United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
egion VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver. Colorado 80295
Solid Waste
&EPA A TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM REPORT
RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS
FOR BOULDER,COLORADO
-------
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM REPORT:
RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS FOR BOULDER, COLORADO
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc
Market Center
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
October, 1981
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS FOR BOULDER, COLORADO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII
^•BOULDER
• OSNVgR
-------
Public Law 94-580 - October 21, 1976
Technical assistance by personnel teams. 42 DSC 6913
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel, including
Federal, State, and local employees or.contractors (hereinafter referred to as
"Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels") to provide States and local gov-
ernments upon request with technical assistance on solid waste management,
resource recovery, and resource conservation. Such teams shall include techni-
cal, marketing, financial, and institutional specialists, and the services of
such teams sha1! be provided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Project
Officer, EPA, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Project Officer: William Rothenmeyer
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
List of Tables iv
List of Figures vi
Acknowledgements vii
Executive Summary viii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
11. BACKGROUND 2
A. Waste Quantity and Characteristics 2
B. Current Collection and Disposal Practices 8
C. Eco-Cycle 11
D. University of Colorado 14
E. Valmont Plant of the Public Service
Company of Colorado 20
F. City Yards 22
III. RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS 27
A. Modular Incineration 27
B. Refuse Derived Fuel 30
IV. REGULATORY FACTORS AND POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 42
A. The Permitting Process 42
B. Air Emissions and Permit Requirements . 43
C. Noise Regulations 51
D. Solid Waste Generation and Permit Requirements 52
E. Other Environmental/Regulatory Concerns 53
F. A Regulatory Compliance Strategy 54
G. Risks of Hazardous Substances in the Waste Stream 55
V. COST-EFFECTIVENESS 57
A. The Variables 57
B. Results of the Analysis 67
C. Alternate Sites for Modular Incineration 67
D. Sensitivity Analysis 69
VI. IMPACTS ON EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS 75
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 77
i 1 i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
1. Population Forecasts for Boulder County, 1980-2000 3
2. Waste Stream Composition 5
3. Composition of the Waste Stream in the Study Area 7
4. Eco-Cycle: Summary of Monthly Operations 13
5. University of Colorado Main Campus Heating System 16
6. Seasonal Varation in the University's Demand for Steam, 1979-1980 16
7. Historic Energy Consumption - Main Boulder Campus 17
8. Projected Energy Use at the University of Colorado I9
9. Valmont Steam Electric Station Generating Capability
and Operating Data 23
10. Businesses Located Within One-Mile Radius of City Yards
Incinerator Location 24
11. Energy Use by Facilities in the City Yards Area 26
12. Projected Optimum Operating and Maintenance Costs for
North Little Rock, Arkansas, 100 TPD Modular Incinerator 31
13. Municipal Modular Incineration Facilities Operational or
Under Construction in the United States, March, 1981 32
14. Municipal RDF Facilities Operational or Under Construction
in the United States, March, 1981 38
15. RDF Facility Labor Requirements 39
16. North Little Rock Flue Gas Emission Data 48
17. Particulate Emissions from the St. Louis Facility 50
18. Estimated Capital Costs for Resource Recovery Technologies 58
19. North Little Rock Actual Capital Cost Breakdown 60
20. O&M Costs for Resource Recovery Options 62
21. Transportation Cost for Waste Disposal Options 65
iv
-------
22. Revenues from Resource Recovery Options 66
23. Tipping Fees for Resource Recovery Options in Boulder 68
24. Site-Specific Cost Considerations for Modular
Incineration Facilities 70
25. Impact of 52 TPO Eco-Cycle Program on Modular
Incinerator Tipping Fees 71
26. Impact of Hypothetical Inflation on Tipping Fees for
Modular Incineration 73
-------
Figure No.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No,
1. Distances Between Major Points of Concern to Steam
Distribution at the University of Colorado .............. . ........ 21
2. Cutaway View of Modular Incinerator Showing Major
Components of the System ........................................ 28
3. Modular Incinerator Flow Diagram and
Labor Requirements .............................................. 33
4. Modular Incinerator Labor Requirements:
Key Staff Positions ............................................. 35
5. Schematic Drawing of Typical Refuse Derived Fuel Project ........ /
6. Permit Procedures for Air Emission and Solid Waste
Disposal Permits ................................................ 4b
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for the Region VIII office of U.S. EPA by Fred C.
Hart Associates, Inc., under Contract No. 68-01-6008. The project manager was
Dr. James McCarthy. Patti Allen, Howard Davis, Burke Lokey, and Stephen
Orzynski, P.E. served on the project team. The EPA Project Officer was William
Rothenmeyer.
Information and assistance was provided by a number of individuals affili-
ated with the City and County of Boulder, the City of Longmont, the University
of Colorado, Public Service Company of Colorado, Landfill, Inc., Western Dispos-
al Co., and Browning Ferris Industries.
vii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a preliminary study of the feasibility of constructing a
resource recovery facility in Boulder, Colorado. It recommends that Boulder
County and the cities of Boulder and Longmont proceed with initial planning for
construction of a modular incinerator at one of three locations: a) the Public
Service Company site at Valmont, b) City Yards, or c) the University of
Colorado.
This report reaches the following conclusions:
1. The Cities of Boulder and Longmont will generate at least 308 tons per
day of waste for disposal, recycling or resource recovery.
2. Modular incineration of this waste stream would cost $22.33 per ton.
Other resource recovery technologies considered would cost' between
$38.09 and $54.55 per ton.
3. Revenues produced by the sale of steam from a modular incinerator would
be $14.00 per ton, reducing the effective cost of incinerating waste
(the tipping fee) to $8.33 per ton.
4. Revenues produced by sale of materials and energy from other resource
recovery options range from $14.31 to $16.69 per ton. After subtracting
revenues, tipping fees are at least $23.78 per ton, or nearly three
times the fee for a modular incinerator.
5. Current solid waste disposal costs average $6.40 per ton for Longmont
and $4.20 per ton for Boulder. However, the operator of the Marshall
landfill, where most of Boulder's waste is disposed, expects to request
a doubling of landfill tipping fees this year to cover increased costs.
6. Changes in transportation costs should make modular incineration more
competitive. Preliminary assessment of transportation costs for waste
vm
-------
delivery to three potential sites in Boulder indicates savings of
$2.40 to $3.39 per ton over delivery to landfills. The savings accrue
primarily to haulers delivering waste from the City of Boulder. The
City of Longmont's transportation costs change very little if the City
constructs a transfer station and hauls waste to Boulder in trailer
trucks.
7. Modular incineration appears preferable to the other technologies
examined not only on cost grounds, but also in terms of reliability.
Modular incinerators are simpler in design, become operational more
quickly, and generally require less extensive pollution control
equipment.
8. There is no basic incompatibility between the continued operation of
Eco-Cycle and the operation of a modular incinerator. Eco-Cycle cur-
rently handles about 5 percent of the area's waste. While an expanded
Eco-Cycle would raise the cost of incineration, it would probably
lower overall waste disposal costs.
9. If energy prices increase faster than other prices, modular incinera-
tion will become more cost-effective. Even if energy prices increase
at the same pace as other prices, the incinerator becomes more cost-
effective each year inflation continues.
10. Incinerators smaller than 308 TPO would cost more to operate and main-
tain per ton of waste processed than a larger facility, but might
still be cost-effective.
11. The Valmont plant of the Public Service Company appears at this time
to be the preferred site for an incinerator because of available land,
the compatibility of the project with current land use, the proximity
to an interested steam customer (PSC), the ability of a single cus-
tomer to commit itself for the life of the project, and the potential
for ash disposal on site. The City Yards and the University possess
some of these advantages, and should not be eliminated from considera-
tion at this stage.
-------
12. If a resource recovery facility is constructed, existing landfill
operators would experience a lower volume of business. Substantial
quantities of waste would, however, still be available to them from
other parts of the County, growth in waste generation, incinerator
downtime, or other sources. The financial impact on the operator of
Marshall Landfill cannot be assessed without access to proprietary
data.
The report recommends that the Cities of Boulder and Longmont, the County
and the other interested parties undertake seven steps to complete the next
phase of planning:
1. The Public Service Company, the University of Colorado, and the City
should undertake preliminary costing of the most feasible alterna-
tives, including costs of modifications to existing facilities.
2. The County or the Cities of Boulder and Longmont should begin sampling
the waste stream to determine its exact quantity and characteristics.
3. The City or County of Boulder must take steps to ensure a waste supply
for the facility. At present, private haulers control waste disposal
in the City of Boulder, with local government unable to direct its
disposition. The initial phase of this step would be to explore legal
options and requirements at the State, County, and municipal levels.
4. Further examination of the pollution control requirements - particu-
larly air pollution - for a modular incinerator in Boulder should be
undertaken with emphasis on the cost and reliability of any equipment
that may be required.
5. The City or County of Boulder should examine the cost of an expanded
source separation/recycling effort as a method of minimizing total
collection and disposal costs. The data presented in this report are
insufficient to judge the relative cost-effectiveness of the efforts
to expand source separation and recycling versus resource recovery.
-------
6. The City of Longmont should conduct an analysis of the feasibility of
constructing a transfer station for its solid waste. The analysis
should consider sites available for the station, and the total cost of
waste delivery to the three potential resource recovery sites,
including capital, operating and maintenance, and transportation
costs.
7. When the above steps have been completed, a more detailed feasibility
study must be prepared. This study would summarize the results of
steps 1 to 6, present detailed information concerning the viable
options, and make recommendations for the next phase of implemen-
tation.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to evaluate alternate systems that could be
used by the City or County of Boulder to burn municipal solid waste, with recov-
ery of the heat produced by combustion. The report evaluates five alternative
combinations of technology and location, and assesses the potential impact on
the existing organizations providing waste disposal and recycling services for
the city.
Boulder County and its largest cities, Boulder and Longmont, currently use
two landfills for the disposal of 90 per cent of their solid waste. The two
landfills will exhaust their present capacity in two to five years. This fact,
and the continuing increase in the costs of fuel which affects the County's
major industries and institutions, have led the local governments to request
assistance in the analysis of waste disposal options, with an emphasis on
resource recovery systems that produce heat or steam by combustion of solid
waste. This report is the result of that request.
The report is divided into six sections. The first section characterizes
Boulder's waste stream and provides background information concerning the
facilities and organizations likely to be affected by a resource recovery
project. The second section discusses resource recovery technologies. The
third section addresses regulatory factors and pollution control requirements
for the alternative technologies. The fourth section discusses
cost-effectiveness. The fifth section discusses impacts on existing
organizations. The final section provides an implementation plan and
recommendations.
-------
II. BACKGROUND
A. Waste Quantity and Characteristics
At the outset of the project, some assumptions needed to be made regarding
the key variables that would determine the waste stream available for a resource
recovery system. These variables include: 1) study area; 2) start-up date;
3) waste generation rates; 4) waste composition; and 5) seasonal variations in
waste generation.
1. Study Area. The study area was defined in discussions with the City
of Boulder after a review of population data for the City and County. As
Table 1 shows, Boulder County had an estimated 1980 population of 208,000
people. Of this total 104,000 (50 per cent) lived in the City of Boulder and
47,000 (22.6 per cent) lived in Longmont. It was determined in discussions with
appropriate city officials that both cities were interested in considering
resource recovery options. Therefore, the total population of the two cities
was included in the study area.
Other parts of the County were not included in the study area, although
this does not preclude their participation in an eventual resource recovery pro-
ject. The predominantly rural and dispersed population in the remainder of the
County results in statistically lower waste generation rates, and less
consolidated and compacted waste. Participation of these areas was not critical
to the feasibility analysis, while their inclusion would significantly
complicate the analysis, particularly regarding transportation costs and
institutional considerations. The more detailed analysis required in future
phases of planning would, of course, need to provide waste disposal options for
the remaining portions of the County, one which would be participation in a
resource recovery facility.
2. Start-Up Date. Given the preliminary nature of the current planning
process, it is unlikely that a resource recovery facility in Boulder would come
on line before 1985. Therefore, the population data used to project waste
-------
quantities were estimates for 1985. These were derived from the figures in
Table 1, yielding a study area population of:
Boulder 118,000
Longmont 57.000
Total 175,000
TABLE 1
POPULATION FORECASTS FOR BOULDER COUNTY,
1980-2000 (in thousands)1
Area 1980 1990 2000
Boulder 104 113 170
Longmont 47 68 98
Broomfield? 18 29 47
Lafayette 9 12 17
Louisville 6 14 30
Other Incorporated Areas 247
Unincorporated 22 28_ 34_
TOTAL 208 288 376
1 At the time this report was being written, population figures from the 1980
census were not available. The population figures used in the calculations
in this report are estimates for 1980 and differ from the 1980 census figures
which are as follows; Boulder County 190,000, City of Boulder 77,000, and
City of Longmont 43,000. Although the population figures used in this report
are probably high, resulting in a higher projected daily waste tonnage than
will be actually experienced, the conclusions and recommendations contained
in this report remain valid. Further study should fine-tune the projected
populations and waste tonnages.
2 Boulder County portion only.
Source: 1980 Boulder County Solid Waste Management Plan. Draft, September 2,
1980, pp. 701-702.
-------
Given the uncertainties in providing an assured waste supply, which will be
described further in Section I.B. of this report, it was decided not to design
excess capacity into the system for population growth or for addition of other
areas of the County. It should be noted, however, that the technologies chosen
for study would be relatively easily expanded to accommodate increases in waste
loads beyond that projected.
3. Waste Generation Rate. The per capita waste generation rate used in
this study, 4.7 Ibs. per person per day, was derived from data in an exhaustive
study entitled Feasibility Analysis of Resource Recovery from Solid Waste
(1976). 1,2 This waste generation rate includes residential, commercial, and
industrial wastes and excludes construction and demolition debris. This waste
generation rate was the most recent of five cited in the 1980 Boulder County
Solid Waste Management Plan, and corresponded with national averages of waste
generation. Using this figure, a total waste quantity for the study area of 411
tons per day (TPD) was estimated.
