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. ------- ------- ------- ------- |