s compare d to 7 % fo r I C engines . A facto r t o conside r i s tha tturndow n performanc e i s poo r i n compariso n t o I C engines . Turbine s perfor m bes twhe n operate d a tful l load , an

d difficultie s ca n occu r whe n operate d a tles s than ful l load . I

n addition , trac e constituent s hav e bee n reported to caus e corrosion , combustio n chambe r melting , an d deposit s o n blades . However , thes e difficultie s ca n b e overcom e a s demonstrate d b yP.4 4
*_*..-

Wast e Managemen

t o f Nort h Americ a(Schlotthauer , 1991) . A majo r advantag e reported b y site s usin g ga s turbine s i s tha t generall y les s day-to-da

y maintenanc e i s require da s compare dt o th e lean-bu mengines . Emission s o f

NO , fo r seven ga s turbine s fuele

dwit h LFG range dfro

m1 1 t o 17 4 ppmv da t 15 % 0 2 . Emission s o f

C O range dfro

m1 5 t o 1,30

0 ppmv da

t 15 % 0 2 , an d emission s of

S0 2 range dfro

m2 t o 1 8 ppmv da

t 15 % 0 2 (Thomelo e an

dEvans , 1989 ; EPA , 3/91) . Emission s o f S0 2 ar e no t expecte dto b e significant sinc e landfil l ga s typicall y contain s relatively lo w amount s o f sulfu r compound s a s compare dt o fossi l fuels . Th e ne w sourc e performanc e standardfo r ga s turbine s wit

h apowe r outpu t o f 2.9 3 t o 29. 3 MW e i s 15 0 ppmv dof NO , a t 15 % 0 2 (EPA , 1977) . Althoug h th e unit s teste dwer e belo w thi s cutoff

, si x of th e seven turbine s di dhav e les s tha n 15 0 ppmv do f

NO , a t 15 % 0 2 . Datafo

r fou r ga s turbin e facilitie s wer e presente db

y Wast e Managemen

t at th e Ai r andWast e Management

Association' s 82ndAnnua l Meetin g i n Jun e 198 9 (Maxwell , 1989) . Th e datafo

r NO , emission s fro

mth e Sola

r Centau r T-450 0 LF

G turbin e range d fro m2 2 t o 3 7 ppm

v a t 15 % 0 2 . wit

h amedia n of 3 0 ppmv . Steam-fe dturbine s ar

e in us e a

t thre e site s to produc e 64 MW , o f power . Th e larges t landfill-gas-to-energ y plant i s th e Puent

e Hill s Energ y Recover

y fro mGa s facilit

y (PERG) , locate da

t th e Puente Hill s Landfill in Whittier , California . Thi s site bega n recovering LF

G fo r energ y utilizatio n i n Novembe r 1986 . I t i s operate db y th e Lo s Angele s Count

y Sanitatio n Districts . Th e facilit y consist s o

f twin ZumIndustries , Inc . gas fire dstea mgenerators . Each of

the unit s fires 420,00 0 scm d(10.30 0 scfm

) o f LFG , producin g 95,34 0 k

g (210,00 0 lb ) o

f stea mpe r hour a t 9. 3 MPa(135 0 psig) . heate dt o 540° C (1000°F) . Thi s stea mdrive s aFuj i Electri c Co . Ltd . turbin e that generate s approximatel y 5 0 MW e net , tha t i s sol dt o Souther n Californi aEdiso n (Valenti , 1992) . High-Heatin g Valu e Gas . Seven site s i n the U.S . upgrade LF G t o pipelin e quality . Thi s optio n wa s considere dmor e attractiv e i n th e earl y 1980 s when th e pric e of oi l and natura l ga s helpe dmak

e thi s more economical . Th e site s tha t ar e producin g pipelin e qualit y ga s wer e initiate di n th e earl y 1980 s whe n ga s price s on aheating-valu e basi s wer e comparabl e wit

h oil . Thes e site s hav e a n averag e LF G flo w rat e o f 142,00 0 scmd ( 5 millio n scfd) wit

h the lowes t

ga s flo w rat e bein g 31,15 0 scm

d(1. 1 millio n scfd) an d th e highes t

bein g 269,00 0 scmd(9. 5 millio n scfd) . Stringen t cleanu p technolog y i s applie dt o purif