4. Waste Composition. As with the population projection figures, waste
composition information was derived from the Parsons Study. Waste composition
information is used to determine the quantities of potential recyclables and
combustibles in the waste stream. National data were also collected for compar-
ative purposes (see Table 2).
While there are some significant differences between the regional and
national data (particularly in the "paper" and "other waste" categories), the
differences appear less significant if the focus is placed on ascertaining data
on recyclables and combustibles. Both sets of data agree that roughly 80
1 An effort was made to obtain specific waste generation rates for the Boulder
area by contacting three local waste haulers; however, the data received was
very variable and, therefore, could not be utilized.
2 Hereafter referred to as the Parsons Study. The study was prepared for the
Denver Regional Council of Governments by the Ralph M. Parsons Company.
-------
Table 2
Waste Stream Composition-
Per Cent of Total Waste Stream
Material
Paper
Metal
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other
Non-Metals
Glass
Plastic
Rubber and Leather
Other Waste
Yard waste
Food waste
Wood
Textiles
Miscellaneous organics
Other
Regional
42
9
14
35
no
(7.7)
(1.0)
(0.3)
(9)
(2)
(3)
break down
National
32.4
9.3
(8.3)
(0.7)
(0.3)
15.9
(10.1)
(3.2)
(2.6)
42.4
(19.1)
(16.8)
(3.5)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(0.1)
Source: Parsons Study for Regional data; U.S. Congress, Office of Tech-
nology Assessment, Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste,
July 1979, pg. 25, for national data.
I/ Numbers in parentheses are included in the category totals.
-------
percent of the waste is combustible^. They also agree that glass and metals
each account for approximately 10 percent of the total waste stream.
If the County proceeds with resource recovery, a detailed analysis of waste
quantity and composition should be undertaken. A waste weighing program at the
Marshall landfill should be initiated for at least 2 separate weeks (optimally
one high spring clean-up period and one low week during the winter months to
determine seasonal variations). Simultaneously, representative samples of the
wastes should be sorted into separate waste categories to pinpoint waste compo-
sition percentages. Various references are available in the literature describ-
ing the mechanics of performing waste quantity and composition studies2.
5. Seasonal Variation. The final assumption that needed to be made concern-
ing the waste stream was its seasonal variation. Comprehensive data concerning
seasonal variation in the quantity and composition of Boulder County's waste are
not available, but fragmentary information was obtained from U.S. EPA, the Uni-
versity of Colorado, the City of Longmont, and the Parsons Report. These sug-
gested that seasonal variation could be as low as 12 percent or as high as 25
percent on either side of the mean. After reviewing these data sources, the
project team decided to use the most conservative of the figures, 25 percent.
The reason for choosing the conservative figure is the need to design a
system, and to assess its cost-effectiveness, on a steady, assured waste flow.
To choose a higher figure would be to run the risk of designing excess capacity
into the system: this would increase the proportion of time the system would be
idle (for lack of feedstock), increasing the overall cost of waste processing.
This statement is not meant to exclude paper from the category of recycl-
ables. As will be seen below, the analysis considers the possibility of
running a large paper recycling operation (Eco-Cycle) simultaneous with an
RDF or incineration project.
One such reference is: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The
Feasibility of Resource Recovery in Durham. Publication No. HUD/RES-1176,
March, 1977.
-------
Previously derived variables for quantity and composition of the waste
stream were then adjusted to reflect system size at the low point of the waste
generation cycle. After adjusting we find an assured waste quantity of 308
TPD. The composition of this waste stream is shown in Table 3. Of the total
quantity, it is the combustible portions, especially yard waste and paper, that
will show the greatest seasonal variation. Assuming the quantity of
non-combustibles remains relatively stable, the combustible portion of the waste
stream at its seasonal low would be approximately 70 percent.
TABLE 3
COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE STREAM IN THE STUDY AREAl
Materials
Paper
Metals
Ferrous
Al umi num
Other
Non-Metals
Glass
Plastic
Rubber and Leather
Other?
Yard Waste
Food Waste
Wood
Textiles
Mi seel 1 a neou s 0 rga n i cs
TOTAL
Percentage
42
9
(7.7)
(1)
(0.3)
14
(9)
(2)
(3)
35
(15.8)
(13.9)
(2.9)
(1-2)
(1.2)
100
Tons Per Day (1985)
129
28
(24)
(3)
(1)
43
(28)
(6)
(9)
108
(48)
(43)
(9)
(4)
(4)
308
1 Numbers in parantheses are included in the category totals,
2 Percentages derived from national data.
-------
B. Current Collection and Disposal Practices
The refuse collection and disposal scheme is significant in a resource reco-
very program because it determines the availability of the refuse for energy
recovery. No system will be possible unless the County or the Cities of Boulder
and Longmont can control refuse collection and disposal. In a private system,
such as currently exists in Boulder, refuse would be provided for resource re-
covery only if the cost to the hauler were lower than the cost of alternate dis-
posal methods, such as landfilling or if an ordinance (or other type of regula-
tory control) ensured that the wastes had to be delivered to the resource re-
covery facility. This section of the report, therefore, discusses current col-
lection and disposal practices, including who collects waste, how often, the
regulatory framework, and the cost of collection and disposal services.
1. Collection. Generally, refuse collection in the City of Boulder is done
by individual contracts with any of the 18 private haulers in Boulder County.
The private haulers collect solid waste generated by commercial, industrial, and
residential establishments. There are also some individuals who haul their own
waste to the landfill using privately owned vehicles. However, by comparison,
the waste hauled by individuals is a small percentage of the total waste col-
lected in the City.
Boulder provides limited municipal collection services in the form of removal
of spring cleaning debris. The City also transports sewage sludge to the land-
fill.
Currently, refuse is collected from residences and commercial establishments
in and around Boulder City six days per week. The fifth and sixth days of the
week are usually light days. In addition to residential refuse and paper and
plastics from commercial establishments, some construction debris is also col-
lected. Commercial establishments include the larger businesses, such as IBM,
and the shopping centers. The haulers use the Erie, Longmont and Marshall land-
fills for disposal.
Prior to 1980, contract haulers were regulated by the Colorado Public Utili-
ties Commission (PUC). The regulation merely required that the hauler obtain a
permit from the PUC. Since then, with the enactment of Colorado Senate Bill 95,
8
-------
the haulers have essentially been deregulated. The Bill requires the counties
instead of the PUC to regulate haulers. Trash haulers operating in Boulder
County are required to obtain a County trash haulers license.
For the private contract haulers the service area includes any one in Boulder
County who contracts with the haulers for services. Before deregulation of the
haulers, the service area consisted of Boulder City and a five mile radius out-
side the city.
Collection fees are based on a user charge system. Two of the major haulers
in Boulder County charge an average of $5.50 per month to residences for once
per week collection. Charges to commercial establishments vary as follows:
o $25-30 per month for 2 cubic yards once per week collection;
o $34 per month for 3 cubic yards once per week collection;
o $36 per month for 4 cubic yards once per week collection;
o a maximum of $125-144 per month for 1-2 cubic yard containers 6 times
per week collection.
The City of Longmont offers municipal collection for its residences, includ-
ing houses, apartment buildings and motels. The City utilizes compactor trucks
and a flat bed truck which handles the bulky items. Longmont residents pay for
collection and disposal through a charge on their utility bills of $0.15 per day
per single family dwelling unit.
2. Current Disposal Operation. Virtually all solid waste from the City of
Boulder, except that which is recycled, is taken to the Marshall landfill for
disposal. The Marshall landfill site is located just south of Boulder on Mar-
shall Drive (State Highway 170). The landfill is divided into two distinct
sites, active and inactive. The land on which the active site lies is currently
owned by Cowdrey Corp.
The inactive site covers 320 acres and lies on both sides of Community
Ditch. The inactive landfill operated by Urban Waste Resources, Inc. was open
from 1955 to 1965. The active landfill lies to the south of the inactive and
covers an area of 80 acres. The active portion is operated by Landfill Inc., a
-------
subsidiary of Browning Ferris Industries. It was opened in 1974 upon its certi-
fication by Boulder County.
The inactive landfill has been the center of concern for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), Colorado State Health Department, Boulder County
Health Department and Bureau of Reclamation due to leachate from the landfill
potentially contaminating Community Ditch, which is a raw water supply for the
City of Louisville. Sampling by EPA and the Colorado State Department of Health
has shown the migration of contaminants as far as one mile east of the site.
EPA has stated, after analysis of all sampling data, that there is no imminent
health hazard posed by the contaminated water. The potential for hazard to
human health remains, however, and corrective action is warranted and is being
planned by the Boulder County Health Department. Remedial actions planned in
early June, 1981 are short term and call for preventing leachate from entering
into Community Ditch. Other, more permanent remedial actions have been proposed
(interceptor drain, subdrain, and leachate treatment) but have not been forma-
lized due to a lack of understanding about the source of groundwater forming the
leachate.
The active landfill has not received as much publicity as the inactive.
Monitoring of the shallow ground water through observation wells placed around
the landfill perimeter has been on-going. No organic contamination has been
detected in wells to the west of the landfill. Contamination, however, has been
detected in waste discharging from a french drain placed on the west edge of the
active and inactive landfills. It is believed that contamination is from the
inactive portion of the landfill. More data are needed to refute or corroborate
this.
Landfill, Inc. estimates that the remaining life of the active landfill is
two years. An additional site of 80 acres is aviTable but does not have an
operating permit at this time. Given the time necessary for feasibility analy-
sis, design, permitting, and construction of a resource recovery facility, it is
unlikely that such a facility would be operational before the remaining life of
the current Marshall Landfill is exhausted. In addition, the County will con-
10
-------
tinue to need a landfill for bulk items, rubble, overflow, and for emergency
periods when the resource recovery plant might not be operational. Resource
recovery should not be seen as a total replacement, therefore, but rather as a
means of lessening Boulder's reliance on landfilling. The landfill operates on
a user charge system. The tipping fee is $1.05 per cubic yard or approximately
$4.20 per ton (based on an average collection vehicle's compaction ratio of 500
IDS. per cubic yard). The landfill operator considers cost information on the
operation proprietary; however, he expects the current rates to at least double
in 1981. The current fees are set by the County government and do not neces-
sarily reflect the cost of operating the landfill. Doubling the fee will be an
effort to recover some of the operating cost.
Solid waste from Longmont is taken to the Longmont landfill, which is owned
and operated by the City of Longmont. It is located in Weld County, three and
one-half miles east of the Longmont City limits on Highway 119. The Longmont
Landfill handles approximately 200 TPD of waste, half of which comes from the
City of Longmont and half from outside. The landfill charges a tipping fee of
$1.60 per cubic yard or (assuming a compaction ration of 500 pounds per cubic
yard) $6.40 per ton. The current landfill has a remaining life of three to five
years. The city is negotiating for an additional 95 acres to provide 15-20
years additional capacity at the site.
The Erie Landfill, a small, privately-owned landfill also located in Weld
County, further east of Longmont, currently receives limited quantities of waste
from the Boulder County area. It also charges a tipping fee of $1.60 per cubic
yard, or $6.40 per ton.
C. Eco-Cycle
Not all the waste generated in Boulder County is landfilled. There is also
a substantial recycling effort, the major portion of which is run by Eco-Cycle.
Eco-Cycle is a community-based, non-profit recycling program. It was organized
in July 1976, with financial assistance from the City and County of Boulder, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Labor's CETA
program. The City and County have made substantial contributions to the organi-
zation, including loans of $35,000 and grants of.$175,000. In return for their
support, the City and County hold title to Eco-Cycle's major assets: the build-
11
-------
ing, shredder and conveyor are owned by the City and the baler is owned by the
County.
A summary of Eco-Cycle's current operations is presented in Table 4, along
with projections for 1985. Current data are monthly averages for the fourth
quarter of 1980. Projections, which were provided by Eco-Cycle, are based on
one key assumption: that Eco-Cycle can capture 50 percent of the
residential market within 18-24 months. This estimate is optimistic, but Eco-
Cycle believes, for several reasons, that current levels of activity can be dra-
matically increased.
The argument for this is based on both supply and demand considerations.
On the supply side, there are four reasons the organization expects a large in-
crease in volume recycled: 1) when information for this study was collected
from Eco-Cycle in April, 1981, the program had only recently resumed curbside
pick-ups, after a hiatus of 18 months; 2) prior to the discontinuance of
curbside pick-ups, 26 percent of Boulder's households recycled (versus 10
percent in the most recent quarter); 3) Eco-Cycle is developing an extensive
"neighborhood network," with representatives of the organization on 325 of
Boulder's residential blocks. The goal is to reach every residential block by
June 1982; 4) church and community groups have shown a strong interest in the
program -- as of February 1981, there was a 16-week waiting list for
oganizations interested in undertaking Saturday pick-up service for Eco-Cycle.
Demand considerations are important in understanding Eco-Cycle's optimism,
as well. Eco-Cycle believes that demand for the recyclables that it produces is
at present almost perfectly elastic at current prices. Eco-Cycle can sell all
the paper, glass, and aluminum it can supply without fear of affecting the mar-
ket (i.e., without having to lower price). This point is of particular inter-
est. Markets for recyclables are often characterized as unstable, with demand
relatively inelastic and, thus, prices subject to wild variations. At times in
the past, there has been virtually no market for recycled newspaper -- no price
at which buyers will take it off the hands of sellers. Eco-Cycle, however, has
developed contacts with buyers of its key products (corrugated cardboard, paper,
and glass) that it believes will ensure adequate demand.
12
-------
Table 4
Eco-Cycle: Summary of Monthly Operations
Corrugated
Cardboard
Newsprint
Other Paper
Glass
Aluminum
Other
Total
(1)
Amount of
of Waste
Recycled
278 tons-/
250 tons-/
50 tons
33 tons
2 tons
<25 tons
-625 tons
(2)
Revenues
Generated
$9,979
10,249
1,952
927
562
42
$23,711
Currentl/
(3) (4)
% of % of Boulder-
Boulder City.,/ Longmont .,
Wastestream - Wastestream-
.
