United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Radiation
6202J
EPA430-B-97-037
September 1997
EPA REGION VII IRC
160955
Opportunities for Landfill
Gas Energy Recovery in
Kansas
Draft Profiles of Candidate Landfills
and Current Projects
-------
-------
Opportunities for
Landfill Gas Energy Recovery in
Kansas
Draft Profiles of Candidate Landfills
and Current Projects
Prepared for:
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by:
ICF Incorporated
Under Contract Number 68-D4-0088
September 1997
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
PREFACE
ACRONYMS AND TERMS
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Purpose 1-1
1.2 Summary of State Landfill Profiles 1-2
1.3 Background Information 1-2
1.3.1 Landfill Gas Generation 1-2
1.3.2 Landfill Gas Collection 1-3
1.3.3 Landfill Gas Utilization 1-3
1.4 Benefits 1-6
1.4.1 General Benefits 1-6
1.4.2 Benefits to Specific Groups 1-7
1.5 Opportunities for Project Participants 1-10
1.6 References 1-11
2. Instructions for Evaluating Landfill Profiles 2-1
2.1 Landfill Location and Status 2-1
2.2 Waste Collection Information 2-2
2.3 Gas Collection and Control Data 2-5
2.4 Gas Utilization Data 2-6
2.5 Site Potential 2-7
2.6 Environmental Benefits of Utilization 2-13
2.7 Contact Information 2-17
2.8 Comment Field 2-17
2.9 References 2-18
3. Data Collection Methods and Evaluation Processes 3-1
3.1 Methodology Used to Collect Data from State and Local Agencies 3-1
3.2 National Databases Used to Complete Profiles 3-1
3.3 Data Interpretation Issues 3-5
3.4 Landfill Candidacy Screening Process 3-5
3.5 References 3-8
Working Draft -- September 1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
4. Profiles of Candidate Landfills 4-1
5. Profiles of Current Projects 5-1
6. Index of Landfill Profiles 6-1
Working Draft -- September 1997
-------
PREFACE
EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program
The EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program, a key component of President Clinton's
Climate Change Action Plan, encourages the use of landfill gas (LFG) as an energy resource.
EPA assists utilities, municipal and private landfill owners and operators, tribes, and state
agencies in reducing methane emissions from landfills through the development of profitable
landfill energy recovery projects. Methane captured from landfills can be transformed into a
cost-effective fuel source for electricity, heat, boiler and vehicular fuel, or sale to a pipeline. The
goals of the Program are to promote cost-effective projects at U.S. landfills and remove barriers
to their development. There are currently about 130 landfill methane recovery projects in the
U.S., although EPA estimates that up to 750 landfills could install economically viable landfill
energy projects by the year 2000.
The Landfill Methane Outreach Program includes three important components: the
State Ally, Utility Ally, and Industry Ally programs. EPA establishes separate alliances with
state agencies, utilities (including investor-owned, municipal and other public power utilities and
cooperatives), and members of the landfill gas development community (including developers,
engineers, equipment vendors, and others) through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
By signing the MOU, each Ally acknowledges a shared commitment to the promotion of landfill
gas-to-energy recovery at solid waste landfills, recognizes that the widespread use of landfill gas
will reduce emissions of methane and other emissions, and commits to certain activities to
enhance development of this resource. In return, EPA agrees to provide landfill gas-to-energy
project assistance and public recognition of the Allies' participation in the program.
Working Draft - September 1997
-------
ACRONYMS AND TERMS
Acronym
Btu
cf
CH4
C02
CRER
DOE
EPA
GW
GWh/yr
GWP
hr
1C
IRS
kW
kWh
LFG
LMOP
m3
mm Btu
mmcf/d
mmcf/yr
MOU
MSW
MW
NA
NARUC
NOx
PUC
REPI
RFP
SO2
VOCs
WIP
yd3
Term
british thermal unit
cubic feet
methane
carbon dioxide
Conservation and Renewable Energy Reserve
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
gigawatt (1 billion watts)
gigawatt hours/year
Global Warming Potential
hour
internal combustion
Internal Revenue Service
kilowatt (1,000 watts)
kilowatt hour
landfill gas
Landfill Methane Outreach Program
cubic meters
million Btu
million cubic feet per day
million cubic feet per year
Memorandum of Understanding
municipal solid waste
megawatt (1 million watts)
not available
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
nitrogen oxides
Public Utility Commission
Renewable Energy Production Incentive
request for proposals
sulfur dioxide
volatile organic compounds
waste-in-place
cubic yards
year
Working Draft - September 1997
-------
o
Q
O
3
-------
-------
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
In the United States there are over 130 fully operational landfill gas energy recovery
projects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that up to 750 economic
landfill gas energy recovery projects could be developed; these potential projects are
constrained by informational, regulatory, and other barriers. Through the Landfill Methane
Outreach Program (LMOP), EPA is working to remove these barriers and encourage the
environmentally and economically beneficial development of landfill gas-to-energy projects. The
LMOP encourages the economic use of landfill gas generated by waste deposited in landfills
over the last few decades and from waste that continues to be deposited after implementation of
source reduction and reuse-recycling practices.1 A key component of the LMOP is to provide
landfill owners and operators, developers of landfill gas-to-energy projects, utilities, and other
potential project participants with information on landfills that may offer attractive energy
development opportunities. EPA has developed a series of documents that identify and profile
landfills in each of the following 31 states: Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and
Wisconsin.
This document in the first step in identifying and profiling landfills in Kansas that are
candidates for landfill gas-to-energy recovery projects. Candidate landfills have been chosen
based on specific criteria (see Chapter 3). This document also contains profiles of current
landfill gas recovery and utilization projects, as well as a list of landfills for which the data
gathering efforts are still in progress ("profiles in progress"). Existing landfill projects have been
included to illustrate the wide range of successful project development options, and also
because they may have considerable potential for expansion. Landfills for which EPA has
incomplete information have been included because many of these landfills are likely to be
candidates for the development of energy recovery projects; ongoing research efforts conducted
by EPA in cooperation with relevant state agencies will clarify the status of these landfills.
This document is a first step in determining the potential for developing landfill gas
recovery projects and can also serve to address informational barriers by providing details about
specific candidate landfills to organizations that may be interested in the development of such
projects. It does not, however, include a detailed technical and economic analysis of each site,
a critical step in determining whether the development of a landfill gas-to-energy recovery
project at a particular site is feasible.
Profiles are available from EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Atmospheric
Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Air and Radiation. For information call 1-888-STAR-YES
(782-7937).
1 This is consistent with the principles of EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy, which places
landfilling of waste after source reduction and reuse/recycling.
Introduction Working Draft--September 1997 Page 1-1
-------
1.2 Summary of State Landfill Profiles
Chapter 4 of this report contains profiles of landfills that are potential candidates for
energy recovery projects and Chapter 5 contains profiles of landfills with projects in place. The
preliminary results of the evaluation of landfills in Kansas are summarized below.
In Kansas, EPA estimates that 11 landfills have the potential to support economically
viable gas-to-energy recovery projects. No landfills currently have an energy recovery project.
Chapter 6 of this report contains an index of landfills profiled, a list of profiles in progress and a
list of additional landfills that might be candidates for energy recovery projects in the future
(dependent on their continued operation). The landfills in this last group were selected based on
their annual acceptance rate and the amount of waste landfilled (i.e., landfills that have between
500,000 and 999,999 tons of waste landfilled and landfills with less than 500,000 tons of waste
landfilled with an annual acceptance rate greater than 75,000 tons).
As discussed in Chapter 3 of this report, the data used to produce the landfill profiles
were assembled from state and local sources as well as various national solid waste
publications. Thus, the accuracy of information contained in this report depends upon the
accuracy of information contained in these sources and publications. Some landfills may have
been missed during data collection efforts; their omission from this report does not automatically
exclude them as potential candidates for landfill gas recovery and utilization projects. EPA plans
to update these profiles periodically. Please report any new information or corrections to the
LMOP hotline at 1 -888-STAR-YES (782-7937).
1.3 Background Information
This section provides general background information on landfill gas generation,
collection, and utilization. For more detailed information, a number of additional sources are
available, including Turning a Liability into an Asset: A Landfill Gas-to-Energy Handbook for
Landfill Owners and Operators (U.S. EPA, 1994) and Opportunities to Reduce Anthropogenic
Methane Emissions in the United States: Report to Congress (EPA 430-R-93-012).
1.3.1 Landfill Gas Generation
Landfill gas is produced through the natural process of anaerobic (i.e., without oxygen)
decomposition of organic wastes. Typically, landfill gas is composed of about 50 percent
methane, 45 percent carbon dioxide, and 5 percent of other gases including hydrogen sulfides
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Since methane is the primary constituent of natural
gas, landfill gas can be used as a fuel. Characteristics of the landfill gas, such as quantity of
methane per unit of landfill gas and amount of landfill gas generated per unit of waste, are a
function of the quantity and type of waste-in-place, climate, and several other site-specific
factors.
Landfill gas generation is thought to begin from six months to two years after waste is
placed in a landfill. Gas generation rates vary depending on moisture content and other site-
specific factors. Generally, the generation rate will increase until landfill (or cell) closure, when
Page 1-2 Working Draft--September 1997 Introduction
-------
it will decline relatively rapidly. However, the gas profile for an individual landfill may vary
considerably from this trajectory; for example, landfill gas generation may continue at a
significantly higher rate than expected for many years after landfill closure depending on site
conditions.
A first order decay model is often used to predict landfill gas generation, following the
profile described above. However, a simpler model was used for the profiles contained in this
report. This model assumes a constant rate of landfill gas generation, unlike the first order
decay model which accounts for changing gas generation over the life of the landfill. Therefore,
it may predict a lower or higher gas generation rate than the first order decay model (depending
on the age of the landfill). The model used is explained in greater detail in Chapter 2 of this
report.
1.3.2 Landfill Gas Collection
Landfill gas can be collected using a relatively simple system of vertical wells drilled into
the landfill at selected points. Well spacing depends on site-specific variables, but typically
ranges from 150 to 300 feet. Horizontal trenches can also be used in place of, or in addition to,
vertical wells. Horizontal trenches tend to be less durable than vertical wells because refuse
added to the top of the trenches can weaken the pipes and cause breakage. All of the wells (or
trenches) are connected by horizontal piping to a central point where a motor/blower provides a
vacuum to remove the gas from the landfill. In an effectively designed and constructed system,
methane recovery efficiencies in excess of 85 percent can be achieved (Maxwell, 1990).
Collection systems are usually operated as part of an overall landfill gas control system.
In many cases, a collection system is necessary because of the potential safety hazard posed
by the explosive potential of landfill gas, as well as to suppress landfill gas odors. Accidents
involving landfill gas have resulted in explosions and landfill fires that have caused death, injury,
and extensive property damage.
1.3.3 Landfill Gas Utilization
Once collected, landfill gas can be used as an energy source for many different
applications, including electricity generation, space "heating and cooling, industrial processes,
and vehicle fuels. In addition, landfill gas can simply be flared when a cost-effective utilization
option cannot be developed. Exhibit 1-1 illustrates various landfill gas-to-energy recovery
systems. In each of these options, the methane contained in the recovered landfill gas is
consumed, either through combustion (i.e., use as a fuel, including upgrading to pipeline quality
gas and flaring) or conversion to a non-greenhouse gas (i.e., production of industrial chemicals),
thereby reducing emissions of methane to the atmosphere. Moreover, using landfill gas to
generate electricity can displace other fossil fuel use, thereby further reducing carbon dioxide
emissions, as well as reduce emissions of local air pollutants.
As mentioned previously, there are over 130 fully operational landfill gas recovery and
utilization projects in the U.S., with over 90 additional projects under development (GAA, 1994).
Landfill gas-to-energy projects have established a track record that demonstrates the reliability
and economic viability of landfill gas recovery and utilization technology. Electric power
generation is the most common gas utilization method for landfill gas recovery projects. In fact,
more than 70 percent of the planned or operational landfill energy projects generate electricity,
while about 24 percent sell medium-Btu gas to a direct user, and 4 percent upgrade
Introduction Working Draft -- September 1997 Page 1 -3
-------
Exhibit 1-1
SCHEMATIC OF VARIOUS LANDFILL
GAS-TO-ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEMS
GAS COLLECTION
NETWORK
GASENGINE&
ALTERNATOR
NETWORK
PROCESS V
DISTRICT *
HEAT
BOILER
their gas to pipeline quality (Thorneloe, 1995). The electricity generating capacity of landfill gas
projects typically ranges between 0.5 and 4 megawatts (MW), with the largest operational facility
generating almost 50 MW. Total U.S. operational capacity fired by landfill gas is roughly 400
MW, with an additional 245 MW of capacity planned or under construction.
The following is a brief summary of landfill methane utilization options. For more
information on these technologies and their costs, see EPA's Turning a Liability into an Asset: A
Landfill Gas-to-Energy Handbook for Owners and Operators (U.S. EPA, 1994).
Page 1-4
Working Draft - September 1997
Introduction
-------
Electricity Generation
For landfills that generate significant amounts of landfill gas (i.e., more than 1.3 million
cubic feet per day), electric power generation can be a cost-effective method of utilization.