y th e ga s t o pipelin e qualit y by removing th e trac e constituent s an dC0 2 . Simila r to th e medium-heatin g valu e applications , anearby natura l ga s pipelin e i s needed . Th e larges t

operato r of facilitie s producin g pipelin e qualit y ga s fro mLF G i s Ai r Product s andChemicals , Inc . Low natural ga s price s i n th e lat e 1980 s force dseveral previou s project s t o shut

down , an dcontinu e to inhibi t

the developmen

t o f new high-heatin g valu e project s i n th e U.S . However , site s i n th e Netherland s are findin g more favorabl e economic s (Scheepers , 1991) . A site tha

t bega n operatio n las t

yea r in Pueblo , Colorado , i s producin g liqui d diese l fuel fro

mLFG . Thi s site i s operate dby Fuel Resource s Development , Inc . an d bega n producin g commercia

l produc t i n January . A secondsit

e i n th e U.S . ma

y b e use d t o produc e vehicula

r fue l fro mLFG . The Sout

h Coas t Ai r Qualit y Managemen

t Distric t ha s awarde dacontrac t

t o demonstrate aproces s fo r producin g methano l fro

mLFG . Th e site selecte dfor

thi s demonstratio n i s the BK K landfill , wher

e there wa s co-disposa

l o f hazardou s an

dmunicipa

l waste . TeraMet

h Industrie s i s responsible fo r th e demonstratio n an dresearc h i s bein g coordinate dwit h th e EPA . Th e demonstratio n i s anticipate dt o begi n i n 1993 . Othe r Option s fo

r Landfil l Gas . Fue l cell s are apotentiall y attractiv e optio n for LF G becaus e of

higher energ y efficiency , availabilit y to smalle

r a s wel l a s larger landfills , andrecognition for

minima l byproduc t

emissions . Other

advantage s includ e minimal labo r an dmaintenance , and(becaus e there are n o movin g parts ) th e nois e impac t i s minimal . Hydrogen fro

mth e landfil l ga s i s combine delectrochemicall y wit h oxyge n 

### 1 2P.4 5

fro m th e ai r t o produc e d c electricit y an d by-produc twater . Th e fuel cel l i s designe d fo r automatic , unattende d operation , an d can b e remotely monitored . Th e EPA' s Ai r an d Energ y Engineerin g Researc h Laborator y initiate d a projecti n 199 1 t o demonstrat e th e us e o f fue l cell s fo r LF G application . Th e typ e o f fue l cel l bein g demonstrate d i s a commerciall y availabl e 20 0 kW e phosphori c aci d fue l cel l powe r plant . Th e 1-year full scal e demonstratio n i s schedule d fo r 1993 . Th e majo r issu e associate d wit h thi s demonstratio n i s designin g a LF G cleanu p proces s tha

twil l remove th e trace constituents fro m th e LF G an

d a tth e sam e tim e no tb e cos tprohibitive . Sinc e th e compositio n o f LFG varie s ove r time , designin g a proces s tha t can allo w fo r thi s variabilit y i s difficult . A cleanu p proces s ha s bee n propose d an d i s t o b e evaluate d late r thi s year . Th e fue l pretreatmen tsyste m incorporate s tw o stage s o f refrigeration combine d wit h thre e regenerabl e adsorben tstep s (Sandelli , 1992) . I ti s hope d that , i f

th e EP A demonstratio n o f

th e us e o f

fuel cell s i s successful , more landfil l owner/operators wil l conside r fuel cell s as a n optio n fo r LFG utilization . Give n th e highe r energ y efficienc y an

d potential fo r minimal byproduc temissions , fue l cell s may b e th e mos tattractiv e optio n fo r area s where ther

e ar e stringen trequirements fo r NO , an d C O emissions . Economic* ; A majo r facto r i n helpin g to encourag e LF G energ y projects i s th e Publi c Utilit y Regulator y Polic y Ac t(PURPA) . I tguarantee s tha

tutilitie s purchas e powe r tha twa s generate d from landfill s a ta pric e related t o th e cost s tha tutility woul d experienc e t o produc e th e sam e amounto f power . Althoug h thi s guarantee s a purchase r fo r th e power , th e powe r sal e revenues may b e lo w i f th e utilities ' ow n generatin g cost s ar e low . I n addition , ta