\ 10% - 19%- 7% - 13%-'
J
5% 3%
3% 2%
<1* <1%
5% - 9% 4% - 6%
Projected (1985)
(5)
Amount
of Waste
Recycled
300 tons
325 tons
500 tons
372 tons
4 tons
50 tons
1550 tons
(6)
% of
Boulder
Waste-
stream
"j
/
S 33%
J
50%
5%
1%
19%
(7)
% of Boulder
Longmont
Waste-
stream
22%
33%
3%
1%
13%
- Current data are based on October - November 1980 monthly averages.
2/
- 99 tons of this amount represents inventory reduction. Thus, a more accurate measure of current operations would
be 179 tons.
Assumes total waste stream of 245 tons per day (7,338 tons per month), with composition described in Section I.A.
4/
Assumes total wastestream of 355 tons per day (10,650 tons per month), with composition described in Section I.A.
A range is given for the percentage of paper waste recycled for two reasons. First, more than half of the
newspaper recycled originates outside of Boulder County (in Fort Collins and in the Denver suburbs). The highest
percentage figure includes this newspaper generated outside the County. Excluding it would reduce the amount of
waste recycled by 150 tons. This would lower the % of Boulder's paper waste recycled (Column 3) to 14%, and
Boulder-Longmont's (Column 4) to 10%. Second, the high end of the percentage also includes corrugated cardboard
recycled from inventory (see Note 2). If we also eliminated the change in corrugated cardboard inventory, the
percentages drop to 11% (Column 3) and 7% (Column 4).
Source: Pete Grogan, Eco-Cycle
-------
If Eco-Cycle reaches the level of operations projected in Table 4, it would
be recycling 52 tons per day, 13 percent of the waste stream available for re-
source recovery plant. Of this total, 38 TPD would represent combustibles, 14
TPD non-combustibles. Under these conditions, a resource recovery facility need
only be designed to handle 256 TPD of waste.
D. University of Colorado
The University of Colorado at Boulder is a substantial generator of solid
waste and one of three potential consumers of steam from a resource recovery
project. Until the late 1960's, the University incinerated its own trash. At
that time, it began to landfill its solid waste as a result of land use and pol-
lution control considerations.
Because of rising fees for landfilling solid waste and a general willing-
ness to consider all environmentally acceptable disposal alternatives, the Uni-
versity has at least some initial interest in the idea of modular incineration
of Boulder County waste at a site close enough to the University to utilize
steam for heating University buildings. The following pages briefly describe
the University's role as a generator of waste and as a potential consumer of
steam.
1. Campus Waste Stream. The University characterized its waste stream be-
tween December 1979 and May 1980. During that period, the campus generated
340.6 tons of waste per month (about 5 percent of the city total), of which 60
percent was paper, 20 percent food waste, 10 percent wood, and 10 percent other.
Seasonal fluctuations are, of course, present in the campus waste stream
given the fluctuations in student population during the year. The University
estimates that waste generated drops 12 percent below average in the summer
months, and rises 12 percent above average during the September-December period.
Virtually none of the University's waste is currently recycled. A campus
recycling program handled less than five tons of waste per month in 1979. There
have been proposals, however, for Eco-Cycle to take over solid waste collection
and disposal at the University, which, if implemented, would undoubtedly make
the University a prime source of recyclables. These proposals are not under
serious consideration at the present time, however.
14
-------
2. Campus Heating System. In addition to being a major generator of solid
waste, the campus is also a sizeable consumer of steam. The main campus has
utilized a central heating system since 1949. This heating system used four
boilers to produce 501,653,000 pounds of steam during the 1979-1980 school
year. Detailed data on the system appear in Tables 5, 6, and 7.
Discussions with the University's Manager of Utilities and Engineering Ad-
ministration indicate that the current system is generally in good working or-
der, and is adequate for the University's needs in the foreseeable future.
Demand for steam from the main campus system is currently running below the
level of 1972, and is not expected to show substantial growth.
An energy conservation program has resulted in substantial reductions in
energy use (18.8 percent on a per-square-foot basis over the period 1972-1980).
This reduction has more than compensated for additions to the system. Since
only minor additions to the main campus system are envisioned,! the current
level of energy use, adjusted to severe winter conditions ('72-'73), can be con-
sidered representative of future requirements.
The cost of operating the system, however, has grown substantially and will
increase even more dramatically as the price of the natural gas that fuels the
system is decontrolled. Gas cost the University approximately $1,350,000 in
1979-1980, 82.5 percent of the heating system's total operating and maintenance
costs. Since that time, the price of gas has risen from $1.94 per thousand
cubic feet (MCF) to as high as $3.42 per MCF. Under full decontrol,2 the cost
of gas to the University could rise to as much as $7.00 per MCF by 1985, with
system operating costs effectively tripling over the period 1979-1985. Thus,
there is strong incentive for the University to consider modifying the heating
system over the next few years.
1 A 1978 study by a joint University - Public Service Company task force, Long
Range Energy Options for the University of Colorado at Boulder, estimated
1977 main campus building space at 5,100,000 square feet, with maximum future
additions at 295,000 square feet (i.e., less than 6 percent).
2 The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 sets up a gradual decontrol process, with
full decontrol by 1985. However, the Reagan Administration is expected to
request legislation providing for full decontrol at an earlier date.
15
-------
Table 5
University of Colorado Main Campus Heating System
Size of Boiler
150,
105
49
000
000
500
Ib.
Ib.
Ib.
33,000 Ib.
Date Installed
1966
1956
1949
1949
Table 6
Seasonal Variation in the University's Demand for Steam,
1979-1980
Month
July 1979
August
September
October
November
December
January 1980
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
Amount of Steam
27
27
30
38
56
53
65
52
52
42
31
22
mi
mi
mi
mi
mi
mi
mi
mi
mi
mi
mi
mi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Ibs.
Source: University of Colorado, Utilities and Engineering Administration.
16
-------
A key factor in the consideration of a heat recovery system is the distance
between point of generation and point of consumption. As this distance increas-
es, the distribution system loses greater amounts of heat, unless substantial
measures are taken to insulate the steam lines and prevent condensation. The
heat loss, or the engineering required to prevent it, has negative effects on
the cost-effectiveness of any system transporting steam more than 1-2 miles. It
is important, then, that a site be available near the University if it is to be
a consumer of steam from a modular incineration facility.
This also applies to the University's current central heating system. Be-
cause of heat loss considerations, the East Campus and the University housing at
Williams Village have never been joined to the main campus heating system. East
Campus buildings generally have their own boilers, while Williams Village has
two small oil-fired boilers capable of generating 20,000 Ibs. of steam per
hour. Neither of these sites would be considered potential users of steam from
a main campus resource recovery plant, because of their size and distance from
the remainder of the heat distribution system.
Data on the steam requirements of the East Campus and Williams Village are
presented in Table 8. The larger of the two areas, East Campus, is projected to
reach a maximum size of 1,347,000 square feet, approximately one-fourth the
floor space of the main campus. The steam requirements of this area would not
exceed 174 billion BTU per year, about one-third the output of a facility large
enough to dispose of Boulder and Longmont's municipal solid waste. Williams
Village is projected to reach a maximum size of 722,000 square feet, with maxi-
mum annual steam requirements of 93 billion BTU. Thus, together, the two areas'
annual steam requirements would represent about one-half the output of a modular
incinerator large enough to serve Boulder and Longmont.l East Campus and Wil-
The comparison here is based on annual demand, but clearly the more relevant
comparison would be between peak demand and system capacity. Data for the
main campus system (Table 6) shows peak monthly demand to be 60 percent above
the yearly mean. Thus, in the peak month, the incinerator would provide 80
percent of the two areas' steam requirements.
18
-------
Table 8
Projected Energy Use at the University of Colorado
Campus
Sector
Main Campus
East Campus
Williams Village
Building
Space (1977)
Projected
Total BTU, In Maximum
Billions, Input BTU Input
Maximum Future to Heating Requirement,
Additions Plant (1977) In Billions
5,100,000 sq.ft. 295,000 sq.ft.
747,000 sq.ft. 600,000 sq.ft.
422,000 sq.ft. 300,000 sq.ft.
972/
551/
69S-/
Source: Long Range Energy Options for the University of Colorado at Boulder,
March 1, 1978, page D-l, and Table 9 above.
I/ Temperature corrected to '72 - '73 degree day base.
2/ Assumes central heating system.
19
-------
liams Village are separated by only 0.64 miles at their closest points (see
Figure 1). A modular incinerator located on either parcel or between them could
serve both areas and deliver the required amounts of steam.
However, the University's most recent study of its energy options concluded
that there was not a suitable site for a steam generation facility. The task
force on Long Range Energy options which evaluated replacements for the
University's existing steam generation units in 1978 considered the use of
coal-fired generation when the price of natural gas, backed up by fuel oil,
should become uncompetitive. But with regard to location it concluded:
The East Campus represents the only parcel of University land where a
coal fired steam generating station could be located. From a land,use
point of view, this location is to all apparent intents unacceptable.
Current flood planning by the City of Boulder defines only a very
limited space on the East Campus that is not in the Boulder Creek
flood plain. A coal fired steam generating station with its associ-
ated coal storage area would consume a large portion of this scarce
land which alternatively could be used for research buildings or other
high priority use.l
The same considerations would have to apply to a modular incinerator and
its associated refuse storage and handling areas. As one member of the Task
Force concluded, "The pressures would have to be immense for the University to
give up East Campus land for such a facility. Given the current availability of
gas, it is probably less likely now than ever".2
E. Valmont Plant of the Public Service Company of Colorado
The Public Service Company (PSC) appears to be one of the more promising
customers'for energy produced from Boulder's municipal refuse. The PSC has ex-
pressed willingness to purchase energy from the City if it does not entail par-
ticipation in collecting or storing the waste.
1 Long Range Energy Options, page 6.
2 Telephone interview, D.F. Potter, Planning Department, University of Colora-
do, March 26, 1981.
20
-------
Figure I: Distances Between Major Points of Concern to Steam
Distribution at the University of Colorado
' "OpenSpace Reserve" -"r
" "'%' -"
-LUEEums
. j? LT- c:. ^-. M_ U_;L_ i iJ^^jCLLi :• y^u --^- ~ i^
C to D • .64 MILES
Source: Luny Range Energy Options
-------
The Public Service Company plant at Valmont is comprised of five steam
electric generating units and one combustion turbine generating unit. Table 9
summarizes generating capabilities and operating data for each of the six
units. Of the six units, Unit Number 5 is a baseload, coal-fired facility that
operates year-round. Unit Number 6, the combustion turbine-generator is operat-
ed as a peaking unit, typically generating power for approximately ten hours
each day. During the remaining period, the unit is shut down for stand-by in
the event additional generation is required by the Company's electrical system,
or is taken out of service for maintenance of its components. The combustion
turbine-generator is normally available for service 65 to 85 percent of the time
but usually operates less than 2,000 hours per year due to the relatively high
cost of fuel.
The other four units are boilers built in the 1920's and 1930's which, be-
cause they have no pollution control equipment, have been restricted to opera-
tion on natural gas only. Because natural gas is not available during the win-
ter, these units are operated only in the summer.
Discussions with company spokesmen indicate that the company would be in-
terested in one of two resource recovery options: 1) purchase of steam from a
modular incineration unit; or 2) modification of an existing boiler (from Units
1-4) or installation of a new boiler to burn refuse derived fuel. Land would be
available at the Valmont site for either option, but as noted earlier, the Pu-
blic Service Company is not interested in processing or storing waste itself.
F. City Yards
A final option for locating a resource recovery facility in Boulder would
be the City Yards. The City Yards is located on Pearl Street in the industrial
section of Boulder and is well-suited for building an energy recovery system.
The property is centrally located, thereby reducing haul distances from the
point of collection to the facility. The industrial nature of the area should
also minimize the usual constraints such as zoning, noise, and public
opposition.
22
-------
TABLE 9
UNIT
TYPE
VALMONT STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
GENERATING CAPABILITY AND OPERATING DATA
NAMEPLATE GROSS* NET EFFECTIVE CAPABILITY**
RATING CAPABILITY SUMMER WINTER
(kw) (kw) (kw) (kw)
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
1
2
3
4
5
32,500
25,000
25,000
25,000
166,250
31,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
190,000
(72,000 0***
Total 0***
for Units 0***
1^4)*** o***
175,000 175,000
FUEL
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Coal & Natural Gas
STEAM TURBINE
INLET CONDITIONS
350 psig, 636°F
350 psig, 636°F
350 psig, 675 F
350 psig, 675°g
1800 psig, 1000 F
00 Combustion
45,200
57,000
47,000 57,000 No. 2 Fuel Oil
& Natural Gas
COMBUSTION TURBINE
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
936°F
Notes :
** -
*** -
Gross capability numbers are based on individual unit maximum achievable capabilities and do not
recognize seasonal or operating limitations that may exist on the total station.
The maximum continuous demonstrated net capability of each individual unit or station which will
normally be available at the time of and for the duration of the respective summer or winter
peak loading condition period.
Unit NOR, 1 thru 4 have been restricted to operation on natural gas only, which limits these
units to a net capability of 72,000 kw during the summer and 0 kw during the winter.
Source: Long Range Energy Options, p. F-2.
-------
As noted earlier, resource recovery projects involving sale of steam from
modular incineration units are generally not feasible if the purchaser of steam
is located more than 2 miles from the point of incineration. The City Yards
location is more than 2 miles from the PSC Valmont Plant and is approximately 3
miles from the University of Colorado's main campus. The facility cannot expect
to sell steam to either of these customers. However, as mentioned before, the
City Yards is located in an industrial area and there are several existing and
proposed industrial parks, commercial establishments and industries nearby.
