REPORT TO CONGRESS:
EXTENDING THE USEFUL LIFE OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
AND REUSING LANDFILL AREAS
(PHASE ONE)
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 1987
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for the Special Wastes Branch,
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by
two organizations. Dr. James Noble at the Center for Environ-
mental Management, Tufts University, prepared Part One entitled
Cooperative Landfill Arrangements, under an EPA grant. Part
Two, Methane Production from Closed Landfills, was prepared
by SCS Engineers under EPA Contract No. 68-01-7290. SCS
personnel involved were Gary Mitchell and Gregory Vogt. The
EPA Project Officer on both parts was Michael Flynn, and the
EPA reviewers were Allen Maples and Allen Geswein.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMlnAKY LS-1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Part I v
Part II vi
PART I - COOPERATIVE LANDFILL ARRANGEMENTS
SECTION 1 - Introduction 1-1
SECTION 2 - Rationale and Background for Cooperative
Landfills 2-1
2.1 Motivation for Cooperative Landfill Arrangements 2-1
2.2 Economies of Scale 2-2
2.3 Structure of Cooperative Arrangements 2-4
2.4 Current Practice of Cooperative Landfillin-j 2-5
2.5 Case Examples 2-8
2.6 Potential Barriers to Cooperative Landfilling 2-11
2.7 Overcoming The Barriers 2-12
2.8 References 2-13
SECTION 3 - Establishing Cooperative Landfill
Arrangements 3-1
3.1 Process for Developing a Cooperative Arrangement 3-2
3.2 Role of Public Participation 3-2
3.3 Forms of Organization 3-3
3.4 Elements of a Cooperative Arrangement 3-5
3.4.1 Management Issues 3-7
3.4.2 Facilities Issues 3-7
3.4.3 Regulatory Issues 3-7
3.4.4 Liability Issues 3-8
3.4.5 Operational Issues 3-9
3.4.6 Cost Issues... 3-9
3 .5 Implementing An Arrangement 3-10
3.6 Roles of State and Federal Government 3-14
3. 7 References 3-15
SECTION 4 - Solid Waste Management Costs 4-1
4.1 Understanding True Costs 4-1
4.2 Component Costs of Landfill Disposal Services 4-1
4.3 Cost Accounting 4-4
4.4 References 4-8
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
SECTION 5 - Equity Considerations and Compensation
Methods 5-1
5.1 Equity Considerations 5-1
5.1.1 Host Municipality 5-1
5.1.2 Loss of Future Capacity 5-3
5.1.3 Guest Municipality 5-3
5.1.4 Liability 5-4
5.2 Use and Calculation of Tipping Fee 5-5
5.3 Alternative Methods of Compensation 5-7
5.4 References 5-1U
SECTION 6 - Conclusions and Recommendations fo-1
PART II - METKAKE PRODUCTION AT CLOSED LANDFILLS
SECTION 7 - Introduction 7-1
SECTION 8 - Potential Benefits and Dangers of Landfill
Gas 8-1
8.1 Recovery and Use 8-1
8.2 Migration and Explosion 8-8
8.3 Regulations 8-9
8.4 Other Environmental Considerations 8-15
8.5 References 8-17
SECTION 9 - Landfill Gas Generation 9-1
9.1 References 9-4
SECTION lu - Landfill Gas Recovery 10-1
10.1 Uses of Recovered Gas lu-1
10.2 Criteria for Site Selection 10-3
10.3 Technical Factors Related to LFG Recovery 10-7
lu.4 Landfill Gas Processing 10-11
10 . 5 References 10-lb
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
SECTION 11 - Safety Considerations and Potential
Consequences of Not Recovering or
Controlling Landfill Gas 11-1
11.1 Safety 11-1
11.2 Potential Consequences .of Not Recovering or
Controlling LFG 11-2
SECTION 12 - Factors Affecting Economics of Gas
Recovery 12-1
12.1 Landfill Considerations 12-1
12.2 Market Considerations 12-3
12.2.1 Medium-Btu Uses 12-3
12.2.2 Electrical Generation 12-b
12.2.3 High-Btu Uses 12-7
12.3 References 12-10
SECTION 13 - Decision-Makers ' Guide 13-1
13.1 Minimum Criteria 13-1
13.2 Revenue Vs. Cost Comparison 13-2
13.3 Field Test 13-7
13.4 References 13-9
SECTION 14 - Summary and Conclusions 14-1
iv
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS - COOPERATIVE LANDFILL ARRANGEMENTS
Number Page
2-1 Solid Waste Disposal Responsibility and Policies
for Ten States 2-7
3-1 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Types
of hultijurisdictional Approaches 3-4
3-2 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Public
and Private Ownership and Operation of Disposal
Facilities, and the Conditions That Favor Each
Type of Operation 3-6
3-3 Characteristics of Capital Financing Methods
Available for Solid Waste Management Facilities.... 3-llA
3-4 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of
Different Capital Financing Methods, and the
Conditions that Favor Each 3-12
4-1 Landfill Costs: 1975-1985 4-3
4-2 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of
Taxes and User Charges as Sources of Operating
Revenues and the Conditions that Favor Each 4-6
5-1 An Evaluation Matrix of Incentive and
Compensation Techniques 5-8
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS - METHANE PRODUCTION FROM CLOSED LANDFILLS
Number Page
8-1. Active LFG Recovery Sites 8-3
8-2. Planned LFG Recovery Sites 8-5
8-3. LFG Recovery Sites by End Use and Size 8-7
8-4. Landfill Gas Migration Damage Cases 8-10
9-1. Example of LFG Generation Vs. Time 9-2
10-1. Landfall Gas Recovery System 10-8
10-2. Typical Extraction Well Installation 10-9"
10-3. Generalized Schematic of LFG Processing 10-13
13-1. Typical Capital and 0 & M Costs 13-8
VI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The mandate for this study is found in the 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under Section 702 [8002(s)L Congress
directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undertake
seven studies with the common theme of extending the useful life
of solid waste landfills. The text of Section 8002(s) is as
follows:
The Administrator shall conduct detailed, comprehen-
sive studies of methods to extend the useful life of
sanitary landfills and to better use sites in which
filled or closed landfills are located. Such studies
shall address—
(1) methods to reduce the volume of materials
before placement in landfills;
(2) more efficient systems for depositing
waste in landfills;
(3) methods to enhance the rate of decomposition
of solid waste in landfills, in a safe
and environmentally acceptable manner;
(4) methane production from closed landfill
units;
(5) innovative uses of closed landfill sites,
including use for energy production such
as solar or wind energy and use for metals
recovery;
(6) potential for use of sewage treatment
sludge in reclaiming landfilled areas; and
(7) methods to coordinate use of a landfill owned
by one municipality by nearby municipalities,
and to establish equitable rates for such use,
taking into account the need to provide future
landfill capacity to replace that so used.
ES-1
-------
This Report to Congress on Section 8002(s) will be
completed in two phases. Phase I, the present report, will
address Section 8002(s)(7), methods to coordinate use of a
landfill owned by one municipality with nearby municipalities
and Section 8002(s)(4), methane production from closed landfill
units. Phase II, to be completed at a future date, will cover
the remaining five areas.
The reader should be aware of several other related acti-
vities currently being undertaken by EPA. The Agency is preparing
a second Report to Congress on the Subtitle D Study, which will
address the adequacy of the current guidelines governing the
disposal of solid waste. These guidelines, or Criteria, are
entitled "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR Part 257). This report is
due to Congress by November 1987. The third major effort by
EPA in the solid waste disposal (or Subtitle D) area is the
revising of these Criteria. EPA is required to publish final
revisions by March 1988.
The present report is divided into two parts. Part One
addresses Cooperative Landfill Arrangements and Part Two
addresses Methane Production From Landfills.
Cooperative Landfill Arrangements (Part One)
The purpose of this part of the report is to discuss
methods to coordinate use of sanitary landfills owned by one
municipality with nearby municipalities. Cooperative landfill
arrangements are in place in several areas of the United States
and Canada. Cooperatives can extend the useful capacity of
ES-2
-------
landfills and can offer savings for participating members. It
is often easier to site one larger state-of-the-art landfill
than several smaller landfills. Institutional difficulties
can act as potential barriers to the forming of a cooperative
arrangement. With the use of mediation and dispute resolution,
however, these barriers can be overcome.
The process for developing a cooperative arrangement
involves the following steps: development of a conceptual
agreement among participants; determination of options for
management of facilities; selection of landfill sites; ratifi-
cation of a final arrangement; and implementation of that
arrangement. A well-structured public participation program
throughout this process will help ensure success of the arrangement
Strong motivation on the part of one of the municipalities
is usually required in order to get the process moving to form
a cooperative.
Cooperative landfill use is best coordinated through a
written arrangement which specifies the roles, rights, and
responsibilities of the participants. This written arrangement
should address the following key issues: management, facilities,
regulations, liability, operation, and cost.
The equity of costs and benefits is a prime concern for all
participants in cooperative landfills because of possible uneven
distribution between host and guest municipalities. Methods
of compensation for the host community should be selected.