x credits hav e bee n availabl e tha tals o hel p t o encourag e renewable energ y projects , suc h a

s LF G utilization . Th e majo r capital cost s o f a LF G energ y recovery projectar e identifie d i n Tabl e 2 a s estimate d i n a recentpape r b y Georg e Janse n o f Laidla w Technologies , Inc . Laidlaw' s experienc e suggest s tha tLFG projects nee d t o b e ove r 1 MW , an d hav e a n electrica l pric e o f a tleas t$0.06-0.07/kW h includin g an y capacity payments . Royaltie s shoul d no texcee d 12.5 % a tthi s energ y pricin g (Jansen , 1992) . Laidla w suggest s that, i f highe r royaltie s ar

e offered , th e percentag e shoul d b e a functio n o f energ y pricin g ove r an d abov e th e bas e energ y rat

e a s inflatio n occurs . A rang e i n th e variabilit y o f th e cos tfo r eac h majo r componen ti s als o provide d i n Tabl e 2 . Th e majo r cos tand revenu e component s includ e (1 ) administratio n and developmen tcosts , (2 ) capital costs , (3 ) operatin g an d maintenanc e costs , (4 ) royalty payments , (5 ) ta x credits , an

d (6 ) energy-relate d revenues. A brie f descriptio n i s provide d o f

eac h o f thes e components .
• Administrativ e cost s includ e lega l fees , permi tapplications , an d contrac t negotiation s includin g ga s leas e agreements an d powe r purchas e agreements . Thes e cost s ma y var y widel y dependin g upo n th e environmenta l issues , developmen tconsiderations , an d regulatory requirements.

• Capita ] cost s includ e th e cos to f ga s extractio n an

d cleanup , energ y conversio n equipment , building , flares, an d sit e modification s fo r construction .

• Operatin g and maintenanc e cost s includ e th e cost s associate d wit h th e operatio n an

d maintenanc e o f

th e energ y project , labor , utilities , taxes , an d insurance .



### 1 3P.4 6

• __.- TABL E 2 . CAPITA

L COS T ESTIMAT

E Estimate o

f Capita l Cost s fo r a1 MW , Landfil

l Ga s Energy Utilizatio n Projec t

Ite m Collectio n System s Fees-Planning/Environment/Lega P Interconnec t

Cos t Generatin g Equipment Contingenc y Total Cost ' CX1Q 3 ) 20 0 3 0 7 6 97 0 22 5 150 0 Percent 1

1 3 2 5 6 5 

### 11 100 Rang e o f

Valu e ($103/kWh ^ 200-100 0 30-100 0 20-50 0 500-200 0

— 850-450 0 'Thes e cost s wer

e provide db

y Laidla w Technologies , Inc . (Jansen , 1992 ) 2Th e rang e i n cos t o f ga s cleanup system s i s $10,000-$500,00 0 ($103/kWh) 3 Legal fee s ar

e approximately 50 % o

f the tota l (i.e. . -$15.000-$500,000 )

• Royalt y payment s ar

e proportiona

l t o energy output

(o r ne t o r gros s revenue) an dar e definedb

y th e contract . Royaltie s ar e negotiate dan

dma y b e pai dt o th e landfil l owner , owner of th e ga s extractio n or

deliver y rights, o r

initial projec t developer . Royaltie s ca

n rang e fro

m5 to 20 % o f

gros s energ y sales .
• Tax credit s ar

e benefit s proportional t o ga s energ y delivery whic h wer e legislate db

y Congres s (Sectio n 2 0 o

f the IR S Code) . Thes e credit s ar

e adirec t offse t t o taxe s an

dca n only b e usedt

o offse t aprofit . Th e ta

x credit s will exten dthroug h th e yea r 200 2 an

dar e allowabl e for

extractio n system s installe dprio r

t o the en do f the yea r 1992 . However , th e mos t recent versio n o f the ta x bil l bein g considere db

y Congres s doe s no t

include ata

x credi t fo r non-fossi l fue

l projects .
• Revenue s fo

r energ y sale s ar

e usually base

do n price s of

the "competition " o f equivalen t energ y source s (i.e. , petroleumproducts) . Sinc e th e valu e of th e energ y bas e commodit