Several proven technologies can be used to generate electricity from landfill gas.
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (1C). These engines have proven to
be cost-effective in many applications, and, in the case of small landfills, may be
the only available, proven generating option. 1C engines are currently in use at
about 73 sites (Thorneloe, 1995), with typical engine sizes ranging from 250
kilowatts (kW) to 1 MW in size (more than one engine can be installed at a single
site, and a typical project's total generating capacity is 3 to 4 MW). The three
primary manufacturers of these engines have modified their designs and
operating procedures to make the engines "landfill-gas-adapted."
Gas Turbines. Gas turbines have higher capital costs than 1C engines per
kilowatt of installed capacity, but at larger landfills they have a lower cost of
electricity (i.e., 0/kWh). Turbines require a reliable gas flow of approximately 2
million cubic feet per day (mmcf/d) in order to be economically feasible, which
corresponds to a generating capacity of at least 3 to 4 MW. Although they
require higher gas flows, gas turbines have a number of advantages over 1C
engines. Because of the large quantities of excess air, NOX emissions are
considerably lower than from 1C engines. In addition, gas turbines have
continuous combustion which better adjusts to fluctuations in heat values of the
landfill gas fuel. Furthermore, the alloys used in turbines tend to be more
resistant to corrosion from impurities within the gas supply. There are about 26
landfill gas projects in the U.S. using gas turbines (Thorneloe, 1995).
Rankine Cycle (Steam) Turbines. In rare cases where gas flow rates are
extremely high, a rankine cycle turbine may be used. If the scale of the operation
will support a rankine cycle turbine, high electrical efficiencies can be achieved
with lower emissions of air pollutants and lower costs per kWh of output. Steam
turbines also produce large amounts of high temperature water that can be easily
utilized for thermal co-generation activities. The smallest facilities usually
generate at least 8 to 9 MW of power. Currently, rankine cycle turbines are only
used at a handful of landfills in the U.S., the largest being a 47 MW facility at
Puente Hills, California.
Gas Delivery Systems
Gas processing and delivery systems process landfill gas so it can be sold as a gaseous
fuel. The fuel can be delivered directly to a customer via dedicated pipes or to the natural gas
pipeline network. The two main options include:
Sale as a Medium-Btu Fuel. Landfill gas can be used for a variety of industrial
and commercial applications, such as firing boilers and space heating, and can
also be co-fired with other fuels. Medium-Btu gas can be economically
transported via dedicated pipelines to one or more industrial facilities. An ideal
medium-Btu gas customer is located within 5 miles of the landfill and has
constant demand for gas.
Introduction Working Draft--September 1997 Page 1-5
-------
Sale as a High-Btu Fuel. Landfill gas can be upgraded to a high-Btu fuel and sold
directly to natural gas companies. The cost to upgrade the gas to pipeline quality
is generally very high, as the process involves the removal of water, carbon
dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrocarbons, and on some occasions,
nitrogen. In addition, sale as a high-Btu fuel to a pipeline usually requires that a
natural gas pipeline be located within close proximity of the site.
Emerging Utilization Options
Other less conventional utilization options for landfill gas are also available or may soon
become available. Some of these options, such as fuel cells, are currently in the demonstration
phase to determine their operational and economic viability. Other options, such as the use of
landfill gas to produce alternative vehicle fuels are underway at several landfills. Recently, a
small number of landfills have used recovered gas to incinerate soil contaminated with
hazardous waste (GAA, 1994).
1.4 Benefits
This section discusses the many benefits of recovering energy from landfill gas. Section
1.4.1 discusses general benefits of landfill gas-to-energy recovery projects and Section 1.4.2
discusses benefits realized by specific groups.
1.4.1 General Benefits
Recovery of energy from landfill gas conveys many important global and local
environmental benefits as well as energy and economic benefits. For example, landfill gas-to-
energy improves the global environment by reducing methane emissions, and provides local
environmental benefits by reducing VOC emissions, as well as displacing other pollutants
associated with fossil fuel use. In addition, it provides a secure, low-cost energy supply (an
energy supply that is currently wasted) that can reduce dependence on fossil fuels. These
benefits are discussed in more detail below.
Environmental Benefits
Landfill gas projects provide both direct and indirect environmental benefits. Direct
environmental benefits from utilizing landfill gas include: reducing VOC emissions; reducing risk
of global warming; and reducing pungent decaying waste odor. Landfill gas contains VOCs,
which contribute substantially to ground-level ozone and include air toxics. Without control
systems, these compounds are released to the atmosphere as waste decomposes. When
landfill gas is collected and burned through flaring or in an energy recovery system, VOCs are
destroyed. However, since energy recovery projects try to optimize gas recovery for the
economic benefit, they minimize emissions to the atmosphere relative to flaring. Combusting
landfill gas also destroys methane, which is a principle greenhouse gas. Landfill gas is the
single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S., contributing almost 40 percent of annual
methane emissions. Because of methane's potency and its rapid cycling through the
atmosphere, reducing methane emissions is crucial in slowing global warming; a ton of methane
emitted into the atmosphere is 21 times more damaging than a ton of carbon dioxide, over a 100
year time frame (IPCC, 1995). Furthermore, landfill gas-to-energy recovery projects also
substantially reduce the odor of landfills.
Page 1-6 Working Draft - September 1997 Introduction
-------
The primary indirect environmental benefit of landfill gas-to-energy recovery projects is
the displacement of fossil fuels. Generating electricity from oil and coal leads to the emission of
several pollutants, including sulfur dioxide (SO2), which is a major contributor to acid rain. By
generating electricity from landfill gas, instead of fossil fuels, these emissions are avoided.
Moreover, displacing fossil fuels substantially reduces the production of ash and scrubber
sludge.
Energy Benefits
There are several energy benefits associated with utilizing landfill gas. First, because
decomposing organic waste continuously produces landfill gas, landfill gas-to-energy recovery
projects are a nearly constant source of energy. For example, a landfill that has two million tons
of landfilled municipal solid waste (MSW) produces on average 1.8 mmcf/day of landfill gas and
can generate 2.5 MW of electricity. Second, landfill gas has a variety of applications such as
electricity generation and direct use. Third, landfill energy projects add to a community's and
utility's fuel diversity, as well as provide valuable experience in renewable energy. Finally,
landfill projects can provide important distributive generation benefits typical of demand-side
management options; since electricity generated from landfill gas is typically directed to local
users, transmission losses from the point of generation to the point of consumption are
negligible.
The value of landfill gas as an energy source has been recognized by the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). In March of 1994, NARUC adopted
a resolution "urging regulators to focus their regulatory attention on the landfill gas resources in
their states to determine the role that energy from landfill gas can play as an energy resource for
utilities and their customers."
Economic Benefits
Landfill gas provides a low-cost source of renewable energy. In addition, more
widespread use of landfill gas as an energy source will create jobs related to the design,
construction, and operation and maintenance of these systems and lead to advancements in
U.S. environmental technology.
1.4.2 Benefits to Specific Groups
Traditionally, landfill gas has been viewed as a safety hazard and a general nuisance.
However, there is now an increasing awareness on the part of landfill owners and operators,
project developers, utilities, state and local governments, and others, of the environmental,
energy, and economic benefits that can result from recovering the energy value of this gas.
Some of the principle benefits for different groups and their potential roles in the development
process are highlighted below.
Utilities
There are many ways in which electric utilities can benefit from the development of
landfill gas-to-energy. Examples include:
Stronger Relations With Key Customer Groups: Landfill gas-to-energy recovery
projects enable utilities to enhance long-term relationships with a variety of
customer groups. A utility can add significant value to their service
Introduction Working Draft - September 1997 Page 1-7
-------
offerings through direct or indirect involvement in landfill gas-to-energy
development. Some innovative approaches a utility may wish to consider include
participation in projects that directly supply landfill gas as a medium-Btu fuel to
industrial or commercial end-users, offering project development assistance to a
municipality, or initiating a residential or commercially-oriented green marketing
program.
Diversified Resource Base: Landfill gas-to-energy projects offer utilities the
opportunity to add dispersed base-load capacity to their current system and to
diversify their fuel mix. They also offer a competitive source of renewable energy
to utilities.
Contribution to Environmental Protection: By participating in landfill gas-to-
energy projects, utilities help prevent local and global air pollution. The EPA
Landfill Methane Outreach Program recognizes utilities that work with EPA to
identify, explore, and act on the best project opportunities. These utilities gain
recognition from EPA as well as greenhouse gas reductions that satisfy Climate
Challenge commitments.
Landfill Owners and Operators
Benefits of participating in landfill gas-to-energy recovery projects for landfill owners and
operators include:
Revenue Creation/Reduction of Regulatory Costs: Landfill gas projects may be a
significant source of revenue generation for landfill owners/operators, depending
on the size of the landfill, energy costs, and other site specific factors. Even
where projects do not generate profits, they may offset the cost of regulatory
compliance. EPA's New Source Performance Standards and Emission
Guidelines were promulgated on April 12, 1996 and require many landfill owners
and operators to collect and combust their landfill gas. States are already
requiring collection and flaring of landfill gas. Utilizing the collected landfill gas as
an energy resource, instead of flaring it, will offer many owners and operators an
opportunity to recover some of the regulatory costs, and may generate profit.
Reduction of Risk: Even in low concentrations, methane is explosive and can
result in fires and explosions that can imperil both people and property.
Regulations promulgated under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act require owners and operators of landfills to monitor their facilities
for methane levels to reduce the risk of landfill gas explosions. If methane
concentrations exceed specified limits, owners and operators are required to take
necessary steps to ensure protection of human health. Landfill gas-to-energy
recovery projects offer the opportunity to virtually eliminate the risk of injury and
property damage by collecting and combusting landfill gas before it can
accumulate to dangerous concentration levels within the landfill.
Financial Incentives: Developers of landfill gas-to-energy recovery projects may
qualify for a number of financial incentives. The Renewable Energy Production
Incentive (REPI), mandated under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, provides a cash
subsidy of up to $0.015 per kWh to publicly owned facilities that generate
Page 1-8 Working Draft--September 1997 Introduction
-------
electricity from renewable energy sources, such as landfills, for the period
October 1993 through September 2002. Also, developers of landfill gas-to-
energy projects who sell to an unrelated third party may qualify for a tax credit
under Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code. The credit is
worth $3.00 per barrel of oil-equivalent (on a mmBtu basis) and is adjusted
annually for inflation. Currently, the credit is worth $0.979 per mmBtu, about
$0.012/kWh for a typical landfill gas electricity project.
Industrial and Other End-Users
Industrial and other potential landfill gas end-users can benefit from landfill gas-to-energy
recovery projects. Facilities with constant energy needs that are located near landfills can lower
their fuel costs, improve environmental quality, and enhance their public image by using landfill
gas in place of traditional fuels.
Lower Fuel Costs: For industrial end-users, a nearby landfill that is collecting its
landfill gas can be an inexpensive source of medium Btu fuel or steam.
Environmental Benefits: By using landfill gas, industrial end-users contribute to
environmental protection by displacing local air emissions associated with fossil
fuel use and reducing emissions of methane.
Public Image Enhancement: Through participation in the development of landfill
energy recovery projects, industrial end-users can enhance their public image by
mitigating the threat of global warming and contributing to improvements in the
local economy and environment.
Municipalities/Communities
Municipalities and local communities can also benefit from landfill gas-to-energy recovery
projects. Benefits include:
Increased Tax Base: Municipalities or communities that have a landfill gas
project in their area increase their tax base, as well as create new job
opportunities.
Attract New Industries: A local energy source may attract new industry to the
area. For example, industrial producers that could use large quantities of
medium Btu gas might want to locate a plant near the landfill since the landfill
could provide a cheap source of energy.
Reduction of Air Pollution Emissions and Odors: VOCs emitted from landfill
waste decomposition can endanger human health, particularly for those who work
on or live near landfills without a collection system. Landfill gas recovery projects
offer an opportunity to greatly reduce this health risk by collecting and destroying
these harmful compounds before they escape into the atmosphere. In addition,
collection and combustion of landfill gas reduces noxious odors.
Introduction Working Draft--September 1997 Page 1-9
-------
1.5 Opportunities for Project Participants
As mentioned above, there are numerous benefits from participating in a landfill gas-to-
energy project. For each potential project participant, a brief discussion of how to assess
opportunities is provided below.
Utilities
Utilities should assess how, in light of rapid restructuring in the energy industry,
participating in landfill gas projects can enhance critical business objectives. These business
objectives include building stronger relationships with key customer groups, broadening utility's
resource base, and realizing substantial environmental benefits. This document can help
utilities determine the best opportunities for using landfill gas to help achieve these company
objectives. Innovative approaches to consider include: assistance to municipalities that must
install gas collection systems to comply with regulations or that have candidate landfills ready for
project development; participation in projects that directly provide landfill gas as a medium-Btu
fuel to targeted industrial or commercial end-users; and development of new marketing
programs, such as green pricing, with landfill gas as part of the energy mix to meet customer
demands for cleaner, renewable energy sources. These "value-added" services are effective
mechanisms to build stronger, more responsive relationships with key customer groups, while
acquiring a competitive renewable resource. Moreover, utilities should consider how landfill gas-
to-energy furthers their environmental objectives. By participating in landfill gas-to-energy
projects, utilities help improve local and global air quality; receive national recognition from the
EPA; and fulfill commitments under the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Climate Challenge
Program.