Negotiation techniques provide a useful mechanism to equitably
distribute these costs and benefits.
ES-3
-------
. In summary, cooperative landfill arrangements are a viable
option for municipalities dealing with solid waste management
issues. Current experience shows that these arrangements can
work and that this type of landfill use merits the active
support of State and Federal governments. EPA supports the
concept of cooperative arrangements as a means to achieve better
landfilling practices.
Methane Production From Closed Landfills (Part Two)
At both closed and operating landfills, landfill gas (LFG)
is generated as a product of the decomposition of organic matter.
Landfill gas can be either a hazard or a benefit at closed and
operating landfills. Hazards are associated with the explosive
potential of the methane content of LFG. Some concern has been
expressed about the presence of trace constituents in LFG, which
may include volatile organic compounds, such as benzene or toluene,
These trace constituents comprise less than 1% of the LFG.
LFG generation begins almost immediately upon burial of the
waste and increases rapidly with steady generation beginning
within several months to a year. Relatively steady generation
may continue for 10 years or longer. The rate of the LFG
production is dependent on a number of site-specific factors:
the age of the landfill, moisture content and distribution, and
solid waste composition and quantity.
LFG generated at closed and operating landfills poses a
concern for safety. LFG can migrate both horizontally and
vertically below the surface and may pose an explosive danger
ES-4
-------
on the surface of the landfill and nearby surroundings;
fatalities and property damage have resulted from LFG explosions.
Control of these gases through recovery and utilization systems
or control systems can reduce the danger of explosion and may
help abate odors, thus aiding in the beneficial future use of
closed landfills.
Recovery of LFG for beneficial use is currently practiced
at more than 50 locations nationwide with more than 40 other
systems in the planning stages. The quantity, quality, and
collectability of LFG, and the availability of markets are
factors critical to the success of a LFG recovery project.
Assuming that LFG markets are present, potential recovery sites
are generally evaluated based on the following criteria:
amount of refuse, refuse composition and moisture content, and
age of the landfill.
The recovery of LFG is attractive because it can reduce
gas-related dangers while generating revenue. LFG can be recovered
and used as a replacement for or as a supplement to natural gas.
Such recovery of LFG is generally limited to relatively large
sites which have a nearby market for the recovered gas.
The recovery of gas via collection systems can help achieve
the positive aspects of migration control, control of surface
emissions, and recovery of an alternative fuel. Recovery
systems withdrawing LFG can control migration and thus reduce
the potential for explosions. Systems recovering LFG for energy
also help control horizontal migration and surface emissions.
Regulations for LFG exist at both the Federal and State
ES-5
-------
level. Federal standards establish criteria for methane concen-
trations in the soil at a landfill's property boundary and in
structures on the site. Several States have adopted regulations
concerning LFG that include gas control/migration at both
operating and closed landfills. Closure requirements often
address landfill gas concerns. Some States have requirements
for relatively large landfills to collect or vent any LFG that
is generated. Two States have regulations that encourage or
require collection rather than just venting of LFG.
In most parts of the country the recovery of LFG is based
almost exclusively on the value of the gas as a fuel. Where it
is profitable to recover LFG, it will be recovered. The control
of gas migration is related to site-specific situations and is
driven by safety considerations as well.
The recovery of LFG as fuel currently rests on economics.
Capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for LFG
recovery systems can be quite high. Thus, the right combination
of site conditions, gas volumes and market conditions must be
present to make recovery attractive for financial reasons only.
Capital costs will always be well over $1 million; annual
O&M costs are estimated to be more than 10 percent of capital
costs.
As more States and possibly the Federal government, move
toward additional LFG regulation, recovery will become increas-
ingly attractive. As these regulations become more common,
installation of recovery systems will become more popular for
both closed and operating sites. In addition to the economic
ES-6
-------
benefits, LFG recovery will aid in meeting landfill surface
emission criteria and/or help control horizontal migration.
The combination of positive and negative motivators (the value
of the gas as a fuel and the regulations) may result in more
sites with control systems.
ES-7
-------
PART ONE
COOPERATIVE LANDFILL ARRANGEMENTS
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This portion of the report addresses methods to coordinate
the use of sanitary landfills owned by one municipality with
nearby municipalities. The focus is the identification of
major issues that may affect implementation of these municipal
cooperative landfill arrangements.
Cooperative landfilling is a voluntary arrangement whereby
a municipality shares its landfill space with other municipalities
under a set of operating rules and compensation mechanisms. A .
cooperative arrangement can be financially attractive because a
group of municipalities may have large enough waste volumes to
achieve economies of scale in its operations.
Cooperative sanitary landfills can be generally defined as
shared facilities established for the benefit of participating
municipalities. The term "municipalities" includes cities and
towns, counties/ or other local jurisdictions. A discussion of
the comparative merits of privately owned regional landfills
is beyond the scope of this study.
As in the case of many other solid waste options, actual
modes of implementation of cooperative landfill use may vary
considerably and are site- and region-specific. A cooperative
landfill can service as few as two communities. The simplest
arrangement might base one cooperative landfill in one host
community to serve all members. Alternatively, several
communities may decide to upgrade and use their joint capacity
1-1
-------
in turn. Other more innovative uses have included bartering,
in which resource-recovery facility privileges are traded for
the right to dispose of residue.
The main advantages of cooperative landfill arrangements
relate to potential siting flexibility, the economies of scale,
and the ability to pool participating communities' resources.
Appropriate landfill sites may not exist within a particular
community. Because the siting of any solid waste facility is
difficult, communities may find it easier to establish one,
larger state-of-the-art landfill with good environmental control,
rather than siting several smaller, less sophisticated facili- .
ties. In principle, the larger size of cooperative landfills
and the fact that they might operate under the auspices of
larger political entities may allow:
e Improved environmental compliance through state-of-
the-art technology and increased accountability;
0 Greater variety of funding alternatives;
0 Novel means to address liability and risk;
0 Improved operational controls as a result of
economies of scale; and
0 Improved space utilization owing to better
compaction technology and the need for less
daily cover material.
Increasing desire for more sophisticated management and
landfill technology may well lead to the closing of many smaller,
less sophisticated landfills in the following several years.
Experience over the past ten years indicates a trend toward the
closure of smaller sanitary landfills.
1-2
-------
This report also addresses cooperative landfill imple-
mentation. A major impediment to such implementation is that
different governmental entities may have diverse and conflicting
interests and needs. Further impediments to implementaton are
the apparent lack of precedents and appropriate institutional
role models, and the issue of equity. These impediments can
be overcome, however, through the use of dispute resolution
techniques.
The issue of equity is a key component in fashioning a
successful arrangement. Equity is defined as the sharing in a
fair manner, of the costs and benefits among the members of
the landfill arrangement. Equity relates to both host and guest
municipalities. This is especially true for finance, risk and
liability questions. In addition to the issue of equitable fee
structures, provisions for future landfill needs of the host
community is also addressed.
Part I of this report includes six major sections. Section
1 provides an introduction and Section 2 describes the rationale
and background for cooperative landfill arrangements. Factors
that may make cooperative landfilling attractive are reviewed
and include: limited alternatives for waste disposal, reduced
costs compared with operating a single-municipality landfill,
history of cooperation among prospective cooperative members,
and reasonable distances between participants. Economies of
scale are an important motivating factor for forming cooperatives
and several examples are given.
1-3
-------
Section 2 also discusses the wide variation in prospective
members and indicates that cooperative arrangements must be
crafted carefully to address different interests. The current
practice of cooperative landfilling is described in general
terms, and examples of cooperative landfills are presented.
Some potential barriers to widespread implementation of coopera-
tive landfill arrangements are identified. The use of dispute
resolution techniques, especially mediation, in overcoming
these barriers is discussed.
Section 3 describes forms of a cooperative organization
and outlines a method for coordinating landfill .use by focusing
on elements that should be addressed in a written agreement
among the members. A process for developing an agreement is
described, and the important role of public participation is
highlighted. Elements in the written agreement include issues
of management, facilities, regulations, liability, operations,
and costs. Features of implementation, such as measures of
performance by responsible parties, are addressed, as are
techniques for accommodating changing circumstances (i.e.,
withdrawal or addition of participants). Various supportive
activities that could be undertaken by State or local governments
are identified.
Section 4 focuses on costs, which are a major motivating
factor for municipalities to enter into cooperative landfill
arrangements. Components of landfill costs, such as collection,
transportation and disposal are enumerated. These cost factors
form an important basis for allowing comparisons between coopera-
1-4
-------
tive landfilling and other disposal methods and for negotiating
equitable rates in a cooperative arrangement.
Section 5 discusses methods for establishing equitable
rates that take into account the need to provide future waste
disposal capacity for participants. Several of the costs to
the host municipality can be quantified and can be reflected in
the tipping fee. These include landfill development and opera-
tional costs, closure and post-closure care, "disamenities"
(e.g., noise, litter, and odors), loss of development potential,
and road wear. Other costs include environmental and health
risks, which are best addressed by liability insurance. Other.
costs that cannot be quantified are best addressed through
negotiation or mediation between prospective members.