Table 10 shows some of the existing and proposed industries within a
one-mile radius of the City Yards location. The establishments in Table 10 are
all potential customers for energy produced from municipal solid waste at the
City Yards location. A.major corridor through the area (47th Street) is planned
which will improve access. This will no doubt attract more energy users and
will further increase the potential market.
TABLE 10
BUSINESS LOCATED WITHIN ONE-MILE RADIUS OF CITY YARDS INCINERATOR LOCATION
Businesses Status
NBI Campus Proposed
Cray Computers Under construction
Colorado and Southern Industrial Park To be built
Center Green Heights (150 Housing Units) To be built
Reynolds Industrial Park Under construction
Ball Brothers Existing (to expand)
Riverbend Offices Existing
Arapahoe Chemicals Existing
Flatirons Industrial Park Existing
24
-------
Table 11 shows the energy use and related cost per year of some of the
existing and proposed facilities in the area. The particular facilities are not
identified because the information is considered proprietary. All of these
facilities currently use electricity or natural gas to satisfy their energy
needs.1 The largest of the facilities uses 110 billion BTU/year; the eight
facilities use a total of 243 billion BTU. By contrast, a modular incinerator
with a capacity of 308 TPD would generate 538 billion BTU/year. At the present
time, therefore, there does not appear to be sufficient demand in the City Yards
area to justify construction of an incinerator to handle all of Boulder and
Longmont's waste at that location.
This does not mean that City Yards should be eliminated from any future
consideration. As the next section of this report shows, modular incinerators
have proved feasible at sizes much smaller than 308 TPD. Thus, the City or
County could consider development of a modular incineration unit at City Yards
to handle less than the total available waste stream, sized to provide the
amount of energy needed by interested parties. The City or County might also
identify major energy users who plan construction in the area and discuss with
them a possible link to a district heating system fueled by modular incinera-
tion. Unless these facilities are of sufficient size, however, negotiations may
prove time-consuming and non-productive. In general, the City or County's in-
terests are best served if arrangements can be concluded with a single customer
whose prospects of staying in business for the life of the resource recovery
facility are assured. This fact would seem to make the Public Service Company
or the University of Colorado better prospects than the multitude of potential
customers at City Yards.
The total energy needs for City Yards include electricity, steam used for
heating and process steam. Information on the breakdown of energy uses and
seasonal variation information was not available for this report.
25
-------
TABLE 11
ENERGY USE BY FACILITIES IN THE CITY YARDS AREAl
Energy Use Cost/
Industry (Million BTU/Year) Annual Cost Million BTU
A 2,203.76 $ 14,273 $6.48
B 1,259.06 8,420 6.69
C 6,579.00 31,252 4.75
D 5,217.15 26,571 5.09
E 30,154.70 135,696 4.50
F 86,544.83 379,927 4.39
G 110,203.51 304,825 2.76
H 906.27 4,298 4.74
Source: City of Boulder Community Energy Management Plan, Volume II,
26
-------
III. RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS
There are several energy recovery system options available to municipali-
ties such as Boulder. However, after initial discussions, the two systems that
seemed most suited to Boulder were 1) modular incineration, and 2) mechanical
processing of solid waste to produce refuse derived fuel (RDF).
Modular incinerators burn solid waste directly, without pre-processing, to
produce steam which can be used in an existing system for heating, electric gen-
eration or various industrial processes. RDF processes convert solid waste to a
fuel that can be burned in industrial boilers. RDF requires both a processing
facility and extensive modifications to the boiler in which it will be burned.
This chapter presents information concerning the technologies.
A. .Modular Incineration
Modular incinerators are typically pre-fabricated, two-chambered combustion
units, although there are some three-chambered units. The system is normally
constructed at the factory and shipped to the site where it is installed. A
variety of optional equipment such as automatic loaders, multiple systems, and
increased performance capabilities are available. The optional equipment as
well as operational instruments are usually installed at the factory.
The most common design for heat recovery is the two chamber (primary and
secondary) starved-air incinerator (see Figure 2). Most modular systems operate
by burning the. waste in the primary chamber on a fixed bed in an oxygen defi-
cient atmosphere. The hot gases from the primary chamber are mixed with excess
air in the secondary chamber (after burner) and ignited. Because the heating
value of the gases from the primary chamber is too low to sustain combustion, a
supplementary fuel is used to sustain the after burner temperature. The after
burner generally serves as the only pollution control device on this system. A
heat exchanger recovers the heat from the after burner and generates energy in
the form of hot air, water or steam.
27
-------
Figure 2: Cutaway View of Modular Incinerator Showing
Major Components of the System
The above cutaway view of the stand-
ard CONSUMAT" energy-from-waste
module shows how material'and hot
gas flows are controlled to provide
steam from solid waste. A skid steer
tractor (1) pushes the waste to the
automatic loader(2). The loader then
automatically injects the waste into
the gas production chamber (3)
where transfer rams (4) move the
material slowly through the system.
The high temperature environment
in the gas production cliambcr is
provided with a controlled quantity
of air so that gases from the process
are not burned in this chamber but
fed to the upper or pollution control
chamber(5). Here the gases are mixed
with air and controlled to maintain a
proper air fuel ratio and temperature
for entrance into the heat exchanger
(6) where steam is pnxIuccd.Astcam
separator (7) is provided to ensure
high quality steam. In normal opera-
tion gases are discharged through
the energy stack (8). When steam is
not required or in the event of a power
failure, hot gases are vented through
the dump stack (9). The inert mate-
rial from the combustion process is
ejected from the machine in the form
of ash into the wet sump (10) and
conveyed (11) into a closed Ixittom
container (12) which can then be
hauled to the landfill for final
disposal.
Source: Consumat Systems, Inc.
28
-------
The advantages of modular systems are their low cost, mechanical simplicity
and low fly ash emission. Residue ash disposal can be achieved manually or by a
mechanical ram which discharges the ash into a quencher, where it is cooled
prior to final disposal.
Modular incinerators are produced by 17 different American manufacturers.
While system configuration varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, some gener-
al observations can be made. First, modular incinerators are well-suited to
small-scale operation. Units as small as 25 TPD are common. Second, land re-
quirements are relatively small. Consumat Systems, one of the major U.S. manu-
facturers, estimates land required for the processing building and tipping floor
of a 200-TPD facility at just over one-half acre, with a total site requirement
of 2.1 acres. Larger plants on the order of 300 to 400 TPD require virtually
the same space.
A modular incinerator of the nominal capacity needed by Boulder County (308
TPD) would probably be a three or four module system depending primarily on the
specific needs and energy use pattern of the consumer. A standard three-module
system, each with a 100 TPD capacity, would include four processing chambers,
four oxidizing chambers and either two or three steam units. The
module-component system provides great flexibility. "Extra" processing capacity
is available for either routine maintenance or for varying seasonal loads.
Also, the module design provides for phased expansion of the system if the solid
waste load were to increase substantially over the initial design capacity.
Major cost considerations for a system include the following:
Capital Costs:
o land
o building
o equipment
- modular incinerator
- skid steer tractor
- service vehicle
29
-------
Operating and Maintenance Costs:
o labor
o fuel
o utilities
o other supplies
o ash disposal
o insurance
o taxes (if applicable)
Of these, the major costs are generally for building, equipment, and labor. The
building and equipment account for over 95 percent of capital cost. In the O&M
category, labor (including salaries and benefits) accounts for 50 percent of all
costs (see Table 12).
As of March 1981, sixteen U.S. municipalities and numerous industrial esta-
blishments had committed themselves to facilities. Of the sixteen municipal
facilities, eight were operational, two were completed but were not operating,
and six were under construction. Table 13 presents data from these facilities
including the year operations commenced, the facility size, and capital costs.
Many modular incineration facilities have experienced significant problems
associated with the lack of skilled operators. Most modular incinerator manu-
facturing firms will provide operator training programs prior to and during
shakedown and will provide continual training after start-up. Employing trained
and skilled operators can not be overstressed to ensure safe and efficient oper-
ation. Figures 3 and 4, which were prepared for the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection's State Certification Program for Solid Waste Manage-
ment Facilities, provide detailed information on staffing requirements.
B. Refuse Derived Fuel
The second technology option to be considered is Refuse Derived Fuel
(RDF). While there are several different RDF processes in use, generally the
processes consist of shredding the waste to reduce the particle size, separation
to remove the non-combustible portion, and further processing to pelletize or
pulverize the waste to facilitate its use in a stoker-fired boiler equipped with
30
-------
Table 12
Projected Optimum Operating and Maintenance Costs
for North Little Rock, Arkansas, Modular Incinerator (in 1978 dollars)
Cost
Item ($/Yr.) ($/Ton)
Salaries $111,284 $ 4.64
Employee benefits 15,750 0.65
Fuel - no. 2 diesel 4,608 0.19
Natural gas 16,704 0.70
Gasoline 3,888 0.16
Electricity 19,237 0.80
Water and sewer 8,121 0.34
Maintenance 65,656 2.74
Replacement equipment
Residue removal * *
Chemicals 5,033 0.21
Other overhead 3,209 0.14
Total operating and maintenance costs $253,490 $10.57
* Cost included in salaries and employee benefit categories.
Source: U.S. EPA, Small Modular Incinerator Sytems with Heat Recovery:
A Technical Environmental and Economic Evaluation, Publication
SW-797, November 1979.
31
-------
Table 13
Municipal Modular Incineration Facilities Operational
or Under Construction in the United States, March, 1981
Operating Capital Cost Size (TPD)
Location of Facility Since ($ Millions) Capacity /Throughput
Blytheville, Arkansas
Crossville, Tennessee
Durham, New Hampshire
Dyersburg, Tennessee
Genesee Township, Michigan
Groveton, New Hampshire
North Little Rock, Arkansas
Osceola, Arkansas
Salem, Virginia
Si loam Springs, Arkansas-
Under Construction or Start -Up:
Auburn, Maine
Batesville, Arkansas
Gatesville, Texas
Palestine, Texas
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
Windham, Connecticut
1971
1978
1980
1980
1980
1975
1977
1980
1979
1975
1981
1981
1981
1981
1980
1981
0.8
1.1
3.3
2.0
0.25
1.45^
1.2
1.9
0.377
3.97
1.1
0.2
0.3
°'"7
4.0
50/Temp. Shutdown
60/65
108/60
100/70
100/operation suspended-
24/15
100/100
50/46
100/70
19/16.5
200
50/40
4
20
240
108
I/ Steam production has been suspended and shut down of the facility is
being considered.
2/ Total cost including co-generation equipment.
3/ Excluding land.
4/ Construction, processing equipment, combustion units, boilers, steam
1ines.
5/ The plant in Genesee Township, Michigan is complete but is still in the
process of finding a customer for its steam. This part of the County
(Flint, Michigan area) is economically depressed because of unemploy-
ment in the auto industry. The depression has affected the sale of the
energy produced at the plant.
Source: U.S. EPA, Resource Recovery Division.
32
-------
Figure 3
MODDLAIt COMBUSTION UNITS
annul laczrouim rux OUCUM urn uxot
Bacea Priaory
Stcoodiry
Vacea
SMC
5oil«r
iMidw u Una-fill
Seaoa
JOB TTTII
Shift
TOtit
fo
vich
jo*
*• it 30 tre
OF unmia KQOIXZS
so m** loc TFD 200 m
OJ
1
OJ
3
1
1
1
0
far
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
i
12
1
1
3
3
3
1
1.
-L
par
. Tor
cair*
Source: Gordian Associates
, 33
-------
JOB TTILI OPTIES
Shift Fortaaa a Sup«rri«iaa of shift er«w
•aiataaaaca oaaraciaaa*
a Meoieoriac of ioeiaaracar
to «aa«ra aCTiana af2iciaac7«
a $up«r»i»io« of luadliag. «eor<««,
•ari la«din« of VMM.
o Surtiag tip or ihuetiaj 4o«a of
iaeia««tor« «• r*quir«d to sniau*
«ffici«nc7 or ia etw *•«« of • m«i-
fanetioc*
of proper opvracioM o<
vieh •aiacMMca «ari nipaira
QUALiriCATIOKS
o Exp«ri«ie« ia *up«rri*aa of
«p«ri«nc« with
machinery
•nch M front lo«4«r*,
b«ekbo««, fark lift«, «tc.
o Eaowl«d(« of boiler
oecracioas «ad a*
o Ability eo oparaca tad
•aiauia iacioaracora.
a Vorfciag kaovlaa'ia of
Caaaaeticac Sfraca Boilar
Carfa.
34
-------
Figure 4
MOOUft OCSKUX01 UMt JXQff
CCT STA7F
PUT 113
far overall piaac a Soaauacial
aaeracioa, aaiataaaaaa «a4 raaerviaiea «aperieaca
aafeiaiacraciaa* (five years or aere
prelaraele) or aaaoaacracae1
« Specific tatiaa aay iaalaee:
Severviaioa «< aaiit era* a Tachaioal **9*ri*me» wick
««a««Blaa,
vaaariarM a Abiliey ca aparata
raiaeioaa «art •aiaeaia iaaiaeraeora.
• Tnapaatinai a< ataat
pmaaa aaeraear a 9orkia« kaovlada* a<
iaeiacraeov *^«i9a«aB Caaaaetieac Staea Sailer
ta «a«vra aauvaa «<2iei«a«7 Caa*.
• Aaaiaeaam vica mainTMaara 4ari
raccira «a naaaaaai'T
mt awarail eaac
V«i|0 dark/ a ilamitariat «aa ra*araMa« a< emaie* a Ueamaa fraw Seaea a<
darieal la*a«4 vaaca *a«aria« «•• la**ia« Caaaaesieac ea aavraea «
' aljtfon 679* Mala.