Landfill Owners and Operators
Landfill owners and operators can assess conditions at their sites to determine whether
their landfill can support an economically attractive project. If it appears that the landfill has
potential for energy recovery, owners and operators can take active roles in determining what
project configuration is right for the landfill, identifying potential energy customers, and seeking
potential development partners. As necessary during each stage of this process, landfill owners
and operators can work with project development experts for guidance in designing a successful
and profitable project.
Industrial End-Users
Potential industrial, commercial, or other end-users should assess the potential for
reducing energy expenses by using landfill gas in their facilities. These industrial customers can
assess project potential by examining conditions at the local landfill and evaluating their current
and future energy requirements. If it appears that there is a match between the end-user and
the landfill, they can work as partners in project development, potentially involving additional.
project developers as well.
Page 1-10 Working Draft - September 1997 Introduction
-------
1.6 References
GAA 1994. 1994-5 Methane Recovery from Landfill Yearbook, Governmental Advisory
Associates.
IPCC 1995. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change
Landfill Control Technologies, 1994. "Landfill Gas System Engineering Design Seminar."
Maxwell 1990. Will Gas-to-Energy Work at Your Landfill? Solid Waste & Power.
Thorneloe 1992. Landfill Gas Recovery/Utilization - Options and Economics. Presented at the
Sixteenth Annual Conference by the Institute of Gas Technology on Energy from
Biomass and Wastes, Orlando, Florida, March 15,1992.
Thorneloe and Pacey, 1994a. Database of North American Landfill Gas-to-Energy Projects.
Presented at the 17th Annual International Landfill Gas Symposium by the Solid Waste
Association of North America, Long Beach, California, March 22-24,1994. Published in
Conference Proceedings.
Thorneloe and Pacey, 1994b. Landfill Gas Utilization - Technical and Non-Technical
Considerations. Presented at the 17th Annual International Landfill Gas Symposium by
the Solid Waste Association of North America, Long Beach, California, March 22-24,
1994. Published in Conference Proceedings.
Thorneloe and Pacey, 1995. Database of North American Landfill Gas-to-Energy Projects.
Presented at the 18th Annual International Landfill Gas Symposium by the Solid Waste
Association of North America, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 27-30,1995. Published in
Conference Proceedings.
U.S. EPA 1993. Opportunities to Reduce Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United
States: Report to Congress, United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-
R-93-012.
U.S. EPA 1994. Turning a Liability into an Asset: A Landfill Gas-to-Energy Handbook for
Landfill Owners and Operators, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Introduction Working Draft -- September 1997 Page 1-11
-------
-------
-------
-------
2. Instructions for Evaluating Landfill Profiles
This chapter provides instructions for interpreting the profiles contained in Chapters 4
and 5. A landfill profile has been prepared for each of the current projects (which include both
operational and planned landfill gas-to-energy projects) and candidate landfills (landfills
potentially generating enough landfill gas to make recovery economical). The information in
each profile is grouped into eight sections:
• Landfill Location and Status;
• Waste Collection Information;
• Gas Collection and Control Data;
Gas Utilization Data;
Site Potential;
• Environmental Benefits of Utilization;
• Contact Information; and
• Comments Relating to Landfill Gas Recovery Projects.
The current projects profile sheet has all of the above sections, while the candidate landfill profile
omits the gas utilization data section. In addition, the contact information for the candidate
landfill does not include information on an energy recovery system owner or operator, as these
fields do not apply.
Information contained in the profiles has been compiled from a number of sources, the
most important of which was state and local sources, such as permits and annual acceptance
reports, supplemented by: the 1994-5 Methane Recovery from Landfill Yearbook (GAA, 1994);
Implementation Guide for Landfill Gas Recovery Projects in the Northeast: Draft Final Report
(SCS, 1994); Survey of Landfill Gas Generation Potential: 2 MW Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell
(EPRI, 1992); and Landfill Gas-to-Energy: 1994-1995 Activity Report (SWT, 1994).
A detailed description of each entry on the landfill profile sheet is presented below.
When no information was available for a value, the data field is reported as not available (N.A.).
The accuracy of the data depends on the quality of the information contained in the documents
reviewed (further information on data collection activities and data interpretations is provided in
Chapter 3).
Data marked with a single asterisk (*) indicates that default values were used. For
example, if the number of days per week waste is accepted at a landfill is not known, a default
value of 5.5 days is used and an asterisk appears next to the value. It should also be noted that
numbers within a profile may not add correctly due to rounding. The remainder of this section is
organized by sub-section of a landfill profile.
2.1 Landfill Location and Status
The first section of each profile provides a brief overview of the landfill site, including its
physical location, operating status, and the status of gas collection and energy recovery
activities. This overview section also lists any alternate names for the landfill. Specific items
included are:
Instructions for Evaluating Working Draft ~ September 1997 Page 2-1
Landfill Profiles
-------
Location: The physical location of the site, including city, county, and state. More
information is included in the Contact Information section of the profile, such as
owner, operator, contact names, and telephone numbers.
Status: The current operational status of the landfill. Standard entries are Open
(active) or Closed (inactive). Landfills that were reported as temporarily closed in
state documents were considered closed.
Year Opened: The year that waste was first accepted at the landfill. In cases in
which the open year was not available, the year the first (or oldest) permit was
issued was assumed to be the open year.
Year Closed: The year the landfill stopped accepting waste (closed landfills), or
is scheduled to stop accepting waste (open landfills). For open landfills, if a
reported year of closing is not available, the year is estimated by dividing the
remaining landfill capacity by the annual waste acceptance rate, and adding the
result to the current year. (Remaining capacity is estimated as the difference
between the design capacity and the current waste-in-place.)
Gas Collection: The status of gas collection at the landfill; standard responses
include operational, planned, shutdown, none, or N.A. (Not Available). Additional
detail on gas collection activities is provided in the Gas Collection and Control
Data section of the profile.
Gas Utilization: The status of gas utilization at the landfill; standard responses
include operational, planned, shutdown, none, or N.A. (Not Available). Gas
utilization is synonymous with energy recovery; flaring and venting are not
considered utilization in the context of the landfill profiles. Additional detail on gas
utilization activities is provided in the Gas Utilization Data section of the profile.
Primary Contact: The name and telephone number of the primary contact for the
landfill. More detailed contact information is provided in the Contact Information
section at the end of the profile.
Alternative Name(s): Any identified name for the landfill that is significantly
different from the main landfill name. Many landfills have operated under different
names at different times in their history.
2.2 Waste Collection Information
This section presents important waste collection information that can affect the suitability
of a site for landfill gas recovery. The information includes the design capacity, the estimated
current waste-in-place and waste acceptance rate, the waste types and percent MSW, acreage,
average depth, and tipping fee.
Types of Wastes Accepted: The types of wastes accepted at the landfill; possible
entries include MSW, yard waste, paper mill waste, sewage sludge, other sludge,
commercial solid waste, industrial solid waste, ash, construction and demolition
debris, and other waste. Some of these wastes contain
Page 2-2 Working Draft - September 1997 Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
-------
inorganic material and therefore will generate no methane; others, such as
sludges and yard waste, have a lower methane generation potential due to
excess moisture and other factors.
Percent of Waste that is MSW: If known, the percent of the total waste-in-place
at the landfill that is MSW. If the percentage of MSW in the total waste-in-place is
unknown, the percentage of MSW in annual waste accepted was used. Currently
this value is not used in the methane generation equations described later in this
section. The percentage of MSW in the landfilled waste is an indication of the
potential suitability of the landfill for gas recovery.
Tipping Fee: The standard fee charged for the disposal of MSW, in $/ton. This
value has been converted from $/cubic yards to $/tons where necessary, using
an assumed density of 1 ton/1.667 cubic yards.2 In some cases the tipping fee
varies by waste type or origin of the waste. The entry reflects, to the extent
possible, the average fee levied on the waste accepted.
Design Capacity: The total amount of waste that the landfill is designed to
accept, reported in tons. This information is also called current permitted
capacity. Values reported in cubic yards have been converted to tons, by
assuming a density of 1 ton/1.667 cubic yards.
Days Open per Week: The reported number of days per week the landfill is
open. When both a daily acceptance rate and annual acceptance rate were
given in a single source, the number of days open per week was calculated by
dividing the annual acceptance rate by the daily acceptance rate and by 52
weeks per year. Where not available, a default of 5.5 days per week was used,
consistent with typical industry operating experience.
Annual Acceptance Rate: The amount of waste received and landfilled for a
reported year, including all waste types, reported in short tons (tons). Values
reported in units other than tons per year have been converted using an assumed
density of 1 ton/1.667 cubic yards. If only a daily acceptance rate was available,
an annual acceptance rate has been calculated by multiplying the daily
acceptance rate by 52 weeks and the days open per week. When multi-year
annual acceptance rate data were available, the most recent year's acceptance
rate is presented in the profile.
Total Landfill Acreage: The number of acres that have been landfilled. Where
possible, this has been made distinct from permitted or site acreage.
Average Depth: The average depth of the landfilled waste, reported in feet.
Where a breakdown is available, this value includes any buried soil cover and
landfill cap material.
2 NSWMA (1985), page 5, presents the density of refuse in landfills as a range. The lower end of this
range, 1,200 Ib/cubic yard was used in the profiles.
Instructions for Evaluating Working Draft -- September 1997 Page 2-3
Landfill Profiles
-------
Estimated Current Waste-in-Place: The total amount of waste that has been
landfilled since the landfill opened. All waste types have been included, and units
other than tons have been converted using landfill specific information where
available, or by assuming a density of 1 ton/1.667 cubic yards. The following
methods are used, in the order presented, to estimate WIP:
1. For landfills where the estimated current year WIP is not known, it has
been estimated from the most recent available estimates of waste-in-
place (WIP) and acceptance rate.
Equation 1:
Estimated WIP (tons) =
Reported WIP (tons) + (Annual Acceptance
Rate (tons/yr) x ((Current or Closed Year) -
Year WIP Reported))
2. If no estimate of the reported WIP was available for any year, then the estimated current
WIP was estimated from the Year Opened, and the Acceptance Rate, as follows:
Equation 2:
Estimated WIP (tons) =
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons/yr) x (((Current
or Closed Year) + 1) - Year Opened)
When multi-year annual acceptance rates were available, the average
value of the reported acceptance rates was used in the above equations.
3. If acceptance rate data were not available, the reported WIP was used as
the estimated current WIP.
4. If acceptance rate data and reported WIP were not available, the
estimated current WIP was estimated from the landfilled acreage, the
average depth, and an assumed MSW density of 1 ton/1.667 cubic yards.
Page 2-4
Working Draft - September 1997
Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
-------
Equation 3:
Estimated WIP
or
Estimated WIP (tons) =
Landfill Area Used x Average Depth x
Density of Waste
Area (acres) x Depth (ft) x 1613.33
(yd3/acre-ft) x (1 ton/1.667 yd3)
2.3 Gas Collection and Control Data
This section presents information on current and planned gas collection activities,
including the type of collection equipment, its operational status and initial year of operation, the
percentage of waste welled and the collection efficiency, and the amount of gas collected. Many
landfills without gas utilization systems still collect landfill gas for safety reasons. Note that many
landfills are in the planning stages of developing a collection system, in which case data
presented in this section represents the anticipated characteristics of the system. In other
cases, landfills have collection systems in place which have been shutdown. In these cases the
data reflect the characteristics of the collection system when it was operating. Gas collection
and control information was obtained from: GAA, 1994; SCS, 1994; SWT, 1994; EPRI, 1992;
and state lists.
Collection System Status: The status of gas collection activities at the landfill.
Standard entries are: operational, planned, shutdown, none, or N.A. (Not
Available). Note that this entry is also printed at the top of the Landfill Location
and Status section of the profile.
Collection System Type: The type of landfill gas collection systems used at the
landfill; standard entries are wells, trenches, wells & trenches, none, or N.A. (Not
Available).
Collection Efficiency: The efficiency of the gas collection system, expressed in
percent. The efficiency will be less than 100 percent due to a number of potential
factors, including: poor well placement and air infiltration through the landfill
. cover, the wellhead, or lateral pipe connections. Collection efficiency can range
from 50 percent or lower at existing landfills to 95 percent at newer, well-designed
landfills. Unless an estimate is provided by the landfill, a default value of 85
percent is used.
Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
Working Draft - September 1997
Page 2-5
-------
Methane Concentration: The concentration of methane in the collected gas,
which may vary due to differences in waste type, other landfill specific factors,
and collection system inefficiencies. The methane concentration directly affects
the heat value of the recovered gas. A default value of 50 percent methane is
used in the absence of reported data.
Year Gas Collection Began: The year that the landfill gas collection system
became operational. If in planning or construction stages, the date of anticipated
operation is used.
Estimated Percent of Landfill Area Welled: The portion of the landfill supporting
the landfill gas collection system, expressed in percentage. Landfills sometimes
do not install gas collection systems over the entire landfill area. Reasons for this
include: the collection system is a demonstration project or the first phase of a
larger planned system; there are diminishing returns on gas production in some
areas of the landfill; some areas may be too far from the central collection point;
continued landfilling has expanded the landfill acreage; or installing wells or
trenches would interfere with ongoing operations. If not reported, the percentage
of waste welled is calculated by dividing the welled acreage by landfill acreage.