Section 6 contains the conclusions and recommendations for
the report. The major conclusion is that cooperative landfill
arrangements are a solid waste disposal option that merits
consideration. These cooperative arrangements are a viable
option for municipalities searching for additional landfill
capacity. Cooperatives can extend the useful life of landfills
through more efficient use of space. Municipalities should be
encouraged to take advantage of the benefits of these cooperative
landfill arrangements.
1-5
-------
SECTION 2
RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND FOR COOPERATIVE LANDFILLS
Cooperative arrangements can offer advantages over single-
municipality landfills, but such arrangements have not become
common. This section describes favorable conditions for
cooperative landfill development, with an emphasis on savings
that can accrue from larger-scale operations. Background
information is provided on a variety of types of cooperative
arrangements, on current cooperative landfilling activities
and on potential impediments to cooperative arrangements.
MOTIVATION FOR COOPERATIVE LANDFILL ARRANGEMENTS
Cooperative arrangements allow participating communities
to share sanitary landfills according to agreed on operating
rules. Such arrangements can benefit:
0 Communities that have run out of landfill
capacity and have no alternative available
in the foreseeable future;
c Communities that have a small number of
suitable landfill site candidates; and
0 Communities that desire to save money by
achieving economies of scale for equipment,
operation and personnel.
If these basic conditions are met, three additional factors
could contribute to a community's decision to consider the
cooperative landfill option. While it is not necessary to have
each of these conditions to establish a successful cooperative
agreement, the more that are available will lead to a better
chance of success. They are:
2-1
-------
0 The existence cf an operating landfill in at least
one of the potentially interested communities.
This condition avoids the obstacle of siting a new
facility.
0 A history of cooperative efforts by potential
participants. Experience and trust gained through
the experience of cooperative efforts have proven
to be important to the ten-year-old regional
landfill program in Alberta, Canada.(1)
0 Reasonable proximity between potential cooperative
landfill communities. Rural communities with
small landfill sites may be too remote to make
cooperative arrangements economically feasible.
Particularly, the increased cost of transportation
could be greater than any potential savings of
landfill costs.
While all of these elements are important, many describe condi-
tions (such as lack oi appropriate sites or distance between
communities) over which municipal decision-makers have relatively
little control. However, efforts to save money by achieving
economies in landfill operation are clearly within the realm of
decision-makers. The next discussion focuses on this important
aspect of cooperative landfills.
ECONOMIES OF SCALE
Landfill operations are typically classified by the amount
of waste they receive, with "small" being less then 200 tons
per day and "large" being greater than 1,000 tons per day (2).
There is a correlation between increases in waste received
and increases in certain costs. Other unit costs, however,
decrease as the amount of waste increases. One such economy of
scale concerns daily landfill cover material. The industry
rule of thumb is to estimate a l-to-4 ratio between cover
2-2
-------
material and solid waste. (3) However, smaller landfills can use
up to twice as much cover material per unit of solid waste due
to their smaller daily waste accumulations. (4) There is
obviously the opportunity for substantial economic savings,
especially if a landfill is importing cover material from an
off-site source.
Another important area in which economies of scale operate
is the purchase of compacting equipment. The most efficient
compactors are the least versatile machines. Therefore, a
small operation will typically own a tractor that can perform
a variety of functions, including site preparation, spreading
cover materials and waste compaction. Larger landfills can
support the cost of a specialized steel-wheeled compactor that
will extend the life of the landfill by producing greater
compaction rates.
Larger landfills have the potential to spread the cost
of ancillary support and maintenance facilities and monitoring
systems over a larger volume of waste. Support costs include:
weighing refuse and collecting fees, billing, maintenance,
supervision, shelters, access roads and utilities. The cost
of monitoring systems and other environmental controls, such as
leachate and methane gas controls, is likely to increase the
minimum practical size of landfills in the future.
New landfills can plan for economies of scale by incorpor-
ating minimum solid waste flow needs into the design process
and can ensure that they are achieved through cooperative
arrangements, market studies, and rate structures. Existing
2-3
-------
landfills can take advantage of economies of scale by increasing
the waste stream with a cooperative arrangement. The following
discussion indicates the variety of cooperative arrangements
that may be developed to help communities benefit from landfill
sharing.
STRUCTURE OF COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Several circumstances exist in which cooperative arrange-
ments for landfill use between municipalities may be advantageous.
An important distinguishing factor is whether a new landfill is
to be established, or whether one or more existing landfills
will continue in operation. In these two cases, the determination
of the host community, siting issues, risk and liability issues,
and a range of factors affecting choice may be quite different.
Several variations on these basic cases are possible:
0 A single multi-'purpose landfill may serve the
solid waste disposal needs of all members of
the cooperative;
0 Several limited-purpose landfills (general
refuse, construction/demolition wastes, trees
and stumps, bulky wastes, for example) could
be located in different municipalities; and
0 Several general-purpose landfills could be
used sequentially by cooperative members, with
different members serving as "host" in turn.
Regardless of the general configuration of the cooperative,
communities must address issues such as siting new facilities,
expanding or modifying existing facilities, and closure of
existing facilities. The negotiation processes and agreements
will vary with the type, condition, and number of solid waste
2-4
-------
facilities in member communities. Given these factors, there
will be considerable variation in the extent of responsibility
and the role of cooperative members who will enter into a
facility-siting process. Thus, some cooperative members may be
required to make capital expenditures, or may be required to
comply with statutory and regulatory requirements regarding
facility establishment, modification, or closure. Similarly,
some members must develop, maintain or expand the capability to
manage and operate a landfill. The manner in which the indivi-
dual members approach a cooperative venture to address equity,
compensation, risk management, and liability also can vary
significantly. Section 3 discusses the types of information
that should be included in a written agreement among communities.
The next discussion provides information on the current
practice of cooperative landfills.
CURRENT PRACTICE OF COOPERATIVE LANDFILLING
No listing of cooperative landfills operating in the
United States is currently available. This report relies on
publications and personal communications with State officials
as data sources.
The existing literature on landfilling is dominated by
publications from the mid-1970s, a period of substantial Federal
funding for solid waste studies. Apparently very little infor-
mation has been published on cooperative landfill use. The few
papers mentioning the subject from 1973 to the present appear
in U.S. EPA case studies of solid waste practices in various
2-5
-------
urban areas across the nation (5). One case study reviews
solid waste management in the Detroit metropolitan area, noting
an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a regional landfill arrangement
(6). A case study of Fresno, California, mentions regional
landfill facilities as one potential solution to an impending
shortage (7). There are no recent contributions to the litera-
ture on cooperative landfill usage that could be found.
Cooperative landfills presently exist in various forms in
the United States. For purposes of this study/ ten States were
contacted that reportedly had or planned to create cooperative
landfills. Eight of these States have laws or programs
encouraging the planning and implementation of cooperative
landfills, but cooperatives still appear to be in the initial
stages of development. These contacts provided information
concerning the existence of, or plans for, cooperative landfills
in each State and the potential for this type of landfill's
further development.
A summary of the jurisdictional level with primary responsi-
bility for solid waste disposal at each of the States contacted
is shown in Exhibit 2-1. In the majority of States contacted,
some communities have come together to form inter-municipal
solid waste disposal arrangements. Two States, Delaware and
New Jersey, have strong controls at the State level that are
exercised at the county level.
2-6
-------
EXHIBIT 2-1.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND POLICIES FOR TEN STATES
I II III IV
Connecticut x x
Delaware x x
Illinois x x
Massachusetts x x
New Jersey x x x
New York x x
Oregon x
Pennsylvania x x x
Virginia x
Wisconsin x
I. Municipality has primary responsibility for solid waste
disposal in the State.
II. State has primary responsibility for solid waste
disposal/ exercised through the county level.
III. State has enacted law encouraging intergovernmental
solid waste disposal agreements.
IV. State has policy encouraging intergovernmental
arrangements for solid waste disposal.
2-7
-------
Case Examples
The following is a summary of cooperative landfilling
efforts in the ten States contacted. Information provided here
was obtained in telephone interviews with spokespersons for the
State environmental protection agencies.
i
Connecticut - This state has 169 municipalities.
Eighty of them transport municipal solid waste to
facilities outside their jurisdictions. However,
many of the communities using other municipalities '
facilities pay tipping fees for disposal privileges.
The towns of Windsor and Bloomfield have had a coop-
erative arrangement since 1972. The host landfill
is located in Windsor, handles about 200 tons per
day, and receives no special host compensation.
The cooperative does not accept waste originating
in other towns.
- A autonomous State solid waste authority
nas existed since 1975. It controls the State's
three landfilling facilities in each of three
counties: Kent, New Castle, and Sussex. The
authority's control over the flow of solid waste
virtually eliminates inter-county use of landfills.
Each county facility serves all the municipalities
within the county's jurisdiction. Each county
landfill has about 20 years of remaining capacity.
The regional nature of the landfills has allowed
the construction of state-of-the-art facilities,
in part, due to the economies of scale achieved.