9 Maiacaaaaaa <*f raaaraa far «c*aa a Hah Seaoel •eaeaciaa ar
vraeaetiaa tmt elarieal eaaaa ia
a Akiliey ea ovvraca «adia«
a Ovciaa u*f alaa iaala««: aachiaaa «arf aeaa
a Aailicr ea ba
Tvoeaaa Oavracar a Oaeraciaa) 9f *a^ia«aac ea laad
iaaiaaracar* a Kzpariaasa ia oa«racia« tad
•aiacaaaaea of •aeaaoieal
a Haiacaaaaea a< •aaiaaaae ia proper •vaiaaaae «oca M fzaac
aaeraeiac, eaae*ieiaa. laarfara, fark lift*.
iaciaeracar faea"
a iaaiauaee with aaiasaaaaca tmi naaira tea.
a Varkiat kaovlaaf* of
Caeaeetieac Staea Sailar
Caae.
Source: Gordian Associates 35
-------
a grate. These steps are illustrated in Figure 5. RDF can be burned as a sup-
plementary fuel to coal or as a primary fuel in a dedicated spreader stoker
boiler.
Separation of the combustibles, which are the lighter fractions of the
waste, is achieved by injecting the shredded waste into a strong vertically ris-
ing air stream. The lighter materials are thus carried up through the system by
the air stream while the heavier materials fall out by gravity. This device is
called an air classifier. The combustible portions of the waste, after emerging
from an air classifier, may then be further shredded or processed. Processing
sometimes involves pelletizing or pulverizing the waste, or treating it with an
embrittling agent to produce a stable, storage fuel.
As of March 1981, there were fourteen RDF facilities operational or under
construction in the United States. Table 14 presents data for these facilities,
including the year operations commenced, the type of RDF produced, the size of
the facility and capital costs. A review of these data indicates that most of
the facilities are designed to produce fluff RDF, i.e., municipal waste that has
been air classified to remove non-combustibles and shredded into pieces from 1/4
inch to 2 inches in diameter. Only one facility operational in 1980 was using
dust RDF, and one other was using a wet pulp process.
Most of the facilities under construction are substantially larger than the
proposed Boulder facility. The reason for this is economic: RDF facilities
accrue significant economies of scale as the size of the facility increases.
Analyses of the subject suggest that significant economies occur up to plant
sizes of 1,000-1,500 TPD.l A major reason for the economies of scale is that
labor requirements for RDF facilities, which are substantial, do not increase in
direct proportion to facility size. A recent analysis of RDF facility require-
ments (Table 15) showed that 600 TPD facilities require 58 workers. Doubling or
tripling facility size increased the labor force to only 84 or 96 workers, re-
spectively. Using the same data base, we estimate that a 308 TPD facility would
1 Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, Materials and
Energy from Municipal Waste (Washington: Government Printing Office, July,
1979), pages 126-127.
36
-------
I
h-
rtgnre 5: Schematic Drawing of Typical Refuse Derived Fuel Project
1 ,
RDF PROCESSING PLANT
-POWER PLANT RECEIVING; STORAGE AND FEED—"»
POWER PLANT
Source: Parsons Report
-------
Table 14
Municipal RDF Facilities Operational or Under Construction
in the United States, March, 1981
Operating
Location of Facility
Operational:
Ames, la.
Baltimore County, Md.
Chicago (SWSFPF), 111.-7
2/
East Bridgewater, Mass.-
Hempstead, N.Y.-7
4/
Lane County (Eugene), Ore.-
Madison, Wise.
Milwaukee, Wisc.-
Monroe County (Rochester), N.Y.
Under Construction or Start-Up:
Albany, N.Y.
Bridgeport, Ct.-^
Dade County (Miami) Fl.
Lakeland, Fl .
Niagara Falls, N.Y.
Since
1975
1976
1977
1977
1978
1979
1979
1977
1979
1980
1980
1981
1981
1981
Type of
RDF
Fluff
Fluff
Fluff
Dust
Wet pulp
Fluff
Fluff
Fluff
Fluff
Fluff
Dust
Wet pulp
Fluff
Fluff
Capital
Cost
($mil lions)
$ 6.8
10
20. S-7
12
90
2. I*/
3.4
229/
62
11
53
165
186
73.9
Size (TPD)
Capacity/
Throughput
200/170
1,200/850
1,000/500
360/160
2,000/1,300
500/minimal
400/250— /
1,600/1,700
2,000/300
750
1,800
3,750
300
2,200
I/
The facility is currently shut down because of problems with the convey-
or system and abrasive deterioration of various components. According
to EPA, "it could be several years before the necessary modifications
are made and the facility is reopened."
Operation suspended in June 1980, because of lack of market for RDF.
Facility has been shut down since March 1980, due to air emissions and a
contractual dispute.
Operation suspended. RDF does not meet specifications -- ash content is
too high.
Operation suspended in September 1980. RDF was aggravating the problem
of slag in the utility's boiler. The facility is seeking other RDF
customers.
Operation suspended in October 1980 when Combustion Equipment Associates
filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Act.
excluding land
excluding "additional work supplied by system contractor"
9/ excluding land
10/ Madison's source separation program for newspaper recycling removes
approximately 5 per cent of the total waste stream before processing.
2/
/
5/
6/
7/
87
Source: U.S. EPA, Resource Recovery Division.
38
-------
Table 15
RDF Facility Labor Requirements
JOB TITLE NUMBER OF WORKERS REQUIRED
600 TPD 1200 TPD 1800 TPD
Administrative
Plant Manager 111
Weigh Clerk/Clerical 1 1 2-
Bookkeeper/Accountant 111
Secretary/Receptionist 1 2 2r
Stock Clerk 1_ 2. 1 -
5 7 8
Receiving and Processing
Plant Engineer/Operations Supervisor 1 11
Shift Foreman* 222
Process Operator* 4 5 6,
Front Loader Operator* 4 6 \ 7
Traffic Director 111
Quality Control Technician 122
Control Room Operator* . 222
Recovery Area Operator* 4 4 4
Refuse Picker 2 4 4
Driver/Residue Handler 468
Laborer* 467
Instrument Technician 1 1 _l
30 40 45 '
Maintenance
Maintenance Foreman 233
Electrician 1 2 2
Mechanic, Welder 1 2 3
Mechanic, Maintenance 2 3 4
Guard . 1 11.
Helper 235
Machinist JL JL JL
10 16 21
Subtotal 40 63 74
Steam Production Optional
RDF Feed Operator** 4 8 8
Boiler Operator** 844
Electrician/Instrumentation 1 3 3
Chemist 111
Driver/Ash residue Handler 345
Plant Engineer ^ 1^ 1
TOTAL 58 84 96
Source: Gordian Associates .
* Labor needs for these categories are based on two shifts per day opera-
tion with an assistant or relief worker available in the larger facili-
ties.
** Boiler operation is assumed to be continuous, requiring four shifts per
day for these labor categories. An assistant or relief worker may be ne-
cessary in the larger plants.
39
-------
require approximately 49 workers. This compares to a labor force of 14 for a
comparably sized modular incinerator.
A number of problems have been experienced by the existing RDF facilities.
These can be classified as technical problems, marketing problems, and economic
problems. The technical problems that have been encountered result from the
characteristics of fluff RDF: it generally has a high moisture content (as much
as six times the moisture content of coal) and low heat value (5,000 - 6,500
BTU/lb -- approximately half the heat value of coal). The high moisture content
can lead to problems in storage, transportation and handling, and loss of
efficiency in electrostatic precipitators used for pollution control. Unless
boilers are specially designed to burn fluff RDF (with retention time increased)
as much as 35 per cent of the RDF remains unburned. RDF also contains
substantial amounts of abrasive material (glass and metals) which, if not
removed, cause deterioration of various system components.
A second set of problems has to do with economics. Several existing
facilities have not secured markets for the RDF produced: as of late 1979, this
was true for Baltimore County, Maryland; Lane County, Oregon; East Bridgewater,
Massachusetts; and New Orleans, Louisiana.1 Others, while they have secured
markets, have encountered substantial increases in cost, which led to financial
difficulties for the participants. In fact, the only producer of dust RDF,
Combustion Equipment Associates, is currently undergoing reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Act, as a result of losses incurred from
construction and operation of the Bridgeport, Connecticut facility. That
facility was to have been built for $37.5 million, but as of October 1980, when
.the firm filed for reorganization, the company's chairman stated costs were
."probably... in excess of $80 million." The problems encountered at Bridgeport
The New Orleans plant, which has a design capacity of 750 TPD, was not
listed as an RDF facility in the EPA survey that was the source of Table 14,
even though it does produce shredded municipal waste. As of early 1981,
ferrous metals and aluminum were being recovered from the waste stream, but
the remaining fraction was shredded and landfilled, pending the development
of an RDF market.
40
-------
have caused the company to suspend construction of a facility in Newark, New
Jersey, and to refrain from bidding on any other projects until further notice.
A final point should be apparent from the data presented in Table 14. For
whatever reasons -- technical, markets, costs -- RDF facilities have not
generally been successful in the United States to date. Five of the eight
facilities listed as operational in Table 14 have suspended operations, and a
sixth produces RDF that is landfilled for lack of a market. Municipalities
seeking a reliable method of resource recovery as an alternative to landfilling
would do well to consider other options.
41
-------
IV. REGULATORY FACTORS AND ISSUES AND POLLUTION CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS
A. The Permitting Process
Any resource recovery project will be confronted by a number of local, state
and Federal rules, regulations and guidelines which were established to control
environmental impacts of proposed actions. These potential environmental
impacts will have to be identified during the initial project planning stages in
order to prepare permit applications and allow time for regulatory agency review
and decision. These regulatory/institutional factors can be a significant
determinant of overall project feasibility and/or project scheduling due to the
following:
o the permitting process is a complex, time-consuming series of actions
involving a number of regulatory agencies on all governmental levels,
none of which has overall regulatory control over any particular
proposed project;
o the regulatory framework is constantly changing and evolving, with
regulatory agencies sometimes uncertain of their specific role, and the
permit applicant is often confronted by uncertainties and changes which
are not readily apparent;
o pollution control requirements may affect project financing and/or
economic feasibility; and
o the lack of operating experience with most types of resource recovery
projects from which to gain environmental emission data and proper
pollution control equipment selection.
The above listed constraints do not mean that a resource recovery facility
such as the one considered for Boulder cannot be accomplished; but rather that
regulatory factors and issues cannot be overlooked or given a low priority in
42
-------
project planning, scheduling and budgeting. Any regulatory oversight or
deficiency could turn out to be the "fatal flaw" of project feasibility.
As mentioned above, there is little successful operating experience from
which to gauge the overall complexities, costs, and time-frame of the resource
recovery facility permitting process. There do, however, appear to be several
regulatory issues/factors which deserve primary attention and can be addressed
on a preliminary basis within the scope of this report. These include:
o air emissions and permit requirements;
o noise regulations; and
o solid waste generation and permit requirements,
Each is discussed in detail below.
B. Air Emissions and Permit Requirements
There are two types of air pollution regulatory controls which are of
concern to potential new projects which will emit air pollutants. These
include:
o limits on the concentrations or amounts of pollutants within stack
emissions; and
o effects on ambient air quality.
The study area is located within the EPA-designated Denver Air Quality Control
Region, which has been classified as a non-attainment area (not in compliance
with ambient air quality standards) for four criteria pollutants^:
A criteria pollutant is one listed in the Clean Air Act Section 108(a) which
requires the preparation of a criteria document to form the scientific basis
for the national ambient air quality standard.
43
-------
o ozone;
o nitrous oxides;
o participates; and
o carbon monoxide.
The Denver Region is in compliance with the fifth criteria pollutant, sulfur
dioxide. In this situation, any new source in the region cannot further degrade
ambient air quality in the non-attainment pollutant, while the additional
contribution of sulfur dioxide to the ambient air quality will be limited to
specified maximum incremental increases. The following discussion consists of
the application of existing Colorado air pollution regulations to resource
recovery options in the study area. In addition to the regulation of the five
criteria pollutants discussed above, the State regulations also include
emission limits for opacity, odor and hazardous air pollutants, all of which may
also apply to resource recovery facilities.
1. Modular Incinerators. A new source modular incinerator will require a State
air pollution permit and the filing of an air pollution emission notice (APEN)
as described in Regulation No. 3 (see Figure 6 for a schematic representation of
the air permitting process). These efforts require a thorough description and
discussion of the estimated quality and composition of expected emissions (based
upon actual test data or other sources acceptable in the Air Quality Control
Division) as prepared by the project proponent.
According to State regulations, a modular incinerator constructed in 1981 or
later would be considered a "new stationary source". In this situation, the
incinerator must comply with all standards of performance including those
specifically designed for incinerators (Regulation 6, Section III), which states
specific requirements for the most probable major air pollution problem, that of
particulates, and for associated opacity impacts.
The most critical determination will be if the incinerator would be
classified as a "major stationary source." This category includes any
stationary source which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year
44
-------
en
Figure 6: Permit Procedures for Air Emission and Solid Waste Disposal Permits
Air Contaminant Emission Permit -- Air Pollution Control Division (Department of Health)
-fe-
SuUilt A|.|il leal Ion (or
Air ton) .imliidtit
Imllilun PiMiilll
Conduct Preliminary
Analysis and I'clcruilne
If I'ubllc Cuiiucnt Heil'd
4 weeks
lt 30 Days to II Conduct Inspection 30 Daysj
art D|ti-rat Ion J [Alter Slart u( 0|n.'ratl«i
6 weeks 6 weeks
f~.—,-:
- '"
3 weeks
Certificate of Designation (Solid Haste Disposal) — Kadialton and Hazardous Waste Control Division (Department of Health)
Stimuli Applies! Ion for
Oil Ideal Ion of (lei Icjrul Ion
Sulld Udsle Disposal Site
--[Ruvlew by Ulvlslon|-
"1" S'wccks
1 Division Submits lo
I Count Cotniilss loners
| (or (lev lex
n Obtain
Ceil Ideal Ion
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates
-------
or more of any of the non-attainment criteria pollutants. If an incinerator
were placed in this category, a permit can be granted only if:
o the proposed source will achieve the lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER) for the specific source category;
o the applicant has certified that all other major stationary sources
owned, operated or controlled by the applicant in Colorado are in
compliance with the State Implementation Plan or are subject to and in
compliance with an enforceable compliance schedule; and
o offsets (greater than a one-to-one ratio) must be obtained from existing
sources for all non-attainment pollutants.