y ca n fluctuate , thi s ca

n impac t profit . Th e earl y LF

G project s wer

e base don a n establishe dfirmpric e fo r ne t energ y whic

h provide d asubstantia ] degre e o

f securit y to developers . Cas e Studie s Th e EPA' s Air

an dEnerg y Engineerin g Researc h Laborator y initiate daprojec t

i n 199 1 t o document

th e option s fo

r LF G utilization . Thi s wor

k include dgatherin g datao n th e operatin g an

dmaintenanc e requirements , th e financing an dcontractual arrangements ,



### 1 4P.4 7

an d"lesson s learned " fro mth e six site s include di n th e cas e studies . Thi s paper provide s abrie f summar y o f th e cas e studie s wit

h emphasi s on identifyin g th e differen t utilizatio n option s in use . Th e fina l report wil l contai n mor

e detaile dinfonnatio n for thes e site s includin g capita l andoperatin g costs , proces s flow diagrams , anddat aregarding th e environmenta

l benefit s o f

LF G utilization . Site s wer e selecte dt o provid e insight on th e kind s o f

issue s associate dwit

h LFG utilizatio n an daction s take n b y operator s andequipmen t manufacturer s t o ensur e successful projects . Man

y companie s hav e bee

n successfu

l i n finding innovativ e solution s t o difficultie s arisin g fro

mLF G utilization . Severa

l firms hav e foun

dtha t ga s cleanup i s critica l to th e performanc e o f

bot h engine s an

dturbines . Th e desig n of th e ga s cleanu p mus t b e specifi c t o th e compositio n o f th e ga s bein g recovere dan dallo w for th e variabilit y whic h occur s ove

r time . Th e EP

A ha s initiate dafollow-u p projec t whic h wil l focu s on th e issue s of

ga s cleanup , equipmen

t design , an

doperationa

l modifications . Th e focu s o f thi s initial projec t

i s to identif

y th e differen

t approache s fo

r LF G utilizatio n usin g six cas e studie s t o illustrat e the differen

t options . Provide dbelow i s abrief summar y o f th e informatio n gathere da t the si x LF

G energ y projects . Sit e 1 . Brow n Statio n Landfill . Princ e George' s County . Maryland . LFG i s use d t o suppl y bot

h th e electrical an

dheatin g need s o

f acount y buildin g i n additio n t o producin g electricity fo

r sal e t o th e loca

l utility . Th e energ y equipment include s aga s cleanu p andpumpin g station , a3,23 0 m(2-mile ) pipelin e transmissio n system , thre e engin e generators , an

daboile r which support s th e heatin g an dho t wate r systemof

th e 21,80 0 m 2 (235,00 0 s q ft) count y correctional facility . Th e thre e engine s ar e lean-bu m turbocharged . Approximatel y 28,32 0 scm d( 1 millio n scfd) of

ga s i s recoveredfro

m3. 6 millio n tonne s (

4 millio n tons ) of

landfille dwaste . Thi s sit e bega n operatio n i n Jun e 198 7 an dproduce s abou t

2. 6 MW , of

power . Thi s site experience datypica l difficultie s durin g start-up , resulting i n on e o f th e thre e engine s seizin g afte r les s tha n 50 0 hour s o f

operation . Modification s hav e bee n mad e t o th e engin e t o mak e it "corrosiv e resistant" includin g hardene dvalv e guides , chrom e valv e stems , modifiedpisto n rings, an delevate dcoolant

temperatures . Operation s were als o modifie dincludin g mor e frequent oi l check s an dchanges . Sinc e thi s occurrence , the sit

e ha s ha dsuccessful operation . Speculatio n about wha t contribute dt o th e engin e seizin g suggest s tha t higher level s of chlorinate dorganic s (tha n i s typica

l fo r landfills ) ma

y hav e cause dthe corrosion . Inspectio n o f th e engin e snowe devidenc e of extensiv e corrosio n includin g deposi t buildup s which reduce dpisto n clearances . Site 2 . Centra

l Landfill . Yol o County . California . Ga s fromthi s landfill i s usedto fue l thre e I C engine s t o generat e 1. 5 MW, . Th e generate dpowe r i s delivere dvi aa

n interconnec t

1,200 m(0.7 5 mile ) t o nearb y PG&E hig h voltag e power lines . Yol o County , th e owne r

o f the landfill , receives royalties base do n ne t power an dcapacit y sales . Thi s energ y recovery projec t bega n operatio n i n November