Illinois - This State passed a law in 1984 (Public
Act 84-963) that greatly assists intergovernmental
agreements for solid waste disposal by eliminating
anti-competition issues from municipal commitment
of solid waste to a disposal facility (8). The
Lake County Landfill, now in the planning stages,
will be an example of a landfill with cooperative
features.
Massachusetts - This State has about 170 municipal
landfills. Eight of these accept municipal solid
waste from beyond their own jurisdiction (9). The
arrangements are generally ad hoc, resulting from
the closing of an existing landfill. The proposed
State solid waste plan endorses regional solid waste
management, especially for combustion facilities
and their ash fills.
2-8
-------
New Jersey - New Jersey has a unique control system
using the State Department of Environment Protection
(DEP) and the Board of Public Utilities (BPU). The
State has ninety-three public and private landfills,
but eleven of them handle about 95 percent of the
State's landfilled solid waste (10). The DEP directs
solid waste haulers to certain districts and the
BPU assigns each hauler to specific facilities. The
State discourages inter-district disposal with a
waste importation tax. It also encourages hosting
of regional facilities with a compensation fee on
each ton disposed at the facility.
0 New York - This State has an ash fill planned for
Nassau and Suffolk counties (Long Island) (11).
The facility will be a cooperative for all the
communities in those two counties. The cooperation
has been enhanced with significant State resources
because of the area's dependence on ground water as
drinking water. The facility will have a per ton
surcharge that will go to the host community.
0 Oregon - The Portland Metro Council's St. John's
landfill serving Ciackamas, Multnomah/ and
Washington counties is an example of a cooperative
landfill, and was started in 1932. In 1983, the
Metro Council received responsibility for operations
at the St. John's Landfill. Between 1983 and 1985,
the landfill received several hundred tons of refuse
per day from beyond the three counties in the Metro
Council. Ordinance 85-194 now precludes out-of-
district use of the landfill in order to extend
its useful life. There is a State law imposing
a 50 cent per ton fee that rewards landfill host
communities.
0 Pennsylvania - A recent State law encourages the
transfer of solid waste disposal responsibilities
from the municipal level to the county level (12).
This law was created with solid waste combustion
facility development in mind, but also encourages
cooperative landfills. There are only a few
existing county landfills, most are at the muni-
cipality level. The county facilities typically
serve regions well beyond their border. Because
of the tradition of home rule, however, their
formation required many municipalities to work
together. The Lycoming County Landfill, as an
example, serves more than five counties for
municipal solid waste disposal.
2-9
-------
° Virginia -The primary example of a cooperative
landfill in Virginia is the Lorton Landfill operated
by the Fairfax County Public Works Department. It
is a 400 acre landfill on a 3,000 acre parcel of
Federally-owned land that is under the control of
the District of Columbia (13). The landfill serves
the District of Columbia, Fairfax County, Arlington
County, the City of Alexandria, and the Alexandria
Sanitation Authority, through a memorandum of
understanding. The size, location, and ownership
of this landfill make it unique. Other communities
in Virginia, such as Norfolk, are entering into
coooperative arrangements for refuse combustion
facilities.
0 Wisconsin - The State has about 700 licensed land-
fills. Five to six hundred of these are single
municipality facilities. There are about 20 county
level landfills in existence and another twenty to
thirty in the planning stages. The county level of
government is commonly relied on because individual
municipalities have difficulty in siting landfills
within their own borders. The county assumes
liability as landfill owner and operator. Commonly,
counties exclude non-county wastes to extend the
useful life of the landfills. However, counties
do share landfills in certain situations, such as
during short-term shortages. Examples of county
landfills are found in Lacross and Brown counties.
0 Alberta, Canada - Cooperative landfills have been
endorsed and created to eliminate open dumps (14).
The reason for forming cooperative landfills varies from
case to case. In rural Massachusetts, many informal cooperative
arrangements have resulted from landfill shortfalls, when exist-
ing landfills reached their capacities and no new facilities
had been sited. In Long Island, New York, groups of communities
are attempting to form cooperative landfills to accommodate
solid waste combustion facility ash.
2-10
-------
POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO COOPERATIVE LANDFILLING
Institutional barriers of many types may work against
the formation of cooperative arrangements. Municipalities
unaccustomed to working together to share services may find it
easier to develop individual municipality solutions than to
endure the additional approvals, negotiations, petitions, and
assurances that may be required in cooperative arrangements.
Models for cooperative agreements might serve as a valuable
tool for communities planning or establishing a system of
shared use.
»
Difficulty in establishing equitable rates can be a barrier
and is addressed in Section 5 of this report. However, problems
can occur even when services are bartered. The Massachusetts
towns of Norfolk and Framingham developed a proposal in which
the solid waste from Norfolk was to have been incinerated in
Framingham's incinerator, in exchange for which ash would be
deposited in Norfolk's landfill. The cooperative use never
occurred, however, because Norfolk was concerned over the
potential environmental impacts of landfilling incinerator ash.
The unsuccessful Norfolk/Framingham cooperative illustrates
an important issue with respect to such arrangements: the
unknowns in solid waste disposal are a public concern. Some
of these unknowns could be addressed by performing additional
research on the relevant environmental health issues. In other
cases, deciding whether and how to share liability for a poten-
tial release of contaminants from a landfill may be a crucial
prerequisite to establishing a cooperative use arrangement.
2-11
-------
Although many States and municipalities favor regional
landfilling over single-municipality landfills, few State or
federal incentives for cooperatives appear to be available.
Assistance in developing model programs, resolving legal issues,
providing for public participation, and defraying planning costs
might encourage attempts at cooperatives.
Overcoming These Barriers
Not all of these barriers are unique to cooperative land-
fill arrangements, and many can be overcome with additional
information or assistance. One form of assistance is the
use of dispute resolution techniques, especially mediation.
"Mediation is a negotiation process conducted by an impartial
and independent mediator or third party" (15). Through mediation:
"... parties to a dispute meet face to face to
explore the facts, issues, and various viewpoints
in the dispute and seek to settle their differences
through bargaining and exploring alternative
solutions. If mediation is successful, the parties
jointly develop a compromise agreement, a package of
specified terms that each party can endorse". (16)
Although this EPA reference discusses hazardous waste facilities,
information presented in the report was based on a composite of
several successfully mediated disputes over the operation and
siting of sanitary landfills. There are additional cases demon-
strating the successful use of environmental mediation. (17, 18)
2-12
-------
REFERENCES
1. J. Lapp, Waste Management Branch, Alberta Environment,
Canada, Personal Conununciation, 1986.
2. Robinson, W., ed. 1986. The Solid Waste Handbook: A
Practical Guide. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
p. 31.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Decision-Makers
Guide on Solid Waste Management. SW-500. Washington,
D.C. p. 112.
4. Kelly, M. 1986. Equipment Selection for Landfills. Waste
Age (January): 72.
5. Goddard, H. 1976. Managing Solid Wastes: Economics,
Technology, and Institutions. Praeger, New York,
New York. pp. 237-280.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Detroit's
Municipal Solid Waste Management System. PB 236-662.
Washington, D.C.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Fresno's
Solid Waste Management System. PB 234-141. Washington,
D.C.
8. Stein, S. May 1986. Illinois County Prepares for Regional
Waste Program. World Wastes 29 (5): 28-29.
9. Massachusetts Office of Environmental Affairs.
May 29,1985. A Solid Waste Plan For Massachusetts.
pp. 1-21.
10. New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection -
Division of Waste Management. May 1985. Fact Sheet:
An Act Concerning Solid Waste Disposal and Resource
Recovery. (A-1778) P.L. 1985, Chapter 38, Effective
February 4, 1985. C.13 : 1E-136.
11. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation.
January 31, 1986. Report to the Governor and Legislature
on the Long Island Regional Ashfill Project. Albany,
N.Y. pp. 1-32.
12. Governor Dick Thornburgh. November, 1985. Governor Dick
Thornburgh's Plan to Solve Pennsylvania's Municipal
Waste Crisis. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, pp. 1-53.
13. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. August,
1983. Evolution of the 1-95 Resource Recovery Land
Reclamation and Recreation Complex. Washington, D.C.
pp. 1-53.
2-13
-------
14. Alberta Environment. March 1985. Overview, Waste Management
Assistance Program. Edmunton, Alberta, pp. 1-31.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Using Mediation
When Siting Hazardous Waste Management Facilities.
SW-944. Washington, D.C. p.l.
16. Ibid.
17. Talbott, Alan R. Settling Things: Six Case Studies in
Environmental Mediation. Conservation Foundation and
Ford Foundation. 1983.
18. Huser, Verne C. The Crest Dispute: A Mediation Success.
Institute for Environmental Mediation. Seattle,
Washington. September, 1982.
2-14
-------
SECTION 3
ESTABLISHING COOPERATIVE LANDFILL ARRANGEMENTS
This section considers the necessary ingredients in the
drafting of cooperative arrangements. The negotiation process,
the roles and interests of various groups, the purpose and
contents of such arrangements, and matters of implementation and
modification are discussed. For the purposes of this report,
two terms are defined: cooperative arrangement and municipality.