Landfill Gas Collected: The reported volume of landfill gas (i.e., not only
methane) flowing through the collection system, in million cubic feet per day
(mmcf/d) and million cubic feet per year (mmcf/yr). Values reported in units other
than mmcf/d or mmcf/yr have been converted.
Methane Gas Collected: The estimated volume of methane in the collected
landfill gas. Unless reported, this is calculated by multiplying the amount of
landfill gas collected by the reported methane concentration or a default value of
50 percent.
2.4 Gas Utilization Data
This section presents information on the current or planned use of collected landfill gas,
including the portion of the collected gas that is used, the utilization option, its operational status
and first year of operation, the size of the project, and any expansion plans. This section is only
included in the profiles of landfills with current projects. Note that some landfills are in the
planning stages of developing a gas utilization system, in which case data presented in this
section represents the anticipated characteristics of the system. In other cases, landfills have
utilization systems in place which are no longer operating. Utilization data for landfills with a
shutdown utilization system reflect the characteristics of the utilization system when it was
operating. Gas utilization status was obtained from a number of sources, including: GAA, 1994;
SCS, 1994; SWT, 1994; EPRI, 1992; and state data sources.
Utilization System Status: The status of gas utilization activities at the landfill.
Standard entries are: operational, planned, shutdown, none, or N.A. (Not
Available). Note that this entry is also printed at the top of the Landfill Location
and Status section of the profile.
Page 2-6 Working Draft -- September 1997 Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
-------
Year Project Initiated: The year that the landfill gas recovery project began using
collected gas, or, if in planning or construction stages, the date of anticipated
operation.
End-Use of Collected Gas: The percentage of gas utilized, flared, or vented.
Collected gas may be utilized as fuel for power generation or in other energy
applications, in addition to being flared or vented. Where known, the percentage
of each option is provided; otherwise N.A. (Not available) is entered.
Utilization System Type: The type of energy utilization system. Standard entries
include: electricity generation, electricity generation/direct gas sales, high Btu
gas production, medium Btu gas, on-site use, other, to be determined, or N.A.
(Not Available).
System Description: Additional available information on the utilization system.
For example, the type of equipment used to generate electricity is included here
when available or appropriate. Standard entries include: 1C Engines, Gas
Turbines, 1C Engines/Gas Turbines, Steam Turbines, Combined Cycle, and gas
upgrade equipment.
Energy Purchaser(s): The name of the utility or gas customer(s).
2.5 Site Potential
This section presents information on landfill gas generation and collection potential,
power generation potential, and other gas utilization options. The information includes:
estimates of the total volume of methane generated in the landfill, current and potential landfill
gas collection, additional gas available for use, and possible energy utilization options for the
additional collection potential.
Estimated Total Methane Generation
Methane (CH4) is generated in landfills as the organic content of the waste decomposes.
Estimated Methane Generation in million cubic feet per day (mmcf/d) is based on two equations
adapted from U.S. EPA 1993b, Opportunities to Reduce Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in
the United States. Equation 4a estimates annual methane for landfills with less than 907,200
tons of Waste in Place. Equation 4b estimates annual methane for landfills with at least 907,200
tons of Waste in Place. These equations were derived from statistical analyses of existing
projects.3
3 Equation 4 was adapted from:
CH4 (rrrVmin) = 8.22 + 5.27 WIP (million metric tons),
found on page 4-25 of U.S. EPA 1993b, Opportunities to Reduce Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in
the United States: Report to Congress.
Instructions for Evaluating Working Draft -- September 1997 Page 2-7
Landfill Profiles
-------
This methodology is based on the assumption that waste has a 30 year methane
generation lifespan. Therefore, the Waste in Place value used to estimate emissions does not
include waste that was accepted more than 30 years before the current year. This waste value
will be referred to as WIPm.
Equation 4a (WIP<907,200 tons):
CH4 generation (mmcf/d) =0.05085 x (6.95x10'6x WIPm (tons))
Equation 4b (WIP>907,200 tons):
CH4 generation (mmcf/d) =0.05085 x [8.22+(5.03x10'6x WIPm (tons))]
If the landfill began accepting waste less than 30 year from the publication data of this
document, then WIPm is considered to be the same as the WIP calculated using the method
described in Section 2.2. If the landfill began accepting waste over 30 years ago, then WIPm is
calculated by estimating the total quantity of waste that was placed in the landfill within the last
30 years. For these landfills WIPm is calculated as follows:
Equation 4c:
WIPm (tons) = (WIP (tons)/(current year-open year)) x (number of years the
landfill has been open in the past 30 years)
The result of this equation is also presented in the profile in mmcf/yr, which is obtained by
multiplying mmcf/d by 365 days per year.
Equation 4d:
CH4 generation (mmcf/yr) = CH4 generation (mmcf/d) x 365 days/yr
One limitation of this methane generation model is its use of national averages to
estimate individual landfills' gas generation rates. While such a model may provide a useful
indication of potential gas flow, site specific factors not included in such a model, such as
percent MSW, age, moisture content, temperature, pH, and density of waste, may diminish the
accuracy of the predicted gas flow. Since such models can generate estimates with potentially
large uncertainties, site monitoring is extremely important in order to verify gas flows.
Page 2-8 Working Draft - September 1997 Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
-------
Landfill Gas Collection and Utilization Potential
The following data and estimates for gas collection and use are presented in terms of
landfill gas volume, not methane volume. This conforms with typical industry practice. All of the
entries are reported in both mmcf/d and mmcf/yr.
Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential: The estimated maximum volume of
landfill gas that can feasibly be recovered from the landfill. Because landfill gas
contains other gases in addition to methane, the volume of landfill gas generated
will typically be about twice the volume of methane generated (i.e., the methane
concentration is typically 50 percent). The estimates of gas collection and
utilization potential are presented in terms of landfill gas, as opposed to pure
methane, to conform with industry practice.
Equation 5:
Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential
= Estimated Methane Generation x Collection Efficiency x
1/Methane Concentration
where:
Estimated Methane Generation is calculated using Equation 4a or 4b.
Collection Efficiency represents the amount of gas generated in the landfill
that can be recovered by a gas collection system. A default value of 85
percent is used (U.S. EPA, 1993b); and
Methane Concentration represents the percentage of methane contained
in the landfill gas. This value is based on the reported value from the Gas
Collection and Control section, if available, or a default value of 50
percent (U.S. EPA, 1993b).
When default values are used:
Equation 5a:
Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential (mmcf/d)
= CH4 generation (mmcf/d) x 0.85 x 2
Instructions for Evaluating Working Draft - September 1997 Page 2-9
Landfill Profiles
-------
The result of this equation is also presented in the profile in million cubic feet per
year (mmcf/yr):
Equation 5b:
Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential (mmcf/yr)
= Total LFG Collection Potential (mmcf/d) x 365 days/yr
However, if the Current or Planned Reported LFG Collection Volume exceeds the
value estimated using Equation 5, the Current or Planned Reported LFG
Collection Volume is used as the Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential.
Current Reported LFG Collection Volume: This is the average volume of landfill
gas currently being collected each day. This value is typically obtained from GAA
(1994) and SWT (1994). If this reported value exceeds the Total LFG Collection
Potential estimated above, then the value reported here will also be used as the
Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential.
Planned Reported LFG Collection Volume: This is the planned volume of landfill
gas that will be collected each day. Planned LFG Collection may represent the
installation of a new collection system or the expansion of an existing collection
system. This value is typically obtained from GAA (1994) and SWT (1994). If this
reported value exceeds the Total LFG Collection Potential estimated above, then
the value reported here will also be used as the Estimated Total LFG Collection
Potential.
Estimated Additional LFG Collection Potential: This value represents the
additional volume of landfill gas that can be collected, assuming a default
collection efficiency of 85 percent. This includes the volume of gas that could be
collected if the entire landfill acreage had a collection system. It is estimated as
the Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential less the Current and Planned
Landfill Gas Collection Volume (described above).
Equation 6:
Estimated Additional LFG Collection Potential (mmcf/d)
= Total LFG Collection Potential (mmcf/d) - Current LFG Collection
Volume (mmcf/d) - Planned LFG Collection Potential (mmcf/d)
The additional collection potential will be zero if the sum of the Current and
Planned LFG Collection Volumes equals or exceeds the Estimated Total LFG
Collection Potential, even though additional potential may exist.
Estimated Total LFG Utilization Volume Potential: The total amount of landfill gas
that could be utilized for energy recovery; this value is equal to the Estimated
Total LFG Collection Potential.
Page 2-10 Working Draft - September 1997 Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
-------
Current Reported Volume of LFG Utilized: This is the amount of landfill gas that
is currently collected and used for power generation or another energy
application. It does not include that fraction of the collected gas that is flared or
vented into the atmosphere. The value is calculated as the product of the Current
LFG Collection Volume and the Percent Utilized value reported in the Gas
Utilization Data section, which are typically obtained from GAA (1994), SWT
(1994), or state data. If the percent utilized is not available, the Current Reported
Volume of LFG Utilized is N.A. (Not Available).
Planned Reported Volume of LFG Utilized: This is the planned volume of landfill
gas that will be used for power generation or another energy recovery operation.
This value is calculated as the product of the Planned LFG Collection Volume
and the Percent Utilized value reported in the Gas Utilities Data section, which
are typically obtained from GAA (1994), SWT (1994), or state data. If the percent
utilized is not available, the Planned Reported Volume of LFG Utilized is N.A.
(Not Available).
Estimated Additional LFG Available for Use: This is the amount of landfill gas
that is potentially available for use in power generation or other energy
application. This includes any additional gas to be collected as well as gas
currently being collected that is currently vented or flared. Thus:
Equation 7:
Estimated Additional LFG Available for Use (mmcf/d)
= Estimated Total Utilization Potential (mmcf/d) - Current Utilization
Volume (mmcf/d) - Planned Utilization Volume (mmcf/d)
If either Current LFG Utilization Volume or Planned Utilization Volume is N.A. (Not
Available), then the above equation is not evaluated and N.A. (Not Available) is entered
in the profile.
Power Generation Potential
Entries in this section are presented both as capacity (MW) and energy generation
(GWh/yr). Assuming an availability (load) factor of 85 percent (7446 operational hours/yr), the
capacity can be converted to energy by multiplying by the number of hours in a year that the
equipment is operational, and then dividing by 1000 (i.e., to convert from MWh to GWh).
Estimated Total Electric Potential: This value represents the total installed
electricity generation capacity that could be supported by the landfill site,
assuming that all uncollected and unutilized landfill gas is collected and used for
power generation. The equation for generation capacity assumes the use of 1C
engines with a heat rate of 13,000 Btu per kWh:
Instructions for Evaluating Working Draft -- September 1997 Page 2-11
Landfill Profiles
-------
Equation 8:
Estimated Total Electrical Potential (MW)
= Estimated Total LFG Utilization Potential (mmcf/d) x %CH4 x
(1 day/24 hr) x (1000 Btu/cf) x (1,000,000 cf/mmcf) x
(1 kWh/13,000 Btu) x (1 MW/1000 kw)
or
Equation 8a:
Estimated Total Electrical Potential (GWh/yr)
= Estimated Total Electrical Potential (MW) x 7446 hours/yr x
1 GW/1000 MW
Current Generation: This value, typically obtained from either GAA (1994) or
SWT (1994), is the reported installed generation capacity of landfills for existing
utilization projects. If a landfill gas project is currently selling, or is planning, to
sell gas directly to a nearby customer, then this entry is entered as zero. For
planned electricity generation projects, this value will be zero. For candidate
landfills, this value will be N.A. (Not Available).
Planned Generation: If a landfill gas project is in the planning stages, the
Planned Generation is presented here. This value is typically obtained from
either GAA (1994) or SWT (1994). For current electricity generation projects, this
value will be zero. For candidate landfills, this value will be N.A. (Not Available).
Estimated Additional Generation Potential: The estimated installed generating
capacity, in MW, that could be supported by the Estimated Additional LFG
Available for Use (i.e., the currently uncollected and unutilized volume of landfill
gas).
Equation 9:
Estimated Additional Generation Potential (MW)
= Estimated Total Electrical Potential (MW) - Current Electrical
Potential (MW) - Planned Electrical Potential (MW)
or
Page 2-12 Working Draft - September 1997 Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
-------
Equation 9a:
Estimated Additional Generation Potential (GWh/yr)
= Estimated Additional Generation Potential (MW) x 7446 hours/yr x
1 GW/1000MW
For landfills for which either the current or planned electrical potential is N.A. (Not
Available), the additional generation potential will also be N.A. (Not Available).
One limitation of the electric potential estimates is their derivation from the current
waste-in-place. For landfills that are still accepting waste, as are most of those
profiled, the waste-in-place and associated gas flow will be increasing over time.
Depending on the anticipated closure date, the generating capacity may be
significantly underestimated.