1989 . Approximatel y 36,80 0 scm d(1. 3 millio n scfd) of

LF G i s recovere dfro

m2. 8 millio n tonne s (3. 1 millio n tons ) o f refuse . Thi s projec t

ha s experience danumbe r o f difficultie s includin g equipmen t problems . Th e type s of

engine s wer

e o f a n earlie r desig n lackin g newer

adaptation s t o lean-bu moperatio n on LFG . Modification s t o th e engine s ar e bein g considere dt o mak e the mmor e corrosiv e resistant for LFG applications . Becaus e o f th e difficultie s experience da

t thi s site , th e revenu e fro

mthe royaltie s ha s dropped . Site 3 . Ota

v Landfill . Sa

n Dieg o County . California . Thi s site i s recovering 53,80 0 scmd(1. 9 millio n scfd ) o f LFG t o generat e 3. 4 MW , usin g alean-bu m engine/generato r

set . The electricit

y i s soldto the loca

l utility . Th e Ota

y landfil l contain s approximatel y 5 millio n tonne s (-6. 1 millio n tons ) o f refuse. Th e energ y recovery projec t bega n operatin g in December 1986 . The facilit

y export s anet

outpu t of about 340 0 k W a t a n averag e sal e pric e o

f -$0.0 9 kWh , an

dtypicall y obtain s mor

e tha n $ 2

ic ;P.4 8

millio n pe r

year in gros s power

sal e revenue. Th e LF

G energ y recover

y projec t i s operate dby Pacifi c Energ y who ar e responsibl e fo

r th e operatio n o f

1 0 LFG energ y projects , nin e i n Californi aan don e i n Maryland . Site 4 . Montere y Landfill . Marina . California . Thi s sit e produce s 1. 2 MW , from 23.30 0 scm

d(0. 9 millio n scfd ) of

LFG . Thi s projec t

i s on e o f

th e first in th e U.S. , beginnin g operatio n i n Decembe r 1983 . Th e installatio n i s th e result o f persistenc e by participant s wh o wer

e awar e o f th e potential benefit s of energ y recover

y fro mLFG . Approximatel y 3. 4 millio n tonne s (3. 7 millio n tons ) o f refuse i s burie da

t thi s site a s of 1992 . Th e Monterey Regiona l Wast e Managemen

t Distric t own s an doperate s th e engines , receivin g th e profit

fro mengin e operation . Thi s sit e use s naturally aspirate dengine s and catalyst s fo

r th e outle t exhaus t t o reduce NO , an

dCO . Thi s site ha s demonstrate dexhaus t catalys t us e an dha s foun dtha t th e oi l typ e an

dalkalinit y ar e critica l t o th e engines ' performance . Technica

l succes s i s goo ddespit

e tha t ga s cleanup i s les s stringent tha n i s typical fo r othe r sites . Thi s sit

e ca n b e considere done of

the pioneer s i

n energ y recovery fro mLFG . Sit e 5 . Sycamor

e Canvon Landfill . Sa

n Diego . California . Thi s sit e i s producin g 1.7 MW , fro

m34,00 0 scm

d(1. 2 millio n scfd) of

LFG . Thi s projec t

bega n operatin g i n December 198 8 usin g tw o gas-fedturbine s fuele dwit h LF G t o generate electricit

y which i s soldt o the Sa

n Dieg o Gas an

dElectri c grid . Thi s energ y projec t wa s ownedb y Sola r prio r t o bein g sol dt o Laidla

w Technologies , Inc . Sola r reportedtha

t efficiency i s reduced by 13 % fro

mth e efficienc y tha

t woul db e obtaine dwit

h th e sam

e turbin e o n more conventiona

l pipelin e ga s o r

distillate fuels , du e t o th e greate r parasiti c compressio n load . Th e equipmen t

i s occasionall y limite ddu e t o inadequat e quantitie s of LFG . Thi s difficult y ha s occurre da