A cooperative arrangement is usually a formal, binding
document signed by authorized representatives of two or more
municipalities which governs the use, establishment, operation
and termination of a cooperative landfill and support facilities.
The arrangement should do the following:
0 identify the parties;
0 establish all appropriate rights and duties;
0 identify and describe the facilities;
0 establish payment methods and schedules;
0 describe operating procedures and standards
(possibly referencing plans, specifications
and similar documents);
0 provide for modification and termination and
for dispute resolution; and
0 establish monitoring procedures.
"Municipality" includes any and all units of local govern-
ment (including county government where it is the only unit of
local government exercising general authority over an area).
Where these units have executed a cooperative arrangement they
are referred to as "members of the cooperative".
3-1
-------
PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT
Organizing a cooperative arrangement involves the following
sequential steps: development of a conceptual agreement among
participants; determination of options for management of facil-
ities; selection of landfill sites; ratification of a final
arrangement; and implementation of that arrangement. Public
participation programs should be an integral part of each step
of the process. Legal counsel should be sought early in the
process to make sure these types of arrangements are allowable
in the jurisdiction. The range of complexity of each step is
potentially very large. The simplest circumstance, a single
municipality contracting to deposit refuse in the existing
landfill of a neighbor, may raise few issues and involve few
participants and a limited process. More complex arrangements
involve several municipalities, substantial concerns about
equity and liability, and potential significant changes in the
solid waste management practices of all members. These issues
may well preclude agreement unless the cooperative process is
open, well-structured and participated in by all those persons
having an interest in or affected by the potential arrangement.
Role of Public Participation
Public participation programs are valuable for all stages
of development for a cooperative landfill arrangement, from
initial site investigations to landfill post-closure care.
Involving the public may:
0 Increase the probability of public approval of
final arrangements;
3-2
-------
0 Ensure comprehensive coverage of issues;
0 Provide a forum for conflict resolution;
0 Provide decision-makers with opinions and values
of the community on non-quantifiable issues; and
Increase accountability of decision-makers(1).
There are two basic types of public participation. One is
limited to provision of information to the public and receiving
responses; the other is based on two-way communication in which
the public both perceives and has a role in decision-making.
The first type of participation is appropriate for the
initial stages of site investigations for a cooperative landfill,
the second type for all other activities. A lead agency should
provide funding that is required to initiate public participa-
tion. There are several possible lead development agencies
including a regional authority, the host community, a guest
community, or a State agency.
The lack of an obvious lead agency at this crucial stage of
the cooperative development process may inhibit implementation
of a useful public participation program. It requires attention
and commitment from the beginning.
FORMS OF ORGANIZATION
Possible multi-jurisdictional approaches to organization,
with positive and negative attributes, are summarized in
Exhibit 3-1. The majority of cooperative landfill arrangements
are in the category of "multi-community cooperatives" (2).
One approach to a cooperative agreement has been the use
3-3
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1.
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES
CF MULTUURISDICTIGNAL APPROVES*
Alternative
Pounaai
advantage*
Potential
diaedvantat*
Condition* whicn
favor aJternaovt
Authority Can finance without voter
approval or regard to local
. debt limit
Political influence minimised
becauae boart member* art
pnvata cmsena
Autonomoua from municipal
budgetary aad adminiatraove
eonaminta
Can generate iaeeme to make
aervice *elf-«upporang
Capital fiaancinc ia tax
exempt
Nonprofit Tax-exempt tutaa
pu^i!L Can finance without voter
eorporaoona approval or ref art to local
debt limit
Aaaeta revert to community
after bond* art paid
Muldecmmunity Tax -exempt ttatuti* available
cooperative Oo— not j^,^ $u»
approval
Special diitneu
Corutituaney ia a diaoact
(nap of r«nd«Bta. not
acattatvd beod-heidan
Local aatoeoar cu bt
protactad by barutc county
oOdalt aarrt on boart
Govtmaaoul
afrtvaaata
Flaxftla and aBferetcbU
matbod of eoopanaoa
BajkfwvBBaai
an aot duacad
Can bt implaaMntad qvckijr
aadawily
Financinf it eeapltx
C&B bocoait rtmou from
public control
Can compw with phvau
mdu*rry IB *omt anu.
ndun&( lAaaacy of both
PobbcaJ influtnca may bt
tstrud boeauM boart
mtmbm art (ovtrnmtat
offtoaii
Difftcuh to diamaatlt r»tn if
bttur Mrviet can bt provided
by other
Financing ia not backed by full
faith aad credit of
community
Member eommunioea loae
wmt aatanony
Ability (0 raiat capiul
depend* on lead community'*
debt capaoty aad flnaflffina*
Lead community caa be hun
ftaaacially ualeaa conncia
with other commuamee an
written properly
Powtrt limited by State
etanu
Muat rtry on tpedal tax lento
requirinf voter approval
Createa aa addittoaal uait of
fovemmeat aot directly
elected by aoiena
May be difBedt to raiae
capital aiact each eommuairy
•vat bonw
No aiaffle corporate body, ee
•ay deciaioB
If coamcta art not earerdly
Debt eeilinf prohibiu
ftnannnf by the municipality
Voter approval of finannni
will dtiay urftnt project
Politic*] activity ha* huidtrtd
acnvtry in paat
Autonomy from municipal
budf etary and adminiitrauvt
control would mtan raort
tCfioent delivery of xrviet
City wiahee to ihift financuif
requirtmenti to an
orfanizaoon outatde
municipal bureaucracy
City wiahet te avoid
adminicvaevt detail* of
providinc aoiid vote
manaf ement •ervteet
On* city ia willing to ukt itad
in »ecunn( ftnannnj
No other (ovtrnmentaJ unit
caa provide eervict
Service or Aucoon to be
provided ia not cootJy or
•ay
SOUFCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Decision-Makers Guide
in Solid Waste Management. S.W.-500. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. p. scciv.
3-A
-------
of a contractual mechanism. This usually requires the host
community to bear ultimate responsibility and liability for the
landfill and its impacts. With growing concern over liability,
the host is likely to seek a form of organization that distri-
butes liability among the users. A more complex arrangement
may result, and the prospective guest municipalities may be
apprehensive about potential liability. Advantages and
disadvantages of each type of liability distribution should
be thoroughly explored.
There are a number of regulatory, organizational and
financial issues that should be addressed in the process of
cooperative landfill planning. They are linked by the issue
of cost savings, a primary advantage of any kind of regional
facility. Cost savings can be understood only in the context
of the particular organizational structure and financial methods
selected for the cooperative landfill arrangement. These organ-
izational and financial methods must be allowable within the
overall legal and regulatory framework of State and local laws.
State-of-the-art landfills can require significant capital.
Before deciding on an organizational structure and a method for
capital financing, communities must carefully weigh the options
of private or public ownership of the landfill. Advantages and
disadvantages of each are summarized in Exhibit 3-2.
ELEMENTS OF A COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT
An arrangement should contain a number of common elements.
The amount of attention that must be given to each will vary
3-5
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES
AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH TYPE OF OPERATION*'
Alternate*
Potential
advanugee
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Public
Private
Tax-free
Nonprofit
Can obtain low.inurest rates
and. or government grants for
capiui-inunaive systems
Local f ovemment dot* not
need to raiae capital
Often eaiier for private firm
to buy land for a processing or
disposal ute
Community 4on not bear
•nor* n*k associated with
new technology
Community may not have
ex penis* to operate
sophisticated capital-
intensive facility
City may lack mark*ting
txpeniM
Restrictive budget policin
may affect equipment
replacement and
maintenance
Community may have no
central of fee* if only privately
operated fanliuei are
available
Operator may baae decisions
on bam of financial reward
rather than community needs
Letal eonatrtinta may prevent
city from iifninf long-term
contract
Displacement of city
employees
Municipality must locate
acceptable firm and
negotiate contract
Public predisposition towards
ffovemmtnt operation of
public services
Creation of public jobs desired
Government employees are
available to operate facility
Borrowing power of
community and or voter
approvals for bond issues
needed for capital
improvements in disposal
facilities are limited or not
available
Flexibility is needed to make
chanfes in operations that
would result in labor savings
and other coat reductions
Desire of local f ovemment to
avoid administrative details
in operation of disposal
facilities
Community lacks sufficient
technical and management
expertise for efficient
operation of the type of
advanced system it would like
to install
Territorial flexibility is needed
to permit operation across
political boundaries, where
appropriate regional
agencies do not exist
Commercial markets are,
available for recovered
products
Deeire to brpaas civil service
rcfuiaaons
* SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Decision-Makers Guide
in Solid Haste ffenagenent. SW-500. Washington, O.C. p. xxvii.
3-6
-------
from site to site. The elements are listed below and discussed.
Management Issues
There are a wide variety of management issues relevant
to cooperative arrangements. The authority, responsibility,
rights, and duties of each party must be stated. The arrangement
must include a management structure and procedures, and a
decision-making and dispute resolution process. The governing
structure of the proposed cooperative organization should
respect the autonomy of the local entities.