Utilities in County: The electric utilities that are located in or serve the county in
which the landfill is located. The majority of the electric utilities listed are located
in the same county as the landfill. These data are based on DOE's Energy
Information Administration's publication Electricity Trade in the United States in
1992 and supporting databases (U.S. DOE, 1992). The rest of the utilities listed
serve the county in which the landfill is located and supplement the utilities listed
in DOE's database. They are provided by the Utility Data Institute's Electric Utility
Demographic Database (UDI, 1995). Note that utilities in nearby counties that do
not serve the county in which the landfill is located, are not listed, even though
they could be closer to the landfill then the utilities located in the same county.
2.6 Environmental Benefits of Utilization
This section presents data on both the current environmental benefits of landfill gas
collection and utilization, as well as the additional environmental benefits that can be achieved
by further utilizing landfill gas. For landfills where the breakdown between percent flared,
percent vented, and percent utilized is not available, only the Estimated Total Potential Methane
Reductions are presented, and N.A. is reported for Current and Planned Methane Reductions,
as well as Estimated Potential (Additional) Methane Reductions.
Estimated Total Potential Methane Reductions: The sum of the current, planned,
and additional methane reductions, in mmcf/yr. This value differs from Estimated
Total Methane Generation because it incorporates the collection efficiency. For
landfills where these values are not available, the following equation can be used.
Instructions for Evaluating Working Draft - September 1997 Page 2-13
Landfill Profiles
-------
Equation 10:
Estimated Total Potential Methane Reductions (mmcf/yr)
= Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential (mmcf/d) x Methane
Concentration x 365 days/yr
The estimate of Methane Emissions Reduction Potential presented here is likely
to be an overestimate because in the absence of the gas recovery system, a
portion of the methane produced in the landfill would be oxidized as it migrates
out of the landfill. The portion of the methane that is oxidized is not emitted to the
atmosphere, and therefore does not contribute to landfill methane emissions.
Withdrawing the gas with a collection system prevents this oxidation step, so that
more methane is recovered than would otherwise have been emitted. The extent
of oxidation that will occur can vary greatly depending on local conditions, and an
estimate is not incorporated here.
Current and Planned Methane Reductions: The amount of methane that is not
being released to the atmosphere because it is being collected and either utilized
or flared. It is calculated in mmcf/yr, using the following equation:
Equation 11:
Current and Planned Methane Reductions (mmcf/yr)
= ((Current LFG Collection Volume + Planned LFG Collection
Volume (mmcf/d) x Methane Concentration) x (100 - percent
vented)) x 365 days/yr
where:
Methane concentration is reported in the Gas Collection and
Control Data section of the profile (Default value of 50 percent.)
• Percent Vented is reported in the Gas Utilization Data section of
the profile.
If Percent Vented is not available, this equal is not evaluated and N.A. (Not
Available) is entered in the profile.
Estimated Potential (Additional) Methane Reductions: The amount of methane
that could be reduced by collecting and either flaring or utilizing gas that is
currently being emitted. The additional methane reduction potential is estimated
using the following formula:
Page 2-14 Working Draft - September 1997 Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
-------
Equation 12:
Estimated Additional Methane Reduction Potential (mmcf/yr)
= {((Estimated Additional LFG Collection Potential) x Methane
Concentration) + ((Current + Planned LFG Collection Potential) x
Methane Concentration x Percent Vented)} (mmcf/d) x 365
days/yr
or, substituting equation 6,
Equation 12a:
Estimated Additional Methane Reduction Potential (mmcf/yr)
= {[(Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential - Current LFG Collection
Volume - Planned LFG Collection Volume) x Methane
Concentration] + [((Current + Planned LFG Collection) x Methane
Concentration) x
Percent Vented]} (mmcf/d) x 365 days/year
where:
• Methane concentration is reported in the Gas Collection and
Control Data section of the profile (Default value of 50 percent.)
Percent Vented is reported in the Gas Utilization Data section of
the profile.
If Percent Vented is not available, this equal is not evaluated and N.A. (Not
Available) is entered in the profile.
CO, Equivalent of Methane Emission Reductions: The magnitude of the methane
emissions that could potentially be reduced through increased landfill gas
collection, expressed in thousand tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.
The Emissions Reduction Potential, presented in thousand tons per year, is
converted to thousand standard tons of CO2 equivalent per year using a Global
Warming Potential of methane equal to 21:4
4 The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is an expression of the radiative forcing of one mass unit of
methane relative to one mass unit of carbon dioxide. Thus, one gram of methane has 21 times the
radiative forcing of one gram of carbon dioxide over a 100 year timeframe. For additional information see
IPCC1995.
Instructions for Evaluating Working Draft -- September 1997 Page 2-15
Landfill Profiles
-------
Equation 13:
Annual CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Emission Reductions (thousand tons/yr)
= Estimated CH4 Reduction Potential (mmcf/yr) x 21.12 tons/mmcf x
21 tons CCytons CH4 x 1 thousand tons/1000 tons
where the CH4 Reduction Potential can be either Total, Current and Planned, or
Additional, assuming the density of methane at 15°C and 1 atmosphere is 21.12
ton/mmcf.
Estimated Acid Rain "Bonus Allowances": Under Title IV of the Clean Air Act (the
EPA Acid Rain Program), the Conservation and Renewable Energy Reserve
(CRER) allocates a pool of SO2 allowances for renewable energy technologies.
These allowances are available to utilities for landfill energy recovery projects, at
the rate of one for every 5QO MWh/yr generated (i.e., one for every 0.5 GWh/yr
generated). These bonus allowances can be earned each year between 1994
and 2000 by applying to the CRER. The allowance is rounded down to a whole
number.
Equation 14:
Total EARBA = Total Electric Potential (GWh/yr) x 1 EARBA/0.5 GWh/yr
Equation 15:
Current or Planned EARBA = (Current + Planned Generation (GWh/yr)) x
(1 EARBA/0.5 GWh/yr)
Equation 16:
Additional EARBA = Additional Generation Potential (GWh/yr) x
1 EARBA/0.5 GWh/yr
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement: Landfill gas utilization projects
can result in avoided emissions not only of methane, but also of CO2 and SO2.
The collection of landfill gas and its subsequent use as a fuel for generating
electricity (or other energy application) will displace the use of fuel by other
generating units, and thereby avoid the emissions associated with the displaced
generating units (in addition to the reduced methane emissions).
Page 2-16 Working Draft - September 1997 Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
-------
The magnitude of the emissions avoided in this manner depends on the
difference between the emission characteristics of the landfill generating unit and
those of the displaced utility unit. These marginal emission characteristics are
highly dependent on the exact type of fuel (especially the sulfur content of coal),
the equipment type, and emission control technologies in place. While the
emission characteristics for individual projects should be estimated using regional
or local values, national averages have been used for illustrative purposes in the
profiles.
Equation 17:
Total Emissions Avoided (tons/yr) =
Total Electrical Potential (GWh/yr) x
Incremental Emission (tons/GWh)
The annual incremental emissions per GWh generated are presented in the table
below.
Displaced Fuel
Coal (High/Med S) - Steam
Oil - Steam
Incremental Emissions (tons/GWh)
CO2
1025.90
829.57
S02
7.880
5.602
2.7 Contact Information
This section presents, where available and applicable, the following contact information:
landfill owner, landfill operator, energy utilization system developer, and the energy utilization
system operator. For each contact, a name, position, organization name, mailing address, city,
state, zip, phone, and fax are included. This section also states whether the landfill owner and
operator are public or private entities. In addition, the appropriate site contact name and number
are indicated.
2.8 Comment Field
The information in this field, taken from GAA (1994), Solid Waste Technologies'
Bimonthly Periodical, and/or state data provides additional information on gas collection or gas
utilization activities. In addition, comments related to the potential impacts of each landfill's
operating status on its gas generation rate are also included.
Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
Working Draft -- September 1997
Page 2-17
-------
2.9 References
EPR11992. Survey of landfill Gas Generation Potential: 2 MW Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell,
Electric Power Research Institute.
GAA 1994. 1994-5 Methane Recovery from Landfill Yearbook, Governmental Advisory
Associates.
IPCC 1995. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change
NSWMA 1985. Basic Data: Solid Waste Amounts, Composition and Management Systems,
National Solid Waste Management Association, Technical bulletin #85-6, October 1,
1985.
SCS 1994. Implementation Guide for Landfill Gas Recovery Projects in the Northeast: Draft
Final Report, SCS Engineers.
Solid Waste Technologies 1994. Landfill Gas-to-Energy 1994-1995 Activity Report, HCI
Publications.
U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration 1992. Electricity Trade in the United States in 1992
and supporting Data Bases.
U.S. EPA 1993a. Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United States: Estimates for 1990,
Report to Congress, United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-93-
003.
U.S. EPA 1993b. Opportunities to Reduce Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United
States: Report to Congress, United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-
R-93-012.
Utility Data Institute 1995. U.S. Electric Utility Demographics from the Electrical World Directory.
UDI, Washington, DC.
Page 2-18 Working Draft - September 1997 Instructions for Evaluating
Landfill Profiles
-------
uata collection
-------
-------
3. Data Collection Methods and Evaluation Processes
This chapter describes the methodology used to collect data from state and local
sources, the national databases used to complete profiles, data interpretation issues, and the
landfill candidacy screening process.
3.1 Methodology Used to Collect Data from State and Local Agencies
In general, a top-down approach was used to gather data, by obtaining the maximum
amount of information on all landfills from state records, and then filling in data gaps with
information from records at the regional, county, or municipal levels, as well as from published
national reports.
In many cases, states did not have data available in a consolidated format (e.g., a
database). In these situations, discrete data sources that provided essential data were
gathered. When state documents did not provide the level of detailed information necessary to
determine candidate landfills, regional offices located within each state and/or county or
municipal offices were contacted to assess the types of information in their files.
3.2 National Databases Used to Complete Profiles
In addition to data collected from state, regional, or local offices, data was drawn from
several national data sources. These sources include:
• Government Advisory Associates (GAA, 1994), which provides
information on current and planned LFG Energy Recovery Projects;
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1992), which examines the
potential to use fuel-cells at large landfills;
SCS Engineers (SCS, 1994), which examines the potential for landfill
energy recovery projects in the Northeast;
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA, 1992), which lists all
landfills in the U.S.;
• Solid Waste Technologies (SWT, 1994), which reports on landfill gas-to-
energy facilities throughout North America; and
Solid Waste Atlas (SWA, 1994), which lists all solid waste landfills in the
U.S., transfer stations, incinerators, and waste-to-energy facilities.
Exhibit 3-1 provides a detailed description of the types of information available from each data
source. The data obtained from the national databases was used mainly to supplement or verify
data received from state or local offices. One exception is the Government Advisory Associates
(GAA, 1994) data, which provides information on current and planned landfill gas recovery
projects. Because data on landfill gas recovery projects were difficult to obtain from
Data Collection Methods and Working Draft -- September 1997 Page 3-1
Evaluation Processes
-------
T3
W
CO
(D
00
ro
Exhibit 3-1
Summary of National Databases
GAA
Methane Recovery from Landfill
Yearbook
EPRI
Survey of Landfill Gas Generation
Potential; 2 MW Molten Carbonate Fuel
Cell
SCS
Implementation Guide for Landfill Gas
Recovery Projects in the Northeast
Purpose of
Report
Report provides information on current and
planned LFG energy recovery projects
Report examines potential to use fuel-cells
at large landfills
Report examines potential for landfill
energy recovery projects in the
Northeast
Types of
Landfills
Discussed in
the Report
MSW landfills that have current or planned
energy recovery projects
Large MSW landfills with a minimum active
life of 15 years and an average solid waste
delivery rate of 72,000 tons per year
MSW landfills with 20 or more acres and
daily waste receipts of 100 tons per day
or more
(Q
O
CO
0>
I
cr
CD
co
-j
O
a
o>
O
m 2.
c =±
Q) O
=r. 3
§ 2
(D
CO
States Included
in Report
All states
All states, but more detailed information
provided for Minnesota and Wisconsin
Northeastern states (Connecticut,
Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont)
Types of
Landfill Data
Included in
Report
Detailed information on more than 120 fully
operational LFG energy recovery projects
and over 90 in development, including
general landfill data, landfill gas collection
system, landfill gas processing/energy
generation system, institutional
arrangements, operating issues, and costs
Identifies 749 candidate landfills in all
states, and provides: site name, location,
waste flow, years remaining, maximum and
ten year gas flows, and number of 2MW
units. For Minnesota and Wisconsin, the
above information includes year opened,
contact name and phone, utility, and gas
controls
Identifies 207 candidate landfills in the
northeast, and provides: landfill site
name, location, address, phone number,
contact person, and ownership; landfill
acreage; estimated in-place refuse;
waste flow; estimated closure year; and
landfill gas features
Methods and
Sources Used
for Data
Collection
Listing of sites compiled through GAA's
contacts in the public and private sector as
well as a review of articles. A detailed
questionnaire was administered by phone,
in several cases the contact person
provided supplementary written materials
Data gathered from Cambridge
Environmental Group, GAA, and SWANA.