Early indications from test and operating data are that a modular incinerator of
the type examined here may be classified as a major source because of
particulate emissions. This may be true even though modular incinerators are
touted as inherently non-polluting because the two chambers burn most, but not
all, of the burnable gases and particulates. Indeed, some manufacturers claim
that no special scrubbers, precipitators or other air pollution equipment are
necessary on these incinerators. However, it is sometimes difficult to maintain
combustion at steady state conditions for incinerators that burn municipal
wastes. Municipal wastes are highly heterogeneous, and incinerators that burn
such waste may require emission control equipment to meet state and/or Federal
air pollution standards. Other parties attempting to obtain offsets in the
Denver region have had major difficulties, a situation which makes the offset
requirement the most probable regulatory fatal flaw.
There does exist, however, a possible exemption to the offset requirement
under certain circumstances if:
o the applicant has used his best efforts in seeking the offsets but was
unsuccessful ;
46
-------
o all available offsets were obtained; and
o the applicant continues to seek offsets as they become available.
With respect to direct emission limits, Table 16 shows the different types
of emission substances detected in the flue gas from the North Little Rock Plant
in Arkansas. Tests of the North Little Rock stack emission for their modular
incinerator revealed that the emission rate for total particulates averaged
0.130 grains per standard cubic foot (gr/SCF) corrected to 12 percent C02 with a
maximum of 0.231 gr/SCF. These average values are considerably higher than the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission's standards for particulates (0.08
gr/SCF for 50 TPD or more). This suggests that particulate air pollution
control equipment would be necessary for a Boulder operation. Control of the
one attainment pollutant (sulfur dioxide), must provide for limiting incremental
increases over a specified baseline to:
o 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m^) (annual arithmetic mean);
o 50 mg/m3 (24-hour maximum); and
o 300 mg/m3 (3-hour maximum)
Evaluation of odor, opacity and hazardous emissions cannot be properly evaluated
at this time, but must not be neglected if further analysis and planning are
undertaken.
2. Refuse Derived Fuel Facilities. The co'firing of RDF with an existing
coal-fired power plant will most likely be classified as a "modification" to an
existing facility. Upon modification, a facility shall become an affected
facility for contaminants to which a standard applies and for which there is an
increase in the emission rate to the ambient air. This is an especially
important point because Public Service Company does not currently use pollution
control equipment from Valmont Units 1-4. Additionally, the change in operation
of an existing facility may require the filing of a revised Air Pollutant
Emission Notice if a "significant" change in emissions has occurred in
accordance with the Division definition of significance.
47
-------
TABLE'16
NORTH LITTLE ROCK FLUE GAS EMISSION DATA
Pollutant
Particulates V
SOX
NQ¥
A
CO
HC
Pb £/
Source: U.S. EPA,
Emission Rate
Maximum Average Minimum Ib/ton of Refuse
0.231 gr/SCF 0.130 gr/SCF 0.067 gr/SCF
<10 ppm £/
99 ppm 82' ppm 69 ppm
36 ppm . 29 ppm 16 ppm
40 ppm 28 ppm 20 ppm
•3
.4.49 mg/m
Small Modular Incinerators with Heat Recovery.
3.03
<0.78
3.68
1.00
0.55
0.14
V gr/SCF = grains per standard cubic foot.
£/ ppm = parts per million.
^ = milligrams per cubic meter.
48
-------
Given previous RDF operating experience, an RDF facility in Boulder would
normally be classed as a "major modification" according to State regulations. A
major modification classification would normally result in the same three
requirements (including offsets) for a major stationary source incinerator
listed above in the discussion of modular incinerators. However, refuse derived
fuel generated from municipal solid waste is specifically exempted from these
requirements.
As with modular incinerators, there is not enough information at this time
to evaluate odor, opacity and hazardous waste emissions. With respect to sulfur
dioxide, the clearly stated Colorado Air Quality Control Division policy is to
place the burden on new. sources to prevent degradation and maintain compliance
with ambient air quality standards. Therefore, with respect to a modified
existing coal/RDF power plant, $03 emissions may not present a problem. All
applicable standards must be met within 180 days of the completion of the
modification. Table 17 shows a comparison of the stack emissions from burning
coal only and cofiring coal with 7 percent RDF at the St. Louis, Missouri
facility.
3. Pollution Control Equipment Needs and Costs. Since particulates were
identified above as the probable major air pollution problem, this discussion
will be limited to that pollutant. The control of particulates will be governed
largely by established practices. Such factors as particle size, range,
density, resistivity, concentration, composition, the degree of removal
required, and the allowable pressure drop will all influence the selection of
the appropriate control method and subsequent costs. The four most common types
of particulate collectors may be arranged in order of increasing efficiency,
complexity and cost:
o cyclone collectors;
o wet scrubbers;
o fabric filters; and
o electrostatic precipitators.
To date, there are no known instances in which major air pollution control
equipment has been integrated into a modular incinerator facility. One supplier
49
-------
TABLE 17
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM THE ST. LOUIS FACILITY
Substance in Participate Coal Only Coal Plus 7 Percent RDF
As 3.13 2.00
Be 0.200 0.706
Cd 0.575 1.39
Cr 12.1 16.0
Pb 11.3 54.0
Hg 0.153 0.417
Source: Sussman, David B/. Personal Communication, U.S. EPA.
50
-------
(Consumat of Richmond, Virginia) is currently conducting research in this area,
and has roughly estimated total air pollution equipment capital costs to be ten
percent of a $500,000 modular incinerator plant. Operating cost estimates are
not available.
A major resource recovery facility which burns RDF alone or cofires RDF with
coal can be directly compared with the needs and costs of a major coal fired
boiler. The use of RDF would not require the special use of other air pollution
control equipment. Costs, however, are difficult to estimate without detailed
knowledge of plant design, RDF and coal quality, and other parameters; costs are
very case- and site-specific. EPA estimates for the capital costs of electro-
static precipitator particulate control range from 2.5 to 4.4 million (1976
dollars) for a 200 MW utility boiler. Assuming a 12 percent per year escalation
(for five years), 1981 costs would range from 4.4 to 7.75 million. Erection and
installation costs would add about 70 percent to this total, creating an instal-
led equipment range of from $7.5 to 13.2 million for the 200 MW boiler. If a
new coal-fired boiler were to be built today, capital costs would be approxi-
mately $1,000 per installed Kilowatt. Particulate control capital costs for the
200 MW boiler would, therefore, range from 2.2 to 3.9 percent of total capital
cost. EPA estimates of operating costs for electrostatic precipitator particu-
late control range from $.56 to 1.02 million. Escalation at 12 percent per year
would increase these estimates to $1 to 1.8 million in 1981 dollars.
C. Noise Regulations
Restrictions and regulations on the noise emitted from a resource recovery
facility take two forms: those affecting workers, as regulated under the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); and those affecting the
general public, as regulated by the City of Boulder.
A recent study has shown that some resource recovery processes can produce
noise in excess of present OSHA standards. Control of noise in such equipment
by engineering design may be costly, although the option of administrative noise
controls (limiting the time exposure of employees) and personal protective
equipment may be sufficient in some cases.
51
-------
The City of Boulder has shown its concern for the protection of the general
public from excess noise through a relatively agressive noise regulation en-
forcement program. Current noise restrictions at the property line are 65 deci-
bels in business zones and 80 decibels in industrial zones during daytime hours
(7 a.m. to 11 p.m.). Several methods are available to reduce the noise at the
property line, the most common of which is the strategic placement of fences to
block and absorb the noise. Although no noise permit or clearance is required
from the City of Boulder Environmental Enforcement Center, enforcement personnel
would like to be informed of actions as plans progress, and are willing to pro-
vide noise checks and work with a resource recovery developer to make sure the
operation is within legal limits.
Noise pollution is an often overlooked form of environmental impact which
has been shown to produce detrimental effects on the health and welfare of
humans. While little is known about the case-and-site-specifie impacts of
potential resource recovery facilities in Boulder, a noise impact analysis
should be performed if planning on either of the facilities progresses.
0. Solid Waste Generation and Permit Requirements
Solid wastes from resource recovery plants include combustion ash and parti-
culate matter recovered by air pollution control devices. These wastes can
produce undesirable leachates when disposed of in a landfill. Although data are
scarce, fly ash particulate from waste incinerators may contain hazardous trace
elements such as cadmium, lead, beryllium and mercury.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, solid (non-
hazardous) wastes are to be regulated primarily at the State and local levels.
Under current circumstances, a Certificate of Designation would have to be
issued by .the Boulder County Commissioners if a new landfill site were to needed
for waste disposal. The State Health Department would also have to approve the
siting, engineering, and operational plans for any new landfill. If existing
landfills are used for waste disposal, the site must be one that has already
been issued a Certificate of Designation and is being operated according to min-
imum RCRA and State rules and guidelines (see Figure 6 for a schematic represen-
tation of the Certificate of Designation process).
52
-------
Preliminary (not case-or site-specific to Boulder) data indicate that hazar-
dous (under the meaning in RCRA) wastes may be contained within solid wastes
generated from resource recovery processes. If this is the case, the waste dis-
posal situation will become extremely more complex, and may prove to be a
project fatal flaw. Hazardous wastes are generally regulated by the Federal
Government (the EPA), although states can take over regulatory, administrative
and enforcement responsibilities with an EPA-approved program.1 Hazardous
wastes are regulated from "cradle to grave" (from generation through
transportation, storage, and disposal) under RCRA, and required actions may
involve reporting requirements (to the regulatory authority), manifest
requirements (to track the waste from cradle to grave) and permit requirements
(an approved disposal facility). The RCRA hazardous waste program is still
evolving, and early indications from the Reagan administration provide for
substantial regulatory changes. Under current circumstances, disposal sites for
hazardous wastes would require (like solid non-hazardous wastes) a Certificate
of Designation from the County Commissioners. It is uncertain if a current
exemption (pending further study) for utility and other wastes from the RCRA
non-hazardous waste program would apply to resource recovery facilities.
E. Other Environmental/Regulatory Concerns
Other permits, approvals and clearances beyond those three listed above
would undoubtedly be required before a resource recovery facility could begin
operation. These may include such items as wastewater discharges (regulated by
the state under authority granted to EPA in accordance with the Clean Water
Act), and building, plumbing and electrical permits. Additionally, care must be
taken to avoid environmental and safety problems associated with fires, explo-
sions and pathogens contained within the waste streams.
1 Colorado has indicated a desire to gain primary hazardous waste responsibility
from EPA and is in the process of preparing a state program which would be
approved by EPA.
53
-------
F. A Regulatory Compliance Strategy
As briefly discussed previously, environmental and regulatory considerations
may play a major part in overall project feasibility. At this early stage in
project planning, the most serious potential fatal flaws are the probable need
for an air emission offset and the uncertainty surrounding hazardous wastes.
Further study needs to be performed during the future planning stages to deter-
mine the overall impact of regulatory considerations. In this regard, the
following steps are recommended:
o once more detailed project plans are formulated, regulatory agencies on
all governmental levels should be contacted;!
o meetings should be held with these agencies, with the applicant provid-
ing as much project data and information as possible in an open and
honest exchange;
o issues, requirements and uncertainties should be identified early with
each specific agency, with the applicant confirming verbal discussions
and requesting answers to questions in writing; and
o involved agencies should be informed of all project actions and changes
in plans as they occur.
In making agency contacts, it is very possible that some minor permit, clear-
ance or approval authority may be overlooked. Therefore, the applicant is
encouraged to communicate with others proposing resource recovery projects,
hire specialists in regulatory compliance, and/or contact as many agencies as
possible (even those that may not visibly have a regulatory resource recovery
role).
54
-------
G. Risks of Hazardous Substances in the Waste Stream1
Questions have been raised about potential risks in the workplace from
hazardous substances which may be contained in the waste stream of resource
recovery plants. Since these systems are new, the consequences of hazardous
substances in resource recovery systems are currently not well developed in
relation to occupational health and safety factors. This section describes each
of these hazardous substances and reviews some of the associated ongoing
research and regulatory activity.
As municipal solid waste is processed within resource recovery facilities,
workers are exposed to bacterial, fungal, and virological pathogens contained in
the waste stream. Solid waste contains human and animal fecal matter due, for
example, to the use of disposal diapers and the disposal of animal litter. Good
data on the impact of the pathogens on the health of workers are not available.
The EPA is funding research on pathogens in resource recovery plants by the
Midwest Research Institute. This preliminary study is expected to produce a
qualitative assessment of potential problems with pathogens and suggest what
in-plant control measures can be implemented.
Processing solid waste produces considerable dust and because of the variety
of materials in solid waste, there is additional concern about specific
substances such as asbestos, metals, and other toxic substances. Obviously,
dust control measures and personal protective equipment for workers in resource
recovery plants need considerable attention on the part of workers, managers,
and regulators.
Municipal solid waste occasionally contains dynamite, gunpowder, flammable
liquids and gases, aerosol cans, propane, butane, and gasoline fuel containers,
1 Source: OTA, Material and Energy from Municipal Waste, pp. 102-107.
55
-------
and other explosive and flammable materials. When such substances are shredded
or processed in resource recovery facilities explosions can occur. Both refuse
derived fuel and modular incineration facilities are designed to withstand mild
explosions by constructing processing units with hinged walls and tops or other
conduits to allow rapid venting of exploding gases. Explosion suppression/ex-
tinguishing systems, water spray, or equipment isolation are other means of re-
ducing explosion damage. Manual or automated surveillance of input material is
utilized in some facilities, but cannot be expected to remove all explosive sub-
stances.
Additional research in minimizing the potential of explosions and the damage
resulting from explosion is being conducted by resource recovery manufacturers
and by the Federal government (OSHA).