Facilities Issues
In the cooperative arrangement, the planned or agreed-on .
facilities and their usage should be clearly set forth. Items
that should be incorporated include:
0 Description of present status and condition
of site and/or facility;
0 Location and description of facility(ies);
0 Definition of final capacity, ultimate
configuration and use of landfill site; and
0 Design and specifications for landfill
including expansion/modification.
Regulatory Issues
Regulations concerning landfill siting, design, construc-
tion, modification, operation and closure vary widely in the
United States. They may have a major impact on the nature and
form of the agreement and of the facilities. Requirements for
long-term care of the landfill and protection of the environment,
especially ground water, are sensitive and potentially costly
items. These items should be discussed during the negotiations
3-7
-------
process and then made a part of the cooperative arrrangement.
It is, therefore, essential to: (1) identify the present
regulatory authorities and/or regulations and (2) to recognize
that future regulatory developments may impose significant
changes. Compliance with these regulations will affect landfill
operation and costs. Responsibility for compliance should be
specified. Since all parties should be aware of any regulatory
actions affecting any of the cooperative facilities, a communica-
tion mechanism for this purpose should be established. Regular
meetings with appropriate State and local officials for this
and other purposes are suggested.
Though federal standards exist for solid waste disposal
facilities, the principal planning, and regulatory authority
rests with the States. State agencies should be consulted
concerning State solid waste regulations.
Liability Issues
The use of solid waste management facilities creates some
risk. Risks may translate into potential liabilities. Insurance
can cover some but not all liabilities. Therefore, the arrange-
ment should cover the following points:
0 Insurance issues;
0 Establishment of specific liability;
0 Identification and allocation of responsibility
for any known or potential liabilities at the
onset of cooperative activities; and
0 Agreement on responsibility and procedures for
claims.
3-8
-------
Operational Issues
Each party will most likely be concerned that its short
and long term interests (e.g., avoidance of risk/liability,
preservation of capacity, economic operation) are protected.
Proper operation of the cooperative facility is necessary to
meet that objective. Therefore, the arrangement should specify
the principal operational requirements of each facility affected
by the arrangement.
Restrictions on the receipt of certain waste streams
should be addressed in the arrangement. For example, the arrange-
ment may prohibit receipt of bulky wastes, tires, or construction
debris. Daily amounts of solid waste accepted by the landfill
also should be specified.
Use of facilities for other than specified wastes from
members of the cooperative will continue to be a difficult
issue. Of concern are matters of using up capacity presumably
reserved for members, hidden revenue streams, and unauthorized
types of wastes. Unless only the municipal collection vehicles
of the members are to be allowed, a reasonably secure system
of permits or other identification will be required.
Cost Issues
Cost issues are discussed in depth in Sections 4 and 5,
but some mention is needed here. A clear delineation of costs
is critical to a successful, stable arrangement. Financial
arrangements for cooperative landfills relate to the size and
complexity of the proposal. A wide variety of organizational
and financial combinations is possible, but most of the more
3-9
-------
complex combinations are appropriate for large landfills.
The types of costs typically associated with a cooperative
arrangement will include capital, operating, administrative,
monitoring, and transportation/transfer expenditures. Costs
may eventually be incurred for remedial action, liability and
damages, closure, and long-term custody of facilities. The
parties also may elect to address the issue of future waste
disposal, which would include the costs of replacement facilities,
to provide for those costs.
The arrangement should establish the authority and responsi-
bility for incurring costs and for accounting. To the extent .
that capital costs are known, it is appropriate for the arrangememt
to allocate dollars; otherwise, the arrangement should establish
the bases and procedures for allocation of all costs.
Exhibit 3-3 compares seven basic financial methods as to
their complexity of application, ability to raise capital, cost
of capital and constraints on use. Exhibit 3-4 outlines the
advantages, disadvantages and favorable conditions for each
method. The large number of options displayed in these exhibits
emphasizes the complexity of selecting the most appropriate
combination for a particular facility.
IMPLEMENTING AN ARRANGEMENT
The arrangement should include measures and procedures to
assure that its terms are fairly and consistently complied with
and to assess performance by each responsible party. It should
establish criteria for acceptability of performance and should
3-10
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3. CHARACTERISTICS OF CAPITAL FINANCING METHODS AVAILABLE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES*
Types of Financing
Parameter
General obligation
bonds
Municipal revenue
bonds
Municipal bank
loans
Complexity of
application
Ability to
raise capital
I
I—•
•—•
Cost of
capital
Constraints
on use
No project information
required.
No project analysis required.
Short lead time.
Minimum $500,000 due to
fixed transaction costs, but
can combine several smaller
unrelated projects.
Function of community credit,
not of particular project.
Lowest interest rates for
long-term capital.
Interest cost 2-3 percent
less than corporate bonds.
Indirect costs include
bond counsel and possibly
financial consultant, but
costs are relatively low.
Voter approval often
required.
Legal debt ceiling may exist.
Can only be .used by
jurisdictions with taxing
powers.
Most complex. Bond circular
must contain detailed
economic and technical
data certified by outside
consultants. Requires
more time to arrange.
Minimum $1,000,000 due to heavy
fixed transaction/administrative
costs. In pure form, not suited
for technologically risky
projects. Maximum is function
of protected project revenues.
Somewhat higher than general
obligation bond. Is directly
related to the probability of
maintaining adequate revenue.
Municipality can minimize cost
of capital by giving revenue
bond the risk attributes of a
general obligation bond.
Indirect costs higher than for
general obligation loans.
Can be used only for specific
projects. Good only for rela-
tively large long-term capital.
Must he managed by district
authority or .igency. Requires
stable, long-term revenue source.
Less complex than
especially if
has bank line of credit
Very short lead time.
No external advice or
certification needed.
No heavy fixed trans-
action costs makes
it useful for smaller
dollar needs. Maximum
limited by bank lending
capacity. Better than
short- and medium-term
loans than bond.
Similar to general
obligation bond in
terms of risk and
security, but affected
by loan size and terms.
Shorter loan terms than
bond.
Smaller dollar amounts
than bond.
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CAPITAL FINANCING METHODS AVAILABLE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES*
(continued*)
Types of Financing
Parameter
Leasing
Current revenue
capital financing
Private financing
Leveraged leasing
Complexity of
application
Ability to
raise capital
Cost of
capital
Constraints
on use
Somewhat simple.
Minimal analysis
required.
Very short lead
time.
Small short-term
(6-year) loans.
Applicable to
specific equip-
ment, especially
rolling stock.
High effective
annual interest
(9-18%). Same
rate for public,
private leases.
Short term.
Small dollar
amounts.
State-imposed
restrictions on
municipalities
with multi-year
noncanceliable
leases.
Least complex
of municipal
finance
alternatives.
Current revenue
needed for
major capital
expenditures
usually
unavailable.
No legal
constraints.
Economic
constraint
on amount of
available
capital.
Problems may be locating
adequate firm, negotiating
contract and proposed
facility site, public job
reductions, other management
or organizational issues.
Technical and economic
analysis by private firm.
Depends on credit rating
of firm and soundness of
project. Firms may be
limited to smaller capital
than municipality with
general obligation bond.
Higher for private firm
than for municipality. Can
be lowered by mechanisms
like industrial revenue
bond or leveraged leasing.
Legal constraints on long-
term noncancellable contracts.
Inadequate profit potential
for risk. Administrative
legal problems of potential
mechanisms (leveraged
leasing, industrial revenue
bond). Current mechanisms do
not benefit marginal firms.
Legally complex.
New to public
finance. May
need IRS ruling
in beginning;
therefore, requires
6-month lead time.
Raises 20-50% of
required capital.
In pure form, not
for technologically
risky projects.
Good potential.
If city provides
remaining 6O-80%
capital, cost lower
than general obliga-
tion bond. Lessor
absorbs other costs.
State restrictions
on city's signing
of multi-year
contracts. Public
decision-makers
unfamiliar with
concept.
•Resources Planning Associates, Incorporated. Financing Methods for Solid Waste Facilities. U.S. EPA, 1974.
(Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, as PP-234-612).
-------
EXHIBIT
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT CAPITAL
FINANCING METHODS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH*
Alternative
Potential
advantai ea
PounnaJ
dijadvanufe*
Condiooni which
favor
Borrow-in f"
Centra)
obligation
bonds
Municipal
revenue
bonds
Bank loaaa
On* of the mo»t flexible and
Itaii co«Uy public borrowing
methoda
Require* no technical or
economic analym of
particular projecta to bt
funded
Small projecu may be grouped
to obtain capital
Leaat difficult to market
Riqutrti vottr approval, and
tlccnont may bt txptnmvt .