Data on landfills in Minnesota and
Wisconsin were obtained directly from
state agencies and from landfill operators
Contacted solid waste regulatory
agencies; reviewed Solid Waste Atlas,
SWANA Directory, and SCS Project files;
and incorporated EPRI data
Year When
Landfill Data
Was Collected
1994; Updated on a yearly basis
1992
1994
How Data from
National Report
is Used in EPA
Profiles Report
Data used to supplement missing
information
Data used to supplement missing
information
Data used to supplement missing
information
-------
m o
§ a
= ^
D) O
s-S:
3 (D
8 a
s ^
CO o
Q.
CO
(U
Q.
Exhibit 3-1 (continued)
Summary of National Databases
Purpose of
Report
Types of
Landfills
Discussed in
the Report
States Included
in Report
Types of
Landfill Data
Included in
Report
Methods and
Sources Used
for Data
Collection
Year When
Landfill Data
Was Collected
SWANA
U.S. Landfill Directory
Report lists all landfills in the U.S.; goal of
report not linked to energy recovery
MSW landfills
All states with the exception of Montana
The Directory is comprised of over 4,300
facility names and addresses with most
referencing the contact name and telephone
number
Directory information obtained by contacting
each state using the "Directory of Solid
Waste Management Program Officials"
1993; Pin Point Technologies now collects
this data, which is updated daily
SWT
Landfill Gas-to-Energy 1994-1995
Activity Report
A comprehensive status report on landfill
gas-to-energy facilities throughout North
America
214 landfill gas recovery facilities; 143
operational, 14 under construction, and 57
planned
35 states with operating facilities, and
under construction and planned facilities.
Includes landfills in Canada
Information includes the capital cost of
each facility, the current gas generation of
the landfill, megawatt capacity for projects
producing electricity, and the identity of
electricity or direct gas sales customers
Community personnel and owners of
landfills and landfill gas-to-energy projects
1994
SWA
Directory and Atlas of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities
Report lists all landfills in the U.S.,
transfer stations, and incinerators and
waste-to-energy facilities
MSW disposal facilities
All states
Directory contains 4,500 public and
private disposal facilities. Provides
names and locations, with corresponding
names, addresses, and phone numbers
for both owners and operators, average
daily
intake, and the expected or permitted
closure dates
Publisher's solid waste database, state
agencies, trade associations, and
facilities
1994
I
CO
O
I
CT
(D
CO
CO
•vl
CO
(D
CO
-------
CO
CQ
CD
03
Exhibit 3-1 (continued)
Summary of National Databases
f
i:
CQ
to
CD
T3
(D
3
cr
(D
CO
CD
•vl
SWANA
U.S. Landfill Directory
SWT
Landfill Gas-to-Energy 1994-1995
Activity Report
SWA
Directory and Atlas of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities
How Data from
National Report
is Used in EPA
Profiles Report
Data used to supplement missing
information
Data on operating facilities and under
construction and planned facilities is used
Confirmation of owner/operator contact
data
EPRI = Electric Power Research Institute
GAA = Government Advisory Associates
SCS = SCS Engineers
SWA = Solid Waste Atlas
SWANA = Solid Waste Association of North America
SWT = Solid Waste Technologies
D
ID
Q)
O
m 2.
0) 2?
— O
0) 5'
I'2
-n CD
$ §
CO Q.
-------
the states, GAA data was used as the primary source of information on current and planned
energy recovery projects.
3.3 Data Interpretation Issues
During the data collection and key entering processes, certain data interpretation
questions arose. To ensure consistency across all states, the following guidelines were
established for interpreting data:
• For landfills where open years were either unavailable or extremely
difficult to obtain, initial permit dates were used when available.
• Because several data sources were used, many landfills had multiple data
for some fields. In some cases, data from one source conflicted with data
from another source. For example, two different sources may report
completely different names for a landfill owner. To resolve problems with
conflicting data, each data source was ranked according to its probable
reliability. When data from all sources was collapsed to form one record
for each landfill, a computer program scanned for data from the highest
ranking source first, filling in as many fields as possible with that data, and
then scanned for the next highest ranking data source, filling in fields with
data from this source. Fields that already contained data from a higher
ranking source were skipped. This procedure continued until all data
sources had been scanned and all data fields with information from at
least one data source were filled.
3.4 Landfill Candidacy Screening Process
After the landfill data was collected, interpreted, and key-entered, the database was
analyzed to evaluate each landfill's probability of supporting a landfill gas-to-energy project.
Landfills were categorized into one of the following groups:
The landfill is a current project (i.e., the landfill has participated, is
participating or is planning to participate in a gas recovery project);
• The landfill is a candidate (i.e., the landfill has a high probability of
generating enough methane to make a landfill gas recovery project
economical);
• The landfill is a profile in progress (i.e., more data is required to determine
the status of the landfill);
• The landfill is not a candidate, but may be a candidate in the future (i.e.,
the landfill has between 500,000 and 1,000,000 tons of waste-in-place; or
the landfill has less than 500,000 tons waste-in-place, but is receiving
more than 75,000 tons of waste annually); or
• The landfill is not a candidate and is not likely to be a candidate in the
future.
Data Collection Methods and Working Draft--September 1997 Page 3-5
Evaluation Processes
-------
This categorization scheme is based on the premise that a landfill must be capable of generating
a certain amount of methane to make a gas recovery project desirable. The generation of
methane is a function of many factors, the most critical being the amount of waste-in-place and
the number of years the waste has been in the landfill. Peak methane generation occurs soon
after closure. Therefore, the longer a landfill has been closed, the less attractive it becomes for
methane recovery. For the purposes of determining candidate landfills, those landfills that
ceased accepting waste prior to 1989 were eliminated because they have a low probability of
generating enough methane to make a gas recovery project economical. By modelling the
relationship between waste-in-place and methane generation, a cut-off of 1,000,000 tons of
waste was established; landfills having at least 1,000,000 tons of waste-in-place were
considered candidate landfills.
The following four steps describe the landfill candidacy screening process:
Step 1: The first step in the process involves determining if a landfill has
a current project -- is the landfill already participating in a landfill
gas-to-energy recovery project or planning to do so? Those
facilities that are already participating, are classified as
"operational." Facilities that are planning landfill gas (LFG)
recovery projects are classified as "planned." When readily
available, additional data were gathered for operational and
planned facilities in order to present a more complete landfill .
profile.
Step 2: The next step is to determine whether the landfill is receiving
municipal solid waste. If a landfill receives MSW, the landfill then
underwent additional screening. Landfills that do not receive
MSW are not considered potential candidates, since they may
not
generate enough landfill gas to support a utilization project.
Page 3-6 Working Draft--September 1997 Data Collection Methods and
Evaluation Processes
-------
Step 3: If gas utilization is neither planned nor occurring at a facility, the
landfill's operating status (i.e., open or closed) is determined.
Landfills closed prior to January 1,1989 were not candidates;
landfills that have closed after January 1, 1989 were potential
candidates and underwent additional screening before their
candidacy could be confirmed. Open landfills were all
considered
potential candidates in this stage of the screening process. If the
operating status of a landfill was not available, the landfill's
candidacy could not be determined.
Step 4:
of
could
exceeded
In the next step of the screening process, waste-in-place data
were examined for all active landfills and inactive landfills that
stopped receiving waste after 1988. Landfills with waste-in-place
in excess of 1,000,000 tons were considered candidate landfills.
Some states do not collect the total amount of waste-in-place at
each landfill. Instead, the state may have on file annual
acceptance rates, open years, landfill acreage and depth, daily
acceptance rates, and
number of days operating per week. From different combinations
these data elements, a value for the landfill's waste-in-place
be estimated in some cases. If the estimated waste-in-place
1,000,000 tons, the landfill was considered a candidate.
Landfills which did not meet the candidacy criteria, but have between 500,000 and
999,999 tons of waste-in-place are also listed in Chapter 6. These landfills have been included
for two reasons: (1) it is likely, if they remain operational, they will reach 1 million tons WIP within
a few years; and (2) landfills with this amount of WIP may generate enough landfill gas for direct
gas sales to industries or other end-users with smaller energy requirements.
Landfills which had less than 500,000 tons of waste-in-place but accept at least 75,000
tons per year of waste are also listed in Chapter 6, because they also may become candidates
within a few years. Finally, Chapter 6 also lists the landfills for which waste-in-place could not be
estimated (i.e., profiles in progress). Therefore, their candidacy could not be determined, and
they could not be eliminated from this analysis.
Data Collection Methods and
Evaluation Processes
Working Draft - September 1997
Page 3-7
-------
3.5 References
Chartwell 1994. Directory and Atlas of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 1994, Chartwell
Information Publishers.
EPR11992. Survey of landfill Gas Generation Potential: 2 MW Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell,
Electric Power Research Institute.
GAA 1994. 1994-5 Methane Recovery from Landfill Yearbook, Governmental Advisory
Associates.
SCS 1994. Implementation Guide for Landfill Gas Recovery Projects in the Northeast: Draft
Final Report, SCS Engineers.
SWANA 1992. U.S. Landfill Directory, Solid Waste Association of North America.
Solid Waste Technologies 1994. Landfill Gas-to-Energy 1994-1995 Activity Report, HCI
Publications.
Page 3-8 Working Draft - September 1997 Data Collection Methods and
Evaluation Processes
-------
uanamaie uanann
Profiles
-------
-------
Summary of Statewide Collection Potential and Benefits for Candidate Landfills
Number of Candidate Landfills: 11.0
Estimated Total LFG Collection Potential (mmcf/day): 27.9
Estimated Total Generation Potential (MW): 44.9
CO2 Equivalent Available (tons/yr):l 2,259 - 343,916
1- The range of vlues are the total annual carbon dioxide equivalent of methane reductions (low range) and
the total annual carbon dioxide equivalent of methane reductions plus the annual carbon dioxide reductions
realized from coal displacement (high range)
-------
September 1997
Brooks Site LF
Location
City: N.A.
County: Sedgwick
State: KS
Primary Contact (see contact informatio N.A.
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Operating Status
Status: Open
Year Open: 1976
Year Closed 2002
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 316-722-0601
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MS W: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 555,170
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/
10,737,610
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N.A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Brooks Site LF (continued)
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potential^/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
Utilities in County:
mmcf/d
3.2
mmcf/d
5.4
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
5.4
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Capacity
(MW)
8.6
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
mmcf/yr
1,154.8
mmcf/yr
1,963.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1,963.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Energy
(GWh/vr)
64.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Butler Rural El Coop Assn Inc; Kansas Gas & Electric Company; Mount Hope Muni
Electric System; MulVane Munic Light & Wtr Dept; Sedgwick Cnty El Coop Assn Inc;
Southwestern Power Admin; St Mary's Light & Water Dept; Sumner-Cowley Elec
Coop Inc; Western Resources Inc; Wheatland Electric Coop Inc
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr):
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr):
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances:
Total
981.6
435.4
128
Current &
Planned
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement:
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr):
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr):
CO2
65,844
53,244
SO2
506
360
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Brooks Site LF(continued)
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: City of Wichita
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Contact Information
Fax Number: N.A.
State: N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: N.A.
Contact Name:
Phone Number:
Mailing Address
City:
N.A.
316-722-0601
4100 North West Street
Wichita
Fax Number: 316-268-4002
State: KS Zip code: 67204
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Cowley County LF
Location
City: N.A.
Operating Status
Status: Open
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
County: Cowley
State: KS
Year Open: 1983
Year Closed 1997
Primary Contact (see contact informatio Ronnie Thiel
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 316-221-4066
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MSW: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 32,978
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/
1,095,150
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N.A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Cowley County LF (continued)
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potentiate/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
Utilities in County:
mmcf/d
0.7
mmcf/d
1.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Capacity
(MW)
1.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
mmcf/vr
254.8
mmcf/yr
433.1
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
433.1
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Energy
(GWh/vr)
14.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Butler Rural El Coop Assn Inc; Caney Valley El Coop Assn Inc; Kansas Gas &
Electric Company; Southwestern Power Admin; Sumner-Cowley Elec Coop Inc;
Udall Water & Light Dept; Western Resources Inc; Winfield Mun Electric Util
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr):
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr):
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances:
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement:
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr):
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr):
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Current &
Total Planned
216.6 N.A.
96.1 N.A.
28 N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
CO2 SO2
14,527 112
11,747 79
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Cowley County LF(continued)
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: Cowley County
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Contact Information
Fax Number: N.A.
State: N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: N.A.
Contact Name: Ronnie Thiel
Phone Number: 316-221 -4066
Mailing Address PO Box 464
City: Winfield
Fax Number: 316-221 -5448
State: KS Zip code: 67156
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Crawford County
Location
City: N.A.
County: Crawford
State: KS
Operating Status
Status: Closed
Year Open: 1976
Year Closed 1994
Primary Contact (see contact informatio Dan Swyers
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 913-631-3300
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MS W: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 37,706
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/
1,661,063
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N.A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Crawford County (continued)
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potential^/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
mmcf/d
0.8
mmcf/d
1.4
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1.4
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
mmcf/yr
307.6
mmcf/yr
522.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
522.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
Utilities in County:
(MW)
Capacity
Energy
(GWh/vr)
17.1
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Arcadia Munic Elec Dept; Anna Electric Dept; Girard Munic Light & Water Dept;
Kansas Gas & Electric Company; Mulberry City Utilities; Sekan Electric Coop Assn
Inc; Western Area Power Admin; Western Resources Inc
2.3
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr):
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr):
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances:
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement:
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr):
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr):
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Current &
Total Planned
261.5 N.A.
116.0 N.A.
34 N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
CO2 SO2
17,539 135
14,182 96
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Crawford County(continued)
Contact Information
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: Oak Grove Landfill
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Fax Number:
N.A.