t othe r site s an dga s projection s fo

r newer project s ten dto b e more conservative . Sit e 6 . Wilder' s Grov e Landfill . Raleigh . Nort h Carolina . Thi s site i s a

n excellent exampl e o f how LF G ca n be useddirectly b

y a n industria

l client a s medium-heatin g valu e fuel . Th e ga s fromth e Raleig h landfill i s pipe d1,60 0 meter s ( 1 mil e t o apharmaceutical facilit y fo r us e a s boiler

fue l t o produc e 11,00 0 k

g (24,00 0 lb ) o f

stea mpe r hour . Thi s projec t bega n operatin g i n December

198 9 an di s expanding . A secondboiler i s bein g adde dthi s year . Approximatel y 42,50 0 scm d(1. 5 millio n scfd) o f

ga s i s recovere dfro

m approximatel y 3. 2 millio n tonne s (3. 5 millio n tons ) o f refuse . Natura

l Powe r initiate dthi s projec t an di s responsible fo

r it s operation . Natural Power

pay s royalties t o the Cit

y of Raleig h base do

n apercentag e o f

stea m sales . Thi s projec t

als o receives ta

x credit s on th e extracte dgas . All participant s in thi s projec t appea r satisfie dwit

h the performanc e o f

thi s projec t

t o date . However , Natura l Power , who wa s th e prime motivato r i n gettin g thi s projec t

initiated , provide dmany year s o f wor k on the projec t

durin g which ther

e wa s n o financial return. Thi s site wa s pron e t o off-sit e ga s migratio n prio r

to th e installatio n of

th e ga s collectio n an

drecovery project . Sinc e th e installatio n o f th e energ y project , ga s migratio n off-sit e ha s no t

bee n detected . In addition , other environmental benefit s are realize d includin g th e reductio n fro memission s o f

NMOCs , toxics , an

dmethane , whic h i s a contributo r

t o global climate change . Natura l Power , th e developer

fo r thi s project , i s presentl y negotiatin g acontrac t wit h alandfil l i n Kiev , in the Ukraine . Thi s sit e ha s ove r 9 millio n tonne s (1 0 millio n tons ) o f waste . Th e ga s i s t o b e usedto generat e electricit y fo r the Ukrainia

n capital .



### 1 6P.4 9

CONCLUSION S The utilizatio n of

LF G i s sensibl e i

n term s o f

economics , th e environment , an d energ y usage . Th e utilizatio n o f altemativ e energ y source s suc h a s LF G extend s ou

r global fossi l fue

l resources . No t

onl y ar e emission s directl y reduce dwhen LF G i s collecte dan

drecovere dfo

r utilization , but

emission s ar

e als o indirectl y reducedwhen secondar y air/emissio n impact s associate dwit h fossi l fue

l us e are considered . U.S . landfill s ar

e currently recoverin g -1. 2 millio n tonne s of methane an

dproducin g 34

4 MW e o f power . Th e propose dClea n Ai r Act regulation s for

MS W landfill ai r

emission s are expecte dto result

in additiona

l emissio n reduction s rangin g from 5 t o 7 millio n tonne s of methane . Hopefully , utilizatio n o f LF G wil l be considere dan

dencourage dfo

r thos e site s affectedb y th e propose dClea n Air Ac t regulations. Thi s woul dresult i n increase d benefit s to ou

r economy , energ y resources , an dgloba l environment . REFERENCE S 1 . Berenyi , Eileen , an dRober t Gould , 1991-9 2 Methan e Recover y fro mLandfil l Yearbook , Governmenta

l Advisor y Associates , 1991 . 2 . Chadwick, Curt . Marke t Developmen

t Department , Caterpilla

r Inc. , Lette

r t o Susa n Wyatt , EPA/OAQPS . Februar

y 21 , 1989 . Respons e to reques t fo r informatio n on I C engine s use dt o bu mLFG . 3 . Federa

l Register . Vol 56 . No . 104 . Ma y 30 , 1991 , pp . 2446 8 - 24528 . 4 . GRCDA/SW.ANA