Muit aot ticwd
oiunjcipality's dtbt limit
U luir.f jur.idiruon reuit havt
po«tr to levy ad vaJorwn
proptrry tax
Trannction eetu impoat a
btnchaark minimua of
ssoo.ooo
Capital raiatd btcomat pan of
f tnvral city trvaaury. thua
other nty txptnditum could
draw en amount, unltta
ipteifcaUy tarmarktd for
•olid waaw
Sinet cartful proj«et
tvaJuaoon u aot rvquind
dffcifion-maktn may bt
una«art of t*chnoloficaJ and
tconontc naka
Projected revenuaa guarantee
payment
Can be u*d by uutitadoni
lacking taxing powtr. luch a*
region*! authonon and
nonprofit corporadona
DOM net require votar
approval
It not eonftraintd by
municipality't debt
limitaoooj
Small ••eal* capital
rvqurtmfau for ahon-tam
fondinf (5 ytan or Ua*>
Somt m*diua-urm fandi&f
•eplkability tinet BOIM may
bt raflaaaeid M tbty apin
IUlativ«ly lev iawrvt coat
bteauat inurvt paid by
municipaiirf u tai-frw to
bank
Some* of totda on abort node*
No axurnal technical or
•eonomic anaJyii* nquind
of raiainf capital ia a
dtumnt to chanya in txiannf
public' private reanaftrntnt
ma. litilt inctntive for
offir.aia to conaider uat of
prwau ayatam optratora
Effect) v* minunum iaaue of SI
milbon. thua only uatful for
capiial-inunaivfl proitcw
In/oraacion requirement* of
the bond curular aretvunaivt
TechAieal and economic
analyna of project muat be
performed by exptru ouuide
the auainpal fovemment
Coat ia haf her than general
obligation benda
Can bt oaed only for (pacific
pnjt
Lo» maximum
Short urm
Not oatral for capital-
iataaaiva projecta
Sis* of community ia amall or
m odium
VOUT approval likely
Capital-inunaive proiecu
Kefional faeUinaa deeired
Muninpality'a debt limit hi
been reached
IniQaonf inaonjoona lack
tazinf pover
Capital requirement ia amall
Funda needed on ahon node*
3-12
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4. (Continued)
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT CAPITAL FINANCING
METHODS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH*
Alternative
Pounnal
advantage*
PountiaJ
Condition! which
favor alternative
Lea* ing
Bank loan* | Caacntiaily no ainimum
(conn | Rajatjvtly ineapemaive
Voter approval generally not
required
No debt ceiling*
Can be naed by Institution*
lacking taxing power
Useful aa inuhn financing for
equipment needed before
appropriation* or lonf-urra
capital arrangements can be
made
Negotiating agreement ia
linplc and faat
Only certification required ia
assurance of municipality'*
credit aunding
Rvdueaa dtmand on
reunicipvl capital outlay*
ainea onfinal capiui raised by
phvau corporation
Least eempln •tehantaa
availabl*
No eonsulunt or Itf aJ advic*
rtquirad
No n»ad for formal financial
decuman ta
Currant rwvnvt
capita]
Anancviff
Privata
ftnannnr
MuaicipaJity naad not borrow
eapiuJ
Proridaa lonff-tara flaability
for BonieipaJity
laaainf
RadttCM dtmaad 00 moaibptl
capttaJ fuada
Intaraat rttt on tntira
finaneiaJ paekaf* may bt
lowar than |aatral obli(aaon
bondj
Kifh annual
inurcat rau (9-18 ptrctnt)
Amount of capital ia aaually
Umiud
Ltut urrni an rtntrally 5
yean or In*
Somt Stataa prohibit
municipalities from enterinf
mulnyear. noncancellabie
convacta
Ciry will not own ••»«( unlaac
it punch OM facility upon
complenon of leaat ptnod
No coat in the conventional
aenae ( but hif her uxaa raault)
Coromunioe*' ability to
f enerau iuiyluj capita] ia
frequently ladtiaf
Current uzpayen ihould not
have to pay for a tynan that
will b« uaed far into the future
SoKd waate project* muat
compew with other municipal
denanda
MuaicipaJity mu*t locate
acceptable Ant aad n*f otiau
convact
Hif her coat of capital reflected
in fyttaa chart e*
There may be legal
conatrmiata which prevent
of lont-term contract
Equipment needed before
appropriation* available
Municipality ha* rood credit
rating
Displacement of city
employeea
Laf ftOy eomplea
City will not own aaaet oaleaa
h pwchaaea facility apon
ee0plecjoD of leajtar period
Amount of capital neceaaary ia
•mail
Municipality'* debt limit ha*
been reached
Municipality wiahea to avoid
administrative detail* of
operating aolid waau facility.
SOUPCE: U.S. Ehvirontental Pzx>tection Agency. 1976. Decision-Makers Guide
in Solid Waste Management. SW-500. U.S. Envirormental Protection Agency, '
Washington, D.C. pp. xxii-xxiii.
3-13
-------
include a system of sanctions or penalties and provide for
their administration.
The cooperative arrangement should recognize and provide for
changing circumstances. Withdrawal or addition of a participant
should be addressed. Also, procedures to handle upsets in opera-
tion, such as strikes and natural disasters, should be included.
ROLES OF STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
State and Federal governments often provide three functions:
regulation, advice, and financial assistance. The principal
importance of the regulatory role is that it sets conditions
for landfill siting, design, and operation to ensure protection
of human health and the environment. Monitoring and enforcement
actions can lead to facility closure and thus provide an impor-
tant stimulus to establishment of cooperative arrangements.
An advisory role could be important throughout the process
of developing an arrangement. Guidance in law, technology and
economics, public participation, for example, could be useful.
In some cases, the State could be a party to the arrangement as a
result of an enforcement action or for other reasons.
Financial assistance is a potentially powerful tool for
implementing State or Federal policy in solid waste disposal.
Currently, no Federal aid is available for landfill operations.
The amount of aid available from States for localities varies.
3-14
-------
RERERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April, 1981. Solid
Waste Landfill Design and Operation Practices (Draft).
Contract No. 68-01-3915. Washington, D.C. p. 2-2.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Decision-Makers
Guide on Solid Waste Management. SW-500. Washington,
D.C. p. 10.
3-15
-------
SECTION 4
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS
UNDERSTANDING TRUE COSTS
Understanding solid waste management costs, particularly
landfill disposal service costs, is essential if municipalities
are to evaluate cooperative landfill proposals realistically.
The participation of each member in a cooperative landfill
arrangement will be based on its perception of the benefits to
be gained. This section provides a description of cost compo-
nents that should be evaluated when considering cooperative
arrangements. A municipality will not recognize the full costs
of its existing landfill if costs are understated or obscured
in a large category item in the municipal budget. It will
underrate the real benefits of the economics of a cooperative
landfill arrangement. Communities that have paid the true
costs of landfill disposal are more likley to recognize the
value of cooperative arrangements.
Unfortunately, the typical municipality in this country
underbudgets and underaccounts the costs of its landfill disposal
service. The following discussion sets out the component costs
associated with landfill disposal, and is followed by a section
on accounting for municipal solid waste costs.
COMPONENT COSTS OF LANDFILL DISPOSAL SERVICES
Total landfill disposal costs represent the summation of
collection, transportation and disposal site costs. Collection
costs are municipal-specific and vary depending on factors such
4-1
-------
as road patterns, demographics/ competition, vehicle type, crew
size, labor union strength, frequency and type of service and
State and local regulations. In general, transportation costs
are increasing as existing landfill sites become fewer and
newer sites become more remote from population centers. Trans-
portation costs also vary greatly depending on local conditions.
Transportation and collection costs are closely related, and
for the purposes of this discussion will be considered as one
category.
Disposal site costs include all costs at a disposal site,
among which are site identification, acquisition, planning,
preparation, operation, closure and post-closure care. They
have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. This
increase is primarily due to the incorporation of improved
environmental protection measures.
Increases in costs of disposal from 1975 to 1985 are
illustrated in Exhibit 4-1. The largest percentage increase,
nearly tenfold, was in the cost of site preparation and construc-
tion, an item that reflects the incorporation of environmental
protection measures. Predevelopment cost increases reflect a
more stringent siting process. The site closure and long-term
care categories also reflect an increased awareness of the
environmental impacts of landfills, which can continue after a
facility stops receiving waste.
Overall, disposal has become more capital-intensive;
therefore, total landfill disposal service costs are influenced.
Changes in the mix of capital and operating costs will influence
4-2
-------
EXHIBIT 4-1.
LANDFILL COSTS: 1975-1985
19751 19852
- Percent of . Percent of
COST ITEM $/ton total cost $/ton total cost
Pre-development
costs 0.25 6 1.30 9
Site preparation and
construction costs 0.52 12 4.90 33
i
*** Site operation 3.2 76 6.50 43
Site closure 0.26 6 0.70 5
Long-tera care 0.0 0 1.60 11
Percent change
from 1975 to 1985
300Z
960%
200Z
270*
N/A
TOTAL (excluding
business profit)
4.23
100
15.0
100
360Z
1. Four-foot earthen liner, leachate collection system, 40-acre site, 1,000,000 tons/2,000,000 cubic yards,
15-year site life.
*
2. Five-foot clay liner (on-site clays), leachate collection system, 40-acre site, 1,000,000 tons/2,000,000
cubic yards, 15-year site life, 30-year long-term care period.
3. Costs are In 1985 dollars.
*Sourrr: Hlcb, R., and E. Scaro. 1985. Cost Accounting for Landfill Design and Construction Past and Present-
W.islo T«-cli "85 Proceedings, National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington, D.C.