State:
N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: N.A.
Contact Name: Dan Swyers
Phone Number: 913-631 -3300
Mailing Address 18181 West 53rd St.
City: Shawnee
Fax Number: N.A.
State: KS Zip code:
66203
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is closed. Therefore, the gas generation may be declining.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Finney County LF
Location
City: Garden City
County: Finney
State: KS
Operating Status
Status: Open
Year Open: 1986
Year Closed 2012
Primary Contact (see contact informatio Max Morgan
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 316-276-3051
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MSW: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 50,846
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/
1,339,005
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N .A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Finney County
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-PIace):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potentiate/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
LF (continued)
mmcf/d
0.8
mmcf/d
1.3
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1.3
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Capacity
(MW)
2.1
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
mmcf/yr
277.5
mmcf/yr
471.8
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
471.8
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Energy
(GWh/vr)
15.4
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Utilities in County: Garden City Muni Utils; Lane-Scott Electric Coop Inc; Pioneer Electric Coop Inc;
Victory Electric Coop Assn Inc;
Coop Inc
Western Area Power Admin;
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Current &
Total
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr): 235.9
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr): 1 04.6
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances: 30
Planned
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Wheatland Electric
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement: CO2
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr): 1 5,825
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr): 1 2,796
S02
122
86
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Finney County LF(continued)
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: Finney County
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Contact Information
Fax Number: N.A.
State: N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: N.A.
Contact Name: Max Morgan
Phone Number: 316-276-3051
Mailing Address 504 St. John
City: Garden City
Fax Number: 316-272-3567
State: KS Zip code: 67846
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Forest View SLF
Location
City: Kansas City
County:
State:
Wyandotte
KS
Operating Status
Status: Open
Year Open: 1976
Year Closed 2007
Primary Contact (see contact informatio Kevin O'Brien
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 913-287-2711
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MS W: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 288,262
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-PIace (tons) a/
9,935,717
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N.A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Forest View SLF (continued)
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potential^/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
Utilities in County:
mmcf/d
3.0
mmcf/d
5.0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
5.0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Capacity
(MW)
8.1
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Kansas City Bd of Pub Util; Kansas City Power & Light Co; Western Area Power
Admin; Western Resources Inc
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr):
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr):
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances:
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement:
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr):
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr):
Total
918.0
407.1
120
Current &
Planned
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
C02 S02
61,577 473
49,793 336
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Forest View SLF(continued)
Contact Information
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: Browning-Ferris, Inc.
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Fax Number:
N.A.
State:
N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: Waste Management of Kansas, Inc.
Contact Name: Kevin O'Brien
Phone Number: 913-287-2711 Fax Number: N.A.
Mailing Address PO Box 11116
City: Kansas City State: KS Zip code:
66111
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Harvey County LF
Location
City: N.A.
County: Harvey
State: KS
Operating Status
Status: Open
Year Open: 1976
Year Closed 2002
Primary Contact (see contact informatio Howard Harvey
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 316-283-1890
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MSW: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 38,993
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/
1,511,401
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N.A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Harvey County LF (continued)
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION mmcf/d
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place): 0.8
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL mmcf/d
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/ 1.4
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume: N.A.
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume: N.A.
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potential^/ N.A.
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential: 1.4
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized: N.A.
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized: N.A.
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/ N.A.
Capacity
2.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL (MW)
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
mmcf/vr
293.6
mmcf/yr
499.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
499.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Energy
(GWh/yr)
16.3
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Utilities in County:
Ark Valley Elec Coop Assn Inc; Butler Rural El Coop Assn Inc; Flint Hills Rural E C A
Inc; Kansas Gas & Electric Company; Sedgwick Cnty El Coop Assn Inc;
Southwestern Power Admin; Sumner-Cowley Elec Coop Inc; Western Resources Inc
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr):
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr):
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances:
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement:
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr):
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr):
Total
249.6
110.7
32
Current &
Planned
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
CO2 SO2
16,742 129
13,538 91
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Harvey County LF(continued)
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: Harvey County
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Contact Information
Fax Number: N.A.
State: N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: N.A.
Contact Name:
Phone Number:
Mailing Address
City:
Howard Harvey
316-283-1890
201 S.E. 7th
Newton
Fax Number. 316-284-6856
State: KS Zip code: 67114
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Johnson County LF
Location
City:
County:
State:
N.A.
Johnson
KS
Operating Status
Status: Open
Year Open: 1979
Year Closed 2004
Primary Contact (see contact informatio Bob Vantuyl
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 913-631-3300
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MS W: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: 487
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 887,869
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/
11,097,340
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N.A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Johnson County LF (continued)
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potentiate/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
Utilities in County:
mmcf/d
3.3
mmcf/d
5.5
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
5.5
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Capacity
(MW)
8.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
DeSoto Elec Light Dept; Gardner Muni Elec Syst; Kansas City Power & Light Co;
Western Area Power Admin; Western Resources Inc
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr):
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr):
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances:
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement:
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr):
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr):
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Current &
Total Planned
1,010.1 N.A.
448.0 N.A.
132 N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
CO2 SO2
67,759 520
54,792 370
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Johnson County LF(continued)
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: Johnson County
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Contact Information
Fax Number: N.A.
State: N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: Deferbaugh Industries
Contact Name: Bob Vantuyl
Phone Number: 913-631 -3300
Mailing Address PO Box 3220
City: Shawnee
Fax Number: N.A.
State: KS Zip code:
66203
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
N.R. Hamm LF
Location
City: N.A.
County: Jefferson
State: KS
Operating Status
Status: Open
Year Open: 1976
Year Closed N.A.
Primary Contact (see contact informatio Charles Sedlock
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 913-597-5111
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MS W: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 218,333
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/
1,904,204
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N.A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
N.R. Hamm LF
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potentiate/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
(continued)
mmcf/d
0.9
mmcf/d
1.5
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1.5
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Capacity
(MW)
2.5
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Utilities in County: Brown Atchison EGA Inc; Leavenworth-Jefferson Elec Coop
mmcf/vr
330.3
mmcf/yr
561.5
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
561.5
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Energy
(GWh/vr)
18.4
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Inc; Western Area
Power Admin; Western Resources Inc
Environmental
Total
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr): 280.8
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr): 1 24.5
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances: 36
Benefits of Utilization
Current &
Planned
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement: CO2
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr): 18,833
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr): 1 5,229
SO2
145
103
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
N.R. Hamm LF(continued)
Contact Information
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: N.R. Hamm Quarry
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Fax Number:
N.A.
State:
N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: N.A.
Contact Name: Charles Sedlock
Phone Number: 913-597-5111
Mailing Address PO Box 17
City: Perry
Fax Number: 913-597-5117
State: KS Zip code: 66073
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Reno County LF
Location
City:
County:
State:
N.A.
Reno
KS
Operating Status
Status: Open
Year Open: 1976
Year Closed 2006
Primary Contact (see contact informatio Cindy Kidd
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 316-665-2976
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MSW: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 97,933
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/ 2,624,021
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Gas Collection and Control Data
Year Gas Collection Began:
N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N.A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Reno County LF (continued)
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potentialx/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: d
Utilities in County:
mmcf/d
mmcf/d
(MW)
1.1
1.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Capacity
3.0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
mmcf/yr
. 397.5
mmcf/yr
675.7
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
675.7
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Energy
(GWh/vf)
22.1
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Ark Valley Elec Coop Assn Inc; Haven Light & Water Power Plant; Ninnescah Rural E
C A Inc; Sedgwick Cnty El Coop Assn Inc; Southwestern Power Admin; Western
Resources Inc
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr):
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr):
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances:
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement:
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr):
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr):
Total
Current &
Planned
337.9 N.A.
149.9 N.A.
44 N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
CO2 SO2
22,664 174
18,326 124
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Reno County LF(continued)
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: Reno County
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Contact Information
Fax Number: N.A.
State: N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: Reno County
Contact Name: Cindy Kidd
Phone Number: 316-665-2976
Mailing Address 206 West 1st
City: Hutchinson
Fax Number: N.A.
State: KS Zip code:
67501
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Salina County LF
Location
City: N.A.
County: Saline
State: KS
Primary Contact (see contact informatio
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Operating Status
Status: Open
Year Open: 1976
Year Closed N.A.
Frank Weinhold
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: 913-827-7131
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MSW: N.A. Tipping Fee ($/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 52,788
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/
2,797,917
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d):
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d
N.A.
N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Salina County LF (continued)
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potentials/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
Utilities in County:
mmcf/d
1.1
mmcf/d
1.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1.9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Capacity
(MW)
3.1
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Ark Valley Elec Coop Assn Inc; 0 S & O Rural EGA Inc; Smoky Hill Elec Coop Assn
Inc; Western Area Power Admin; Western Resources Inc
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr):
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr):
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances:
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement:
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr):
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr):
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Current &
Total Planned
351.7 N.A.
156.0 N.A.
45 N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
CO2 SO2
23,589 181
19,075 129
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Salina County LF(continued)
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: City of Salina
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Contact Information
Fax Number: N.A.
State: N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: N.A.
Contact Name. Frank Weinhold
Phone Number: 913-827-7131
Mailing Address PO Box 736
City. Salina
Fax Number: N.A.
State: KS Zip code:
67402
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Wheatland LF
Location
City:
County:
State:
N.A.
Cherokee
KS
Operating Status
Status: Open
Year Open: 1976
Year Closed N.A.
Primary Contact (see contact informatio N.A.
Alternate Landfill Name(s): N.A.
Gas Utilization
Gas Collection?: N.A.
Gas Utilization?: N.A.
Phone: N.A.
Waste Collection Information
Types of Waste Accepted: Municipal Solid Waste; Other Landfill Wastes
% of Waste that is MS W: N.A. Tipping Fee (S/ton): N.A.
Days Open Per Week: 5.5* Design Capacity (tons): N.A.
Acres Currently Landfilled: N.A.
Average Depth (feet) N.A.
Annual Acceptance Rate (tons): 228,263
Year Reported: 1994
Waste-in-Place (tons) a/
1,514,421
Gas Collection and Control Data
Collection System Status: N.A.
Collection System Type N.A.
Collection Efficiency 85%*
Methane Concentration: 50%*
Year Gas Collection Began: N.A.
Est. Percentage of LF Area Welled: N.A.
LF Gas Collected (mmcf/d): N.A.
CH4 Gas Collected (mmcf/d N.A.
* - Default Value
a/ - WIP calculated from acceptance rate and open year using average of multiple years annual acceptance
rate data.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Wheatland LF (continued)
EST. TOTAL METHANE GENERATION
(Estimated from Waste-in-Place):
LF GAS COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total LF Gas Collection Potential: d/
Current Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Planned Reported LF Gas Collection Volume:
Est. Additional LF Gas Collection Potentiate/
Est. Total LF Gas Utilization Volume Potential:
Current Reported Volume of LF Gas Utilized:
Planned Reported Volume LF Gas to be Utilized:
Est. Additional LF Gas Available for Use: c/
POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Est. Total Electric Potential:
Current Reported Generation:
Planned Reported Generation:
Est. Additional Generation Potential: c/
Utilities in County:
mmcf/d
0.8
mmcf/d
1.4
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1.4
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Capacity
(MW)
2.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Empire District Elec Co; Sekan Electric Coop Assn Inc; Twin Valley Electric Coop
Inc; Western Area Power Admin
Environmental Benefits of Utilization
Est. Potential CH4 Reduction (mmcf/yr):
CO2 Equivalent of CH4 Reduction ('000 tons/yr):
Estimated Acid Rain Bonus Allowances:
Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement:
Displacement of Coal (tons/yr):
Displacement of Oil (tons/yr):
Total
249.8
110.8
32
Current &
Planned
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Additional
Potential
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Total Emissions Avoided
CO2 SO2
16,758 129
13,551 92
c/ - This value is calculated from other estimated values and is particularly sensitive to the following
factors: (1) whether the landfill is open or closed and (2) portion of landfill that is welled.
Candidate Projects
-------
September 1997
Wheatland LF(continued)
Contact Information
LANDFILL OWNER
Organization Name: Cherokee County
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Fax Number:
N.A.
State:
N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
LANDFILL OPERATOR
Organization Name: N.A.
Contact Name: N.A.
Phone Number: N.A.
Mailing Address N.A.
City: N.A.
Fax Number: N.A.
State: N.A. Zip code:
N.A.
N.A.
Comments Relating to LFG Recovery Projects
Note: This landfill is open. Therefore, the gas generation may be increasing.