, "Engin e an

dTurbin e Panel Presentations. " Proceeding s fro m the GRCD A 9t h Internationa

l Landfill Ga s Symposium , 1989 . 5 . Jansen . G.R . "Th e Economic s of LF G Project s i n th e UnitedStates. " Presente d a t th e Symposiu mon LFG/Application s andOpportunitie s i n Melbourne , Australia , Februar

y 27 , 1992 . 6 . Khalil , M.A.K. , an dR.A . Rasmussen . "Constraint s on th e Globa l Source s of Methane an

da n Analysi s o

f Recen t Budgets. " Tellus, 42B , 229-236 , 1990 . 7 . Maxwell , Greg . "Reduce dNO , Emission s fromWast e Management' s LFG Sola r Centau r Turbines. " Proceeding s o f Ai r & Wast e Managemen

t Association' s 82n

d Annua l Meetin g i

n Anaheim , California , June 1989 . 8 . McGee , R.W . an

dD.W . Esbeck . "Development , Application , an dExperienc e of Industria l Ga s Turbin e System s fo r LF G to Energ y Projects. " Publishe din th e Proceeding s of

GRCDA' s 11t

h Annua l International LF

G Symposium . Marc h 1988 . 9 . Sandelli , G.J . "Demonstratio n o f Fue l Cell s t o Recove r Energ y fromLFG. " EPA

600-R-92-00 7 (NTI S PB92-137520) , Januar y 1992 . 10 . Scheepers , M.J.J . "Landfil l Ga s in th e Dutc h Perspective. " Publishe di n Proceeding s o

f th e ThirdInternational Landfil l Symposium , Sardinia , October 1991 . 11 . Schlotthauer , M . "Ga s Conditionin g Ke y t o Succes s i

n Turbin e Combustio n System s Using Landfill Ga s Fuels. " GRCDA/SWANA' s 14t h Annua l Landfill Ga s 

### 1 7P.5 0

Symposiu mi n Sa n Diego , California . Publishedi n the Symposiu

mProceedings . Marc h 1991 . 12 . Stachowicz , R.W . WaukeshaEngine Division . Lette r to S.R . Wyatt , EPA/OAQPS . March 31 , 1989 . Respons e to reques t fo r information o

n I C engine s use dt o bu m LFG . 13 . Thomeloe , S.A . an dL.B . Evans . Th e Us e of I C Engine s o f

Ga s Turbine s a s Control s fo

r Air Emission s FromMunicipa l SolidWast

e Landfills . Memorandu m to S.R . Wyatt . EPA/OAQPS . Ma y 31,1989 . Docke

t A-88-09 . 14 . Thomeloe , S.A . "U.S . EPA' s Global Climat e Chang e Program- Landfil l Emission s andMitigatio n Research. " Publishe di n Proceeding s o f th e Thir d Internationa

l Landfill Symposium , Sardinia , Octobe r 1991 . 15 . UnitedState s Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , "Air Emission s fro

mMunicipal Soli dWast

e Landfill s - Backgroun dInformatio n fo r Propose dStandard s an d Guidelines. " EPA-450/3-90-011 a(NTI S PB91-197061) , Marc h 1991 . 16 . Unite dState s Environmental Protectio n Agency . Standard s Support an d Environmenta

l Impact Statement , Volum

e 1 : ProposedStandard s o f Performanc e fo r Stationar y Ga s Turbines . EPA-450/2-77-017a . (NTI S PB 272422) . September 1977 . 17 . Unite dSlate s Environmental Protectio n Agency . Stationar y I C Engine s - Standard s Suppor

t an dEnvironmenta

l Impac t Statement , Volum

e 1 : Propose d Standard s o

f Performance . EPA-450/2-78-125 a(NTI S PB83-113563) , January 1979 . 18 . Valenti , Michael . "Tappin g Landfill s fo r Energy. " Mechanical Engineering , Vol . 114 , No . 1 , Januar

y 1992 . 19 . Wast

e Age , "Landfill Ga s Surve y Update. " March 1990 , pp . 97-102 . -x ' . # ( • • __.-