56
-------
V. COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The cost-effectiveness of any resource recovery system is a function of six
variables: 1) capital costs; 2) operating and maintenance (OfiM) costs; 3)
transportation costs; 4) revenues received for the recovered materials and
energy; 5) tipping fees; and 6) the cost of other disposal alternatives. These
factors are combined in the following way to determine cost-effectiveness:
Cost of Option (Capital + O&M + Transportation) - Revenues =
Required Tipping Fee
The required tipping fee for each option is then compared to the cost of the
other disposal alternatives (including landfill and recycling). In this section
of the report, we first examine the meaning of each of the variables, then
estimate their value for each option, and finally assemble the data for
comparative purposes.
A. The Variables
1. Capital Cost . The capital cost of a resource recovery plant is the sum
of the costs for land, structures, equipment, and modifications to existing
facilities. To facilitate comparisons, capital costs are expressed on a per
ton-of-waste-processed basis, spread over the expected life of the facility.
The formula used is:
Capital Cost = total investment X capital recovery factor
365 days X maximum capacity (TPD) X capacity utilization
factor
Capital costs for the four technology options considered are derived in
Table 18. Total investment costs, which appear in the first column of Table 18,
were derived from a review of existing literature.
For example, dividing the total capital costs by the design capacity in TPD
for each of the modular incineration facilities in Table 13 results in capital
57
-------
Table 18
Estimated Capital Costs for Resource Recovery Technologies
1.
2.
3.
4.
Technology
Modular Incinerator
Fluff RDF
Wet Pulp RDF
Dust RDF
(in 1981
Total Capital
Investment Recovery Factor^'
$ 8.0 million
11.4 million
13.9 million
13.7 million
0.12558
0.12558
0.12558
0.12558
dollars)
Maximum
Capacity
308 TPD
308 TPD
308 TPD
308 TPD
Utilization
Factor^'
70%
70%
70%
70%
Capital . /
Cost/Ton-7
$12.77
18.19
22. 12
21.86
in
00
\J Assumes 11% interest, 20-year amortization period (since the data was assembled for this report In April, 1981
interest rates for municipal bonds have climbed substantially above 11%).
2J The Office of Technology Assessment's report entitled "Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste" states
that the "...annual tons of waste processible In a full year Is usually only a fraction of 365 times the
maxlmun dally capacity since the plant will not always operate at full capacity. This fraction, the capacity
utilization factor ranges from 0.4 to 0.9. It Is usually, however, taken to be 0.7 to 0.8 for resource re-
covery plants.
_3/ Capital costs for smaller plants are assumed to be the same on a per ton basis as costs for 308 TPD plants.
Source: Office of Technology Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency, and Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
-------
costs per TPD of design capacity ranging from $10,000 to $50,000, with an aver-
age capital cost of $23,000 per TPD. The OTA report entitled "Materials and
Energy from Municipal Waste" cites a capital cost of $25,800 per TPD of capacity
as an average for modular incineration facilities. Therefore, a value of
$26,000 per TPD was deemed to be representative and the cost of a 308 TPD facil-
ity for Boulder was calculated to be $8,000,000 (308 TPD x $26,000 TPD). Table
19, which lists the capital costs incurred by North Little Rock, is representa-
tive of the breakdown of capital costs for a modular incinerator facility.
Similarly, capital costs for RDF technologies in Table 18 were derived in an
analogous manner. Although these costs are not site-specific, some conclusions
can be drawn about site-specific costs. First, land requirements would not pose
a major cost constraint for any of the alternatives. Modular incinerators re-
quire approximately a two acre site, while RDF facilities require 3 to 5 acres
depending on exact system configuration. Land is least expensive near the Mar-
shall landfill (approximately $1,200 per acre) and most expensive near the Uni-
versity ($200,000 per acre). In any event, it is the availability of land and
the compatibility of the proposed facility with existing land use, not land
cost, that may pose constraints for some of the options.
Second, costs of structures and equipment would not vary much from one site
to the next, but could vary based on system size. Economies of scale are re-
ported to be particularly strong for the three RDF technologies,! but given the
limited data available on system cost, it is impossible to estimate the econo-
mies of scale from actual experience. We have, therefore, used the same capital
cost/ton figure for each facility size.2
1 OTA, Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste, pp. 121-122, 124.
2 To estimate the impact of scale economies, it would be necessary to design
alternative facility configurations, and cost out each component. Summing
the cost of all components, one would arrive at variations in capital cost
for different size facilities. Such an analysis would be useful if it is
decided to proceed to the next step of a resource recovery implementation
program.
59
-------
TABLE 19
NORTH LITTLE ROCK ACTUAL CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN
Item Capital Cost ($) % of Total Capital Cost
Land 10,000 1
Site Preparation 101,000 7
Design 38,000 2
Construction 311,000 20
Real Equipment 969,000 64
Other Equipment 63,000 4
Other Costs 38,000 2
Total Capital Costs $1,530,000 100%
Source: U.S. EPA, Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery: A
Technical, Environmental, and Economic Evaluation,Publication
SW-797, November, 1979.
60
-------
Third, modifications to existing facilities would be most extensive for the
RDF alternatives. Modular incineration would produce steam that could be
introduced to existing heat distribution or energy generation facilities
directly. RDF production, however, would require substantial modifications to
Public Service Company facilities, including construction of storage bins,
addition of conveyors, boiler modifications, and ash handling system
modifications. At Ames, Iowa, modifications other than the capital cost of the
processing plant cost $2.2 million (1975 dollars) for a 400 TPD plant. This
^presented over 30 per cent of total system costs.
Capital costs appear lowest for the most proven technology: modular
incineration. Fluff RDF is estimated to be over 40 per cent more expensive than
modular incineration, and the other two technologies are over 70 per cent more
expensive.
2. O&M Costs. O&M costs include labor, fuel, maintenance, supplies,
insurance, utilities, taxes (if applicable), and residue disposal costs. As
noted in Section II of this report, the largest component of O&M cost is the
cost of labor. Table 20 estimates O&M costs for each of the options; O&M costs
were derived from the literature in a similar manner as the capital costs. As
with capital costs, O&M expenditures are highest for wet pulp and dust RDF
processes and lowest for modular incineration. Modular incineration appears to
have a significant O&M cost advantage over any of the alternatives.
Based on the North Little Rock, Arkansas modular incinerator O&M costs from
Table 12, labor represents approximately 50 percent of total O&M costs, fuel
(No. 2 diesel, natural gas) represents 11 percent, utilities (electricity, water
and sewer) represent 11 percent and maintenance represents 26 percent of the
total O&M costs.
In addition to the four technology options, Table 20 estimates differences in
O&M cost based on facility size. Two optional sizes are considered; the first
assumes 308 TPD of waste; the second assumes 156 TPD. The latter option would
occur if: 1) the City of Longmont were not to participate, leaving only the
Boulder City waste stream to be processed; and 2) Eco-Cycle were to continue
operations and developed a 52-TPD recycling program. These are not necessarily
61
-------
Table 20
1.
2.
3.
4.
O&M Costs
Technology
Modular Incinerator
Fluff RDF
Wet Pulp RDF
Dust RDF
for Resource Recovery Technologies
(in 1981 dollars)
308 TPD
$ 9.56/ton
19.90/ton
32.43/ton
23.26/ton
156 TPD
$12.58/ton
26.21/ton
42.69/ton
30.61/ton
Sources: Office of Technology Assessment and Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
62
-------
the most likely set of circumstances, but they do represent a lower volume al-
ternative. Because labor costs per ton are higher for the smaller scale facili-
ties, O&M costs increase substantially as system size decreases.
3. Transportation Costs. Incremental transportation costs need to be
added to the cost of each option if the distance that waste will be hauled to
the site of a new facility is longer than current hauling distances for dispos-
al. Conversely, if hauling distances are shorter, the difference in cost should
be subtracted from the cost of each option. Transportation cost data were
developed separately for Boulder and Longmont, using the following assumptions:
Generation rates:
Boulder: 208 TPD
Longmont: 100 TPD
Current average hauling distance:*
Boulder to Marshall Landfill: 16 miles
Longmont to Longmont Landfill: 13 miles
Hauling distance for each option:
Boulder to City Yards: 5 miles
Longmont to City Yards: 33 miles
Boulder to Valmont: 5 miles
Longmont to Valmont: 33 miles
Boulder to UC: 2 miles
Longmont to UC: 40 miles
Boulder to Marshall: 16 miles
All distances are for roundtrips.
63
-------
Longmont to Marshall: 44. miles
Cost per ton-mile:
$0.40 without transfer station
$0.16 with transfer station.
Data on transportation costs are presented in Table 21. The change in
transportation cost has a positive impact on the cost-effectiveness of every
optional location except Marshall landfill. There are two reasons for this: 1)
for the City of Boulder's waste, haul distances to the three potential resource
recovery locations within Boulder are shorter than current haul distances to the
landfill. Thus, Boulder experiences cost savings in the $3.00 - 4.00 range per
ton of waste hauled. 2) For Longmont, the economies derived from opening a
transfer station largely offset the increased costs incurred by shipping waste
longer distances. At a transfer station, compactor trucks are unloaded at a
central location and returned to collection routes. The waste is further
compacted at the station and transferred to large trailers for delivery to the
disposal site.
Costs are reduced through efficiencies in truck route utilization, and
through decreased labor and O&M cost for the delivery vehicles hauling waste to
disposal sites.
4. Revenues. Revenues would be generated by a resource recovery facility
from the sale of recovered metals and glass, and from the sale of RDF or steam.
Estimated revenues for each technology option are derived in Table 22. The
table is based on two major assumptions. First, modular incineration is assumed
to take place without prior separation of waste for metals and glass recovery.
There is no technical reason why the separation and incineration technologies
can not be combined, but in most existing modular incineration units, they are
not. Second, while assumptions had to be made for revenues per ton for each
recovered product, the most difficult assumption was that for steam. Steam can
be sold at prices competitive with the purchaser's current steam-generation
costs. Current costs, as discussed previously, range from about $2.50 per
million BTU for customers using interruptible natural gas to over $6.50 per
million BTU for others. Many of the potential customers for steam are currently
64
-------
Table 21
Transportation Cost for Waste Disposal Options
Option
Current
City Yards
Valmont
University
of Colorado
Marshall
Landi 11
Origin
Boulder
Longmont
Boulder
Longmont
Boulder
Longmont
Boulder
Longmont
Boulder
Average Round Trip
Distance from Total
Unit Cost Point of Collection Cost/
Destination $/Ton Mile to Disposal (miles) Ton
Marshall Land-
fill
Longmont Land-
fill
City Yards
City Yards
Valmont
Valmont
UC
UC
Marshall Land-
fill
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
40
40
40
16
40
16
40
16
40
16
13
5
33
7
33
2
40
16
$6.
5.
2.
5.
2.
5.
0.
6.
6.
40
20
00
28
80
28
80
40
40
Change
in Cost/
Ton
-4.
+0.
-3.
+0.
-5.
+1.
-
40
08
60
08
60
20
__
Weighted Change in Weightei
Average Weighted Transpor
Cost/Ton tation Cost
6.01
3.07 -2.94
3.61 -2.40
2.62 -3.39
Longmont Marshall Land- 0.16
fill
44
7.04
+1.84
6.61
+0.60
-------
Table 22
en
Ot
Option
1- Modular
Incineration
2- Fluff RDF
3. Wet Pulp RDF
4. Oust RDF
J/
-
Recovered
Product
Steam
Glass
Ferrous Metal
Aluminum
RDF
Total
Glass
Ferrous Metal
Aluminum
RDF
Total
Glass
Ferrous Metal
Aluminum
RDF
Revenues
Input^
-I1£P)
— *— — • C— _
300
28
24
3
308
28
24
3
308
28
24
3
308
from Resource
(in 1981
* 2/
Recovered-
100%
65%
95%
65%
70%
65% ,..
95%
65%
76%
65%
95%
65%
80%
Recovery
dollars)"
Output
(TPO)
N.A.
18.2
22.8
2.0
216.
18.2
22.8
2.0
234.
18.2
22.8
2.0
246.
Options
Revenues/
$ 14
$ 25
45
600
8
$ 25
45
600
8
$ 25
45
600
10
Revenues
/Day
$4.312
$ 455
1.026
1.200
1.720
$4,409
$ 455
1.026
1,200
1.872
$4.553
$ 455
1.026
1,200
2,460
Total
adjusted to reflect low
Municipal Waste, p. 100.
$5.141
Ton of MSW
$14.00
$14.31
$14.78
$16.69
01A, Materials and Energy from
-------
using natural gas for steam generation. The price of natural gas will increase
rapidly as decontrol of gas prices takes place between now and 1985. We have
used current data to estimate steam revenues, and have priced it competitive
with current interruptible natural gas supplies, but it should be noted that the
value of this steam may increase rapidly during the next few years and may make
modular incineration alternatives more attractive than they are now.
5. Tipping Fee. A tipping fee is the fee charged for disposing of solid
waste at the resource recovery facility. For a facility to be economically
competitive with other disposal alternatives, the fee should be in the same
range as anticipated fees for the alternatives.
B. Results of the Analysis
The required tipping fees for resource recovery options in Boulder are
derived in Table 23, using the formula developed at the outset of this chapter.
Tipping fees for the options range from $8.33 per ton for the 308 TPO modular
incinerator to $50.03 per ton for the 156 TPD wet pulp RDF facility. Current
tipping fees at Marshall Landfill are $4.20 per ton, although, as noted earlier,
the operator of the landfill expects landfill fees to double in the near fu-
ture. Tipping fees at the Longmont landfill are $6.40 per ton.
Of the options considered, modular incineration appears to be the only one
within an acceptable range on cost-effectiveness grounds. It should be
realized, however, that the cost estimates presented here are first cut
approximations which are not based on site-specific design considerations.
C. Alternate Sites for Modular Incineration
Since modular incineration technology appears to be within an acceptable
range on cost-effectiveness grounds, the next step of the analysis is to
identify advantages or disadvantages of the specific location of such a
facility. Of the four locations discussed earlier (University of Colorado,
Valmont, City Yards, and Marshall landfill), Marshall landfill can be eliminated
from consideration. It is too far from prospective steam customers to be of
interest.