Candidate Projects
-------
vieuei auuii aiiu IMIVII uniiieiiiai
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Arcadia Munic Elec Dept
Crawford County
N.A., KS
Crawford
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemfflbplacemdiltsplacemdMsplacemnt
Generation (kt/v) Rain Bonus of Coal ofOil of Coal of Oil
2.30
0.00
34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
135.00
96.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Ark Valley Elec Coop Assn Inc
Harvey County LF
N.A., KS
Harvey
2.30
0.00
34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
2.20 0.00 32.00 16,742.00 13,538.00
135.00 96.00
129.00 91.00
Reno County LF
N.A., KS
Reno
3.00 0.00 44.00 22,664.00 18,326.00
174.00 124.00
Salina County LF
N.A., KS
Saline
3.10 0.00 45.00 23,589.00 19,075.00
181.00 129.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
8.30
0.00
121.00 62,995.00 50,939.00
484.00 344.00
-------
MATCHING OF UTILITIES TO CANDIDATE LANDFILLS IN SAME COUNTY
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Arma Electric Dept
Crawford County
N.A., KS
Crawford
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid Displacemdfllsplacemdftisplacemdaisplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus of Coal of Oil of Coal of Oil
2.30
0.00
34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
135.00
96.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Brown Atchison E C A Inc
N.R. Hamm LF
N.A., KS
Jefferson
2.30
0.00
34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
2.50 0.00 36.00 18,833.00 15,229.00
135.00 96.00
145.00 103.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Butler Rural El Coop Assn Inc
Cowley County LF
N.A., KS
Cowley
Harvey County LF
N.A., KS
Harvey
Brooks Site LF
N.A., KS
Sedgwick
2.50 0.00 36.00 18,833.00 15,229.00 145.00 103.00
1.90 0.00 28.00 14,527.00 11,747.00 112.00 79.00
2.20 0.00 32.00 16,742.00 13,538.00 129.00 91.00
8.60 0.00 128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00 506.00 360.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
12.70
0.00 188.00 97,113.00 78,529.00
747.00 530.00
-------
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Caney Valley El Coop Assn Inc
Cowley County LF
N.A., KS
Cowley
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemffllsplacemdMsplacemdMsplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus of Coal of Oil of Coal of Oil
1.90
0.00
28.00 14,527.00 11,747.00
112.00
79.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
D S & O Rural E C A Inc
Salina County LF
N.A., KS
Saline
1.90
3.10
0.00
0.00
28.00 14,527.00 11,747.00
45.00 23,589.00 19,075.00
112.00
79.00
181.00 129.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
DeSoto Elec Light Dept
Johnson County LF
N.A., KS
Johnson
3.10
8.90
0.00
0.00
45.00 23,589.00 19,075.00
181.00 129.00
132.00 67,759.00 54,792.00
520.00 370.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Empire District Elec Co
Wheatland LF
N.A., KS
Cherokee
8.90
2,20
0.00 132.00 67,759.00 54,792.00
0.00 32.00 16,758.00 13,551.00
520.00 370.00
129.00 92.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
2.20
0.00
32.00 16,758.00 13,551.00
129.00
92.00
-------
MATCHING OF UTILITIES TO CANDIDATE LANDFILLS IN SAME COUNTY
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Flint Hills Rural E C A Inc
Harvey County LF
N.A., KS
Harvey
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 S02 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemdJtsplacemdWsplacemdflisplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus ofCoal of Oil of Coal of Oil
2.20
0.00
32.00 16,742.00 13,538.00
129.00
91.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Garden City Muni Utils
Finney County LF
Garden City, KS
Finney
2.20
0.00
32.00 16,742.00 13,538.00
2.10 0.00 30.00 15,825.00 12,796.00
129.00 91.00
122.00 86.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Gardner Muni Elec Syst
Johnson County LF
N.A., KS
Johnson
2.10
0.00
30.00 15,825.00 12,796.00
122.00 86.00
8.90 0.00 132.00 67,759.00 54,792.00
520.00 370.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Girard Munic Light & Water Dept
Crawford County
N.A., KS
Crawford
8.90
2.30
0.00
0.00
132.00 67,759.00 54,792.00
520.00 370.00
34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
135.00
96.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
2.30
0.00
34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
135.00
96.00
-------
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Haven Light & Water Power Plant
Reno County LF
N.A., KS
Reno
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemdfllsplacemffitsplacemdJllsplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus of Coal of Oil of Coal of Oil
3.00
0.00
44.00 22,664.00 18,326.00 174.00 124.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Kansas City Bd of Pub Util
Forest View SLF
Kansas City, KS
Wyandotte
3.00
0.00
44.00 22,664.00 18,326.00
174.00 124.00
8.10 0.00 120.00 61,577.00 49,793.00 473.00 336.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Kansas City Power & Light Co
Johnson County LF
N.A., KS
Johnson
8.10
0.00 120.00 61,577.00 49,793.00
8.90 0.00 132.00 67,759.00 54,792.00
473.00 336.00
520.00 370.00
Forest View SLF
Kansas City, KS
Wyandotte
8.10
0.00 120.00 61,577.00 49,793.00 473.00 336.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
17.00
0.00 252.00 129,336.00 104,585.00
993.00 706.00
-------
MATCHING OF UTILITIES TO CANDIDATE LANDFILLS IN SAME COUNTY
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Lane-Scott Electric Coop Inc
Finney County LF
Garden City, KS
Finney
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemeBUsplacemdaisplacemdiUsplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus of Coal of Oil of Coal of Oil
2.10
0.00
30.00 15,825.00 12,796.00
122.00
86.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Leavenworth-Jefferson Elec Coop Inc
N.R. Hamm LF
N.A., KS
Jefferson
2.10
2.50
0.00
30.00 15,825.00 12,796.00
0.00
36.00 18,833.00 15,229.00
122.00
86.00
145.00 103.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Mount Hope Muni Electric System
Brooks Site LF
N.A., KS
Sedgwick
2.50
0.00
36.00 18,833.00 15,229.00
8.60 0.00 128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00
145.00 103.00
506.00 360.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Mulberry City Utilities
Crawford County
N.A., KS
Crawford
8.60
0.00 128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00
506.00 360.00
2.30 0.00 34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
135.00 96.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
2.30
0.00
34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
135.00
96.00
-------
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Mulvane Munic Light & Wtr Dept
Brooks Site LF
N.A., KS
Sedgwick
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemdWsplacemffllsplacemdWsplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus of Coal of Oil of Coal of Oil
8.60
0.00
128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00
506.00 360.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Ninnescah Rural EGA Inc
Reno County LF
N.A., KS
Reno
8.60
3.00
0.00
0.00
128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00
44.00 22,664.00 18,326.00
506.00 360.00
174.00 124.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Pioneer Electric Coop Inc
Finney County LF
Garden City, KS
Finney
3.00
0.00
44.00 22,664.00 18,326.00
2.10 0.00 30.00 15,825.00 12,796.00
174.00 124.00
122.00 86.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Sedgwick Cnty El Coop Assn Inc
Harvey County LF
N.A., KS
Harvey
2.10
0.00
2.20
30.00 15,825.00 12,796.00
0.00 32.00 16,742.00 13,538.00
122.00 86.00
129.00 91.00
-------
MATCHING OF UTILITIES TO CANDIDATE LANDFILLS IN SAME COUNTY
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Reno County LF
N.A., KS
Reno
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemdaisplacemdBisplacemd&lsplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus of Coal ofOil of Coal ofOil
3.00
0.00
44.00 22,664.00 18,326.00
174.00 124.00
Brooks Site LF
N.A., KS
Sedgwick
8.60
0.00
128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00
506.00 360.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Sekan Electric Coop Assn Inc
Wheatland LF
N.A., KS
Cherokee
13.80
0.00 204.00 105,250.00 85,108.00
809.00 575.00
2.20 0.00 32.00 16,758.00 13,551.00
129.00 92.00
Crawford County
N.A., KS
Crawford
2.30 0.00 34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
135.00 96.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Smoky Hill Elec Coop Assn Inc
Salina County LF
N.A., KS
Saline
4.50
3.10
0.00
0.00
66.00 34,297.00 27,733.00
45.00 23,589.00 19,075.00
264.00 188.00
181.00 129.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
3.10
o.oo
45.00 23,589.00 19,075.00
181.00 129.00
-------
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
St Mary's Light & Water Dept
Brooks Site LF
N.A., KS
Sedgwick
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated C02 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemsGWsplacemdMsplacemdWsplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus of Coal of Oil of Coal of Oil
8.60
0.00
128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00
506.00 360.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Sumner-Cowley Elec Coop Inc
Cowley County LF
N.A., KS
Cowley
8.60
0.00 128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00
1.90 0.00 28.00 14,527.00 11,747.00
506.00 360.00
112.00 79.00
Harvey County LF
N.A., KS
Harvey
2.20
0.00 32.00 16,742.00 13,538.00
129.00 91.00
Brooks Site LF
N.A., KS
Sedgwick
8.60
0.00 128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00
506.00 360.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Twin Valley Electric Coop Inc
Wheatland LF
N.A., KS
Cherokee
12.70 0.00 188.00 97,113.00 78,529.00
2.20 0.00 32.00 16,758.00 13,551.00
747.00 530.00
129.00 92.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
2.20
0.00
32.00 16,758.00 13,551.00
129.00
92.00
-------
MATCHING OF UTILITIES TO CANDIDATE LANDFILLS IN SAME COUNTY
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Udall Water & Light Dept
Cowley County LF
N.A., KS
Cowley
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemdflbplacemdflisplacemdWsplacemnt
Generation (My) Rain Bonus of Coal ofOil of Coal ofOil
1.90
0.00
28.00 14,527.00 11,747.00
112.00
79.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Victory Electric Coop Assn Inc
Finney County LF
Garden City, KS
Finney
1.90
0.00
28.00 14,527.00 11,747.00
112.00 79.00
2.10 0.00 30.00 15,825.00 12,796.00
122.00 86.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Western Resources Inc
Crawford County
N.A., KS
Crawford
2.10
0.00
30.00 15,825.00 12,796.00
2.30 0.00 34.00 17,539.00 14,182.00
122.00 86.00
135.00 96.00
Harvey County LF
N.A., KS
Harvey
2.20 0.00 32.00 16,742.00 13,538.00
129.00 91.00
N.R. Hamm LF
N.A., KS
Jefferson
2.50 0.00 36.00 18,833.00 15,229.00
145.00 103.00
-------
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential • Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Johnson County LF
N.A., KS
Johnson
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 SO2 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid Displacemdftteplacemfflbplacemd&lsplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus of Coal of Oil of Coal of Oil
8.90 0,00 132.00 67,759.00 54,792.00 520.00 370.00
Reno County LF
N.A., KS
Reno
3.00 0.00 44.00 22,664.00 18,326.00
174.00 124.00
Salina County LF
N.A., KS
Saline
3.10 0.00 45.00 23,589.00 19,075.00
181.00 129.00
Brooks Site LF
N.A., KS
Sedgwick
8.60
0.00 128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00 506.00 360.00
Forest View SLF
Kansas City, KS
Wyandotte
8.10 0.00 120.00 61,577.00 49,793.00 473.00 336.00
Cowley County LF
N.A., KS
Cowley
1.90
0.00 28.00 14,527.00 11,747.00 112.00 79.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Wheatland Electric Coop Inc
Finnev County LF
Garden City, KS
Finney
40.60
2.10
0.00 599.00 309,074.00 249,926.00 2,375.00 1,688.00
0.00
30.00 15,825.00 12,796.00
122.00 86.00
-------
MATCHING OF UTILITIES TO CANDIDATE LANDFILLS IN SAME COUNTY
Power Generation and Environmental Benefits
26-Sep-
Landfill Power Generation Potential - Capacity (MW) and Environmental Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
Utility Company Match
Landfill Name
City, State
County
Year Close
Brooks Site LF
N.A., KS
Sedgwick
Current &
Planned CO2
Equivalent Total Emissions Avoided through Fuel Displacement (tons/yr)
Est.Total ofCH4 Estimated CO2 CO2 S02 SO2
Electric Reductions Acid DisplacemdiJlsplacemdflisplacemdatsplacemnt
Generation (kt/y) Rain Bonus of Coal of Oil of Coal of Oil
8.60
0.00
128.00 65,844.00 53,244.00
506.00 360.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
Winfield Mun Electric Util
Cowley County LF
N.A., KS
Cowley
10.70
1.90
0.00
0.00
158.00 81,669.00 66,040.00
28.00 14,527.00 11,747.00
628.00
446.00
112.00
79.00
Totals for Candidate Landfills
1.90
0.00
28.00 14,527.00 11,747.00
112.00
79.00
-------
Current Project
Profiles
-------
-------
This State has no Current Projects
-------
-------
profile index
-------
-------
Landfill Index
Candidate Landfills
Brooks Site LF
Cowley County LF
Crawford County
Finney County LF
Forest View SLF
Harvey County LF
Johnson County LF
N.R. Hamm LF
Reno County LF
Salina County LF
Wheatland LF
Profiles in Progress
Butler County LF
Chanute LF
Clay County LF
Graham County LF
Oak Grove (Deffenbaugh)
Refuse Service Inc. LF
WIP* 500,000 to 999,999 tons
Allen County LF
Barton County LF
Ford County LF
Seward County LF
* WIP = Waste-in-Place. Profiles for landfills with WIP between 500,000 and 999,999 tons are not
included in this report.
-------
-------
-------
------- |