### 1 8P.5 1 atN i UY-IU F resource s inc . . a-.d-s d .I^-*IPIV I . /uooaioo-ta- ' isi»^i"«.n t i

* " ' ' - ATTACHMEN T 2 

# DRAF T Impac tAssessmen

to f Advance d Equipmen

t fo r the Building Secto r Electri c Utilit

y Impac tMethodolog

y Fina l Repor t

Prepare d for : U.S . Departmento

f Energ y Buildin g EquipmentDivisio n Offic e o f Buildin g Energ

y Researc

h Offic e o f Buildin g Technologie s Prepared by : IC F Resource s Incorporate d Under Subcontractt

o Arthu r D . Littl e August19 , 1993

ftfr'wasaiMswtsBsssgBSaVaCTrtg'^^ i , , _ .P.5 2

EP A - - Margina l E

n 09/09/9 3 (Ibs.AWh )

L A ECA R Florid a MAA C MAI N WSCC- N NPC C SP P SER C ERCOt HAP P WSCC- S 199 5

GWH * 24799 2 53262 5 16768 0 24860 5 23645 6 25834 9 26819 0 28672 7 56640 4 24199 9 14809 5 12191 8 ssio

n Factors :

199 5 C0 2 1.17 7 1.93 9 1.13 9 1.46 3 1.98 1 1.13 5 1.20 7 1.48 6 1.77 9 1.20 6 1.71 4 1.70 3 199 5

S0 2 0.00 0 0.00 6 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.00 8 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 3 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.00 1 199 5

NO X 0.00 4 0.00 7 0.00 3 0.00 5 0.00 7 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 5 0.00 6 0.00 4 0.00 6 0.00 6 200 5

GWH * 29007 9 59218 2 21689 6 29481 8 26917 4 28330 6 29819 8 35013 5 70525 2 31238 5 16797 8 15791 2 200 5

C0 2 1.14 2 1.34 9 1.12 4 1.20 2 1.42 4 1.15 4 1.25 5 1.37 9 1.21 4 1.19 3 1.46 9 1.08 1 200 5

S0 2 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 200 5

NO x 0.00 4 0.00 3 0.00 3 0.00 3 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 3 0.00 3 0.00 5 0.00 2 201 5

GWH * 32333 2 63807 9 26949 6 32595 7 30613 4 32462 9 31490 8 40921 0 84150 4 38704 9 18987 6 20428 7 201 5

C0 2 1.06 9 1.15 9 1.19 2 1.11 1 1.32 5 1.11 4 1.34 3 1.20 6 1.12 5 1.11 1 1.47 8 1.12 6 201 5

S0 2 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 -

201 5

NO X 0.00 2 0-00 2 0.00 2 0.00 2 0.00 3 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 2 0.00 2 0.00 2 0.00 4 0.00 2 * Al l GW H represen t actua l regiona l generatio nplu s intro-regiona l purchases . (fro m IP M ru>». ) Weighte d Averag e o f Emission s base d o n regiona l GWH :

199 5 OWH * 199 5

C0 2 199 5

S0 2 199 5

NO x 200 5 GWH * 200 5

C0 2 200 5

S0 2 200 5

NO x 201 5 GWH * 201 5

C0 2 201 5

S0 2 201 5

NO x 24799 2 53262 5 16768 0 24860 5 23645 6 25834 9 26819 0 28672 7 56640 4 24199 9 14809 5 12191 8 0.08 8

0.31 1 0.05 7 0.10 9 0.14 1 .08 8 .09 7 .12 8 .30 3 0.08 8 0.07 6 0.06 2 0.00 0

0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 29007 9

59218 2 21689 6 29481 8 26917 4 28330 6 29819 8 35013 5 70525 2 31238 5 16797 8 15791 2 1.549 4 0.002 6 070b5S~T9383i 5 0.08 4 0.20 3 0.06 2 0.09 0 0.09 7 0.08 3 0.09 5 0.12 3 0.21 7 0.09 5 0.06 3 0.04 3 ..25*0 " 0.00 0

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 "OflO T 0.00 0

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.003 r 32333 2

63807 9 26949 6 32595 7 30613 4 32462 9 31490 8 40921 0 84150 4 38704 9 18987 6 20428 7 453446 1 0.07 6

0.16 3 0.07 1 0.08 0 0.08 9 0.08 0 0.09 3 0.10 9 0.20 9 0.09 5 0.06 2 0.05 1 '..177 6 0.00 0

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.000 2 A// V flOi)/H. t vt/tf/Tfj Sh/tS/f-t-Cs