67
-------
Table 23
en
00
Tipping Fees for Resource Recovery Options in Boulder
1A.
2A.
3A.
4A.
IB.
2B.
3B.
4B.
Option
308 TPD
Modular Incinerator
Fluff RDF
Wet Pulp RDF
Dust RDF
156 TPD
Modular Incinerator
Fluff RDF
Wet Pulp RDF
Dust RDF
Capital
Cost- +
$12.77
18.19
22.12
21.86
12.77
18.19
22.12
21.86
O&M Cost-/
$9.56
19.90
32.43
23.26
12,58
26.21
42.69
30.61
Transportation
+ Cost
These options
are not site
specific.
Adjustment
for trans-
portation
costs will
be made in
Table 24.
(in $/Ton)
3/
Revenues-
$14.00
14.31
14.78
16.69
14.00
14.31
14.78
16.69
= Tipping Fee
$8.33
23.78
39.77
28.43
11.35
30.09
50.03
35.78
I/ See Table 18.
2/ See Table 20.
3/ See Table 22.
-------
Some initial cost data for the remaining sites is presented in Table 24.
These data must be further refined in the next phase of implementation. Based
on a preliminary assessment, it would appear that there are no overwhelming cost
advantages to one site over another. The preliminary data do show, however,
that because of lower transportation costs all three options appear more
cost-effective than Table 23 suggested. The "effective tipping fees" (i.e.,
tipping fees adjusted for changes in transportation cost) fall in the range of
$5.53 to $5.98 per ton for a 308 TPD facility, and $8.55 to $9.00 per ton for a
156 TPD facility.
D. Sensitivity Analysis
As noted in the discussion of the individual variables, a number of
assumptions had to be made to determine cost-effectiveness of the options.
Since opinions differ with regard to the reasonableness of any assumption, this
section discusses the impact on cost-effectiveness of changes in the
assumptions. Two categories of changes are discussed: (1) impacts of
Eco-Cycle; and (2) impacts of inflation -- specifically, increases in capital
charges, O&M costs, and projected revenues.
1. Impact of Eco-Cycle. There is no basic incompatibility between the
continued existence of Eco-Cycle (or other separate collection programs) and the
resource recovery options discussed in this report. This is not to say that
Eco-Cycle would not have impacts on the resource recovery options. On the
contrary, it could have significant effects if it reaches its projected level of
activity, due to loss of scale economies and loss of revenues, both resulting
from smaller facility size. But to say this is to view only part of the
picture. Total waste disposal costs for the County would undoubtedly be lower
if Eco-Cycle reaches projections, since the portion of the waste they remove is
handled at little or no cost.
Table 25 shows the impact of Eco-Cycle on a 308 TPD waste stream. Costs and
revenues are estimated for modular incineration before and after removal of
Eco-Cycle's 52 TPD. The second option represents a smaller facility -- not a
308 TPD facility running at lower capacity. As the table shows, if Eco-Cycle
removes 38 TPD of paper and 14 TPD of non-combustibles, the rise in O&M costs
69
-------
Table 24
Site-specific Cost Considerations for Modular Incineration Facilities
1.
2.
3.
Option
City Yards
University of
Colorado
Valmont
(1)
Land Cost
Total Per Ton
$ 90,000 $ 0.14
392,000 0.62
30,000 0.05
(2)
Chnage in
Transports^
tion Cost-
Per Ton
$ -2.94
-3.39
-2.40
(3)
Total Adjustments
to Tipping Fee.
Based on Site-
Specific Consi-
derations-
$ -2.80
-2.77
-2.35
(4)
Effective
Tipping Fee
308 TPD ,,
Facility-'
$ 5.53
5.56
5.98
(5)
Effective
Tipping Fee
156 TPD ,,
Facility-7
$ 8.55
8.58
9.00
I/ Compared to the cost of transporting waste to Marshall and Longmont landfills.
2/ Column 1 plus Column 2.
3/ Tipping fees from Table 20 minus amount in Column 3. We have used the term "effective tipping fee"
because savings in transportation cost would have the same effect on haulers as a reduction in tipping
fees. Tipping fees would, however, remain in the $8.00-9.00 range for 308 TPD and in the $11.00-12.00
range for 156 TPD, as shown in Table 20.
-------
Table 25
Impact of 52 TPD EccrCycle Program on Modular Incinerator
Tipping Fees (in $/Ton)
Option
Without Eco-Cycle-
l/
With Eco-Cycle-
2/
Tipping
Capital Cost + O&M Cost - Revenues = Fee
$12.77
$12.77
$ 9.56
$10.59
$14.00 $8.33
$14.00 $9.36
I/ 308 TPD Facility
2/ 256 TPD Facility
71
-------
would be $1.03 per ton. Resulting tipping fees are $9.36, an increase of 12.4
per cent.
If Eco-Cycle continues to operate at its present size, the impacts on a
modular incinerator are minimal. Current Eco-Cycle operations handle only four
per cent of the total study area waste stream, an amount too small to be of
concern.
It is also important to note that operations of Eco-Cycle at either the
current or projected level would not affect the ability of a resource recovery
facility to produce steam (or RDF) of acceptable quality. At its projected
level, Eco-Cycle would remove substantial amounts of combustible material
(paper) from the waste stream, but the amount of paper removed would not have a
marked impact on the composition of the remaining stream. Removing 38 TPD of
paper and 14 TPD of non-combustibles leaves the remaining waste stream 69.5 per
cent combustible, a decline of only 0.5 per cent.
2. Impact of Inflation. Cost figures used in this analysis have all been
expressed in 1981 dollars. Actual cost of a facility and revenues from its
operation would be substantially higher, due to the effects of inflation. The
effects will not be proportional: because revenues will be received in later
years than costs are incurred, inflation should have beneficial impacts on the
cost-effectiveness of the system. The factor least affected by inflation will
be capital costs: these are incurred once, at the time of construction, and can
be amortized at a constant rate over the life of the facility. Table 26
escalates capital costs to 1984 dollars (the year in which most would be
spent). Costs were escalated at an annual 8.4 per cent rate, which represents
the actual rate of increase in construction cost from 1975 to 1980.1 O&M costs
presented in Table 26 are escalated at an 8 percent annual rate. Revenues are
1 Source: Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
72
-------
Table 26
Impact of Hypothetical Inflation on Tipping Fees
for Modular Incineration (In $/ton)
Cost 1981 1985 1990
Facility Size Category Cost Cost% Change Cost% Change
308 TPD Capital $12.77 $16.27 +31.3% $16.27 +31.3%
O&M 9.56 13.01 +36.12; 19.12 +100.0%
Revenues 14.00 20.50 +46.4% 33.02 +135.8%
Tipping Fee 8.33 8.78 +5.4% 2.37 -71.5%
156 TPD Capital $12.77 $16.27 +31.3% $16.27 +31.3%
O&M 12.58 17.12 +36.1% 25.16 +100.0%
Revenues 14.00 20.50 +46.4% 33.02 +135.8%
Tipping Fee 11.35 12.89 +13.6% 8.41 -25.9%
73
-------
escalated at a 10 percent annual rate. The table shows the results of this set
of inflation projections on tipping fees for 1985 and 1990 for two sizes of
incinerator. Tipping fees increase at a slower rate than all other costs,
particularly for the large facility. In fact, by 1990, tipping fees are lower
than current levels: for the 308 TPD facility, the decline will be to $2.37 per
ton; for the smaller facility, to $8.41 per ton.
These numbers can, of course, be adjusted to portray other scenarios
(other rates of inflation). The point is simply that if energy costs continue
to rise faster than the general inflation rate, then tipping fees for modular
incinerators will decline both in relative and eventually in absolute terms.
74
-------
VI. IMPACTS ON EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS
This section of the report is included at this time primarily to indicate
that there will be impacts on existing organizations -- including landfill
operators, haulers of solid waste and Eco-Cycle -- if a resource recovery
facility is constructed.
The exact nature of the impacts will depend on the size and location of the
new facility and the arrangements made for supplying it with solid waste.
The most significant impacts may be those on landfill operators, primarily
Landfill Inc., the operator of Marshall landfill. Approximately 308 TPD of
waste would be diverted from Marshall landfill to a resource recovery facility.
At current tipping fees, this would lower revenues by approximately $225,000 per
year. The impact of this revenue loss on the operator and on tipping fees,
however, cannot be gauged without access to proprietary data. It should be
noted that Marshall landfill would continue to handle a substantial volume from
areas outside Boulder and Longmont, seasonal variation and growth in waste
volume beyond the capacity of the resource recovery facility, facility down
time, construction debris, and other sources. This volume would average at
least 150 TPD.
The Longmont landfill currently handles 200 TPD of waste, half of which is
derived from the City of Longmont. However, since the City operates the
landfill and does not charge itself tipping fees, there would be little or no
impact on revenues if the City were to sent its waste to a resource recovery
facility.
Private haulers of solid waste would be affected by the opening of a
resource facility in two ways: 1) their transportation costs would decline,
under each of the options; but 2) they might be the object of new regulations
designed to ensure that they deliver a sufficient amount of waste to a resource
recovery facility. These impacts can be addressed only after the City or County
assess their options with regard to control of the waste stream and a site for
the facility is chosen.
75
-------
Finally, Eco-Cycle could be affected by the decision to construct a resource
recovery facility if that decision is coupled with a lessening of governmental
or individual commitments to recycling. We have stressed in this report that
there is no basic incompatibility between recycling and resource recovery. In
fact, among the recommendations presented in the next chapter is the recommenda-
tion that further data be collected on the costs of source separation and recy-
cling, with the objective of minimizing the areas's total waste collection and
disposal costs. Impacts on Eco-Cycle would be estimated as one result of such a
study.
76
-------
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
This report recommends that Boulder County and the Cities of Boulder and
Longmont proceed with the next phase (Selection Phase) of planning a modular
incineration facility. Of the technologies considered in this report, modular
incineration appears to have clear advantages based on significantly lower costs
and greater system reliability.
If a modular incinerator were to be constructed, the best site would be one
that is close to a potential customer. Of three areas considered in this re-
port, the Public Service Company's Valmont site would appear to be the best
suited for an incinerator, although City Yards and the University of Colorado
may also be acceptable. Advantages of the Valmont site are: 1) available land;
2) proximity to the steam customer; 3) ability of a single customer to commit
itself for the life of the project; 4) compatibility of proposed and existing
land use; and 5) potential ash disposal on site.
Siting a facility near the University presents questions concerning the
availability of land and the compatibility of the project with current and pro-
jected land use. At City Yards, on the other hand, the principal drawback is
the absence of a single large customer whose continued existence through the
life of the project is assured.
The Selection Phase is the major decision step in resource recovery imple-
mentation because through it the general outlines of the resource recovery pack-
age to be procured are determined. This includes questions of technical con-
cept, management alternatives, financing, and strategy for actually procuring
the recovery plant. Specifically, the following steps should be undertaken in
the Selection Phase:
1) The Public Service Company, the University of Colorado, and the City should
undertake preliminary costing of the most feasible alternative, including
costs of modifications to existing facilities.
77
-------
2) The County or the Cities of Boulder and Longmont should begin sampling the
waste stream to determine its exact quantity and characteristics.
3) The City or County of Boulder must take steps to ensure a waste supply for
the facility. At present, private haulers control waste disposal in the
City of Boulder, with local government unable to direct its disposition.
The initial phase of this step would be to explore legal options and
requirements at the State, County and municipal levels.
4) Further examination of the pollution control requirements - particularly
air pollution - for a modular incinerator in Boulder should be undertaken
with emphasis on the cost and reliability of any equipment that may be
requi red.
5) The County or the Cities of Boulder and Longmont should examine the cost of
an expanded source separation/recycling effort as a method of minimizing
total collection and disposal costs. The data presented in this report are
insufficient to judge the relative cost-effectiveness of efforts to expand
source separation and recycling versus resource recovery.
6) The City of Longmont should conduct an analysis of the feasibility of
constructing a transfer station for its solid waste. The analysis should
consider sites available for the station, and the total cost of waste
delivery to the three potential resource recovery sites, including capital,
operating and maintenance, and transportation costs.
7) When the above steps have been completed, a more detailed feasibility study
for the entire project must be prepared. This study would summarize the
results of steps 1 to 6, present detailed information concerning the viable
options, and make recommendations for the next phase of implementation.
Additionally, during the Selection Phase (preferably near the beginning of
this phase), a lead agency should be chosen from all of the participating
entities to provide a focal point for resolving issues and making decisions in
such areas as facility ownership, operating, financing, etc.
78
-------
Following completion of the Selection Phase, the Detailed Planning Phase
should be commenced. Detailed planning may include the following list of tasks:
1) environmental assessment of alternative sites;
2) selection of site;
3) integration of projects with County Solid Waste Management Plan;
4) identification of firm markets;
5) develop proposed implementation plan which includes the permits and
approval necessary to construct project;
6) undertake preliminary negotiations for land, financing, revenues, etc.
7) preliminary design at selected site in sufficient detail to perform an
assessment of economic feasibility;
8) detailed assessment of alternatives and selection of recommended project;
9) detailed economic and technical feasibility study which includes the
project's waste sources as defined in sub-task 3.
The last planning phase which immediately precedes actual construction of
the facility is the Implementation Phase. This Phase includes the following:
1) complete the design and conclude owner-operator agreements;
2) complete-land acquisition;
3) obtain plans, specifications, and bids on major equipment;
4) produce a refined cost estimate for entire project;
5) complete the design plans in sufficient detail to satisfy bond
underwriters;
6) complete the financing plan;
7) complete the energy and materials market contract negotiations to level of
letters of intent to bid;
8) prepare draft Environmental Impact Report;
9) obtain final EIR approval or equivalent action to conclude environmental
regulatory requirement;
10) obtain State and local permits.
79
------- |