** excluding land costs
-------
the budgeting of municipal resources for solid waste disposal,
since budgeting for capital costs requires consideration of
longer-term financial options than does budgeting for operating
expenses.
The relationship between the costs of transportation and
onsite disposal costs is also changing. In 1916, a rule of
thumb for judging the acceptability of total solid waste
management costs was that for every $1 spent on disposal, $4
would be spent on transportation (1). This national average
might still apply in rural areas without landfill capacity
shortfalls. In urban areas experiencing shortfalls and sharp
increases in disposal costs, however, this benchmark may be
outdated unless transportation costs have increased proportion-
ately. These increased transportation costs are usually due to
the necessity of using even more remote facilities.
Increases in total landfill costs are occurring in an
atmosphere of uncertainty regarding the future stability of
those costs. Variability within the regulatory process, potential
problems in obtaining environmental liability insurance, and
prospective changes in the U.S. tax code all contribute to this
atmosphere. Uncertainty always increases costs, because service
providers need to be compensated for taking the increased
risks.
COST ACCOUNTING
While the landfill costs have been increasing, the impact
of the cost increases on the market is diminished by two factors:
4-4
-------
(1) problems in accounting for the costs of solid waste disposal
and (2) the lack of connection between the service provided and
the fees paid to the service provider (i.e., between the service
and the fees paid by the consumer). Accounting for costs of
solid waste disposal is complicated by hidden and underestimated
costs. Many components of solid waste disposal services are
provided by governmental departments that are charged primarily
with responsibilities other than solid waste disposal. These
departments typically provide inspection, enforcement, legal,
accounting, and payroll support to the solid waste disposal
service (2). Their costs are usually not attributed directly
to the function cf solid waste disposal and, therefore, are
hidden. In addition, tacit agreements among municipal depart-
ments often provide public institutions such as schools and
hospitals with "free" disposal service. Such service is free
only from the public institution's point of view; in reality,
the municipality pays for the service. Municipal landfills are
usually fully amortized, and municipalities may overlook many
of the additional costs associated with new landfill siting
when they are faced with replacing their landfill capacity.
Most revenue-generating methods for solid waste disposal
services feature convenience rather than accountability. The
general fund, supported primarily by property tax assessments,
does not encourage accountability. It is the most common revenue
source for municipal solid waste services. The advantages and
disadvantages of collecting solid waste service costs through
property taxes and through other methods are delineated in
4-5
-------
EXHIBIT 4-2
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
TAXES, AND USER CHARGES AS SOURCES OF OPERATING REVENUES
AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH*
Alurnetivt
Pounds!
advanucet
Potential
dieadvantafte
Ceadiooni whuh
favor
Property tax
Saletux
Municipal
utility ui
Special tax
ItVMS
UMT eharf eo
Simple ta tdmmuur— no
aeparate billinc and collection
tyiuns aeceaeary
If pan of local property tax. it
it deductible from Federal and
Suit income taxet
Siaplt to adaiauur
Siaplt to adnuuaur
Mort oquiubl* than ad
vaiortm taxat
Can b* iarataud without
vour approval
Vour approval uually not
nquind
Enable* localiQM te balanet
tht coot of providing oolid
vuu atrvicM with rwanuo*
Cituinj an awar* of OMU of
atrvKt and can prortd*
iapotoa for aort ttf^iaat
optraboM
Solid waiu naaaf tmtnt it Tradition of Ui Ananang for
ofun a low-pnonty iwa in tht moot pubUe
budftt and rocrw
inadoquau fund*
CMU an hiddtn— law
iDcanavt for iffincnt
oporaaon
Commtrdal Mublishacnu
pay u>« for Mrvie* taty ouy
not roemvt
VahabU monthly i
Rcquira voter approval
Ineomt may not bo adequate
Commercial •ubluhmeau
pay tazee for ttmet they may
not neeivt
Variable monthly income
Ineomt may be inadequate
KecmB'oB anai with hiyh
tountt pradt
Ceiling oa property tax rate*
Tradiaon of tax flnanoaf for
moot public i
Amouat limited by
Men eompla to adniauter
Caa cauM problem* for Men
oa fixed tacomeo
Ceilinf oa property tax rauo
Tradition of tax financial for
meet public
Cttiiaf on property tax ratee
• 9OJBCE: U.S. Btvirorrental Protection Agency. 1976. Decision-Makers Guide
in Solid Waste Management. SW-500. U.S. Bfiviromental Protaction Agency,
Washington, D.C. p. xxiii.
4-6
-------
Exhibit 4-2. All of the alternative revenue-generating methods
in the -exhibit, except for the user charge, indiscriminately
target the general population. These methods spread the costs
of providing the service over the population in a general
manner, instead of on a pay-as-you-use basis. The tipping fee,
on the other hand, is one mechanism used by providers of waste
disposal services to collect revenues from users.
4-7
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Decision-
Makers Guide on Solid Waste Management. SW-500.
Washington, D.C. p. 13.
2. Ibid.
4-8
-------
SECTION 5
EQUITY ISSUES AND COMPENSATION METHODS
In cooperative landfill arrangements, the concept of
equity becomes a major issue. Equity involves both fair
distribution of costs among member municipalities and adequate
compensation of the host municipality. Among the many consid-
erations involved in establishing equity are host municipality
costs, market considerations/ future landfill capacity and
waste management policies on the local, regional, State and
federal levels. Future disposal capacity and liabilities for
the host municipality can also form obstacles to successfully
negotiating a cooperative landfill arrangement. Tipping fees
should relate directly to actual landfill usage and may be used
to raise revenues to pay for operating a cooperative landfill.
Tipping fees and other methods are also used to compensate the
host municipality. Broad equity considerations, methods of
calculating tipping fees and alternative ways of providing
compensation are discussed in this section.
EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS
Host Municipality
Equity for the host municipality of a cooperative landfill
is critical to any negotiated agreement. It can be approached
intitially by balancing the costs and benefits of any proposed
arrangement. The costs include direct and external costs of
the landfill, potential increases in risk and liability, and
5-1
-------
loss of future landfill capacity. Potential host municipality
benefits are improvements in landfill design, operation, closure
and costs which all may contribute to a decrease in future
liabilities.
Host municipalities bear more of the costs associated with
cooperative landfills by virtue of the presence of the landfill
within their boundaries. The most common tangible costs to the
host municipality are those associated with increased truck
traffic, including road wear, noise, air pollution and possible
traffic congestion. A less obvious cost to the host municipal-
ity during the operation and post-closure periods is the loss
of potential development benefits of the acreage dedicated to
the landfill. Other potential costs depend on the landfill's
physical attributes, design features and operational integrity.
These potential cost categories include litter; odor; aesthetics;
contamination of air, surface and ground water; methane gas
migration; and potential human health effects.
An additional cost to be considered is the concern of
possible decrease in property value of land abutting the land-
fill. The incidence of decreases in land values has not been
documented. In fact, a report on a closely analogous facility
type, hazardous waste landfills, found both decreases and
increases in property values of surrounding land parcels (1).
It is possible that many of the above host municipality
costs can be significantly reduced. For example, state-of-the-
art design features will reduce the potential environmental
problems.
5-2
-------
Loss of Future Capacity
A concern of a host municipality is that it will be deprived
of access to disposal services in the future if it allows
surrounding municipalities to use its landfill. This factor
is difficult to quantify, and is even more difficult to present
systematically and convincingly to skeptical members of the
host municipality. As a result, the capacity issue is a common
and frequently paramount barrier to attaining the prospective
host municipality's acceptance of a cooperative landfill; but
it can be overcome.
Future landfill capacity within a region will depend on
several elements with entirely different schedules. Specifically,
population growth, municipal budgets and political changes will
vary within each of the area's municipalities. These changes
will affect the availability of suitable landfill sites within
the host municipality and guest municipalities.
Guest Municipality
A municipality in a cooperative arrangement that does not
(
host the landfill site can be termed a "guea't" municipality.
Guest municipalities do not always have the ability to site a
landfill in their jurisdictions. This inability will greatly
influence their level of benefits from a cooperative arrangement.
Clearly, the primary benefit for a guest municipality is the
ability to use a nearby disposal facility. Some guest municipal-
ities will probably incur higher transportation costs, however.
The relative magnitude of all costs and benefits for host and
guest municipalities will vary with local conditions. The most
5-3
-------
difficult issue usually arises in negotiating agreeable conditions
with the host community.
Liability
A major difficulty affecting equity and other factors is
management of the environmental and human health risks. Landfill
owners and developers face substantial potential liability. The
relative lack of knowledge concerning the dynamics of the solid
waste decomposition process and its interaction with environmental
factors such as climate, geology, groundwater, and precipitation
magnifies the problem of obtaining liability insurance. The
extent of responsibility for environmental damages from landfills
is dependent on case-by-case circumstances.
A cooperative landfill is an alternative to a set of single-
municipality landfills. Other alternatives, such as a commercial
landfill, a municipal incinerator or waste-to-energy facility
may also be available. Whatever the alternatives, the relative
risks of each and the insurability of the risk* should be factors
/
in the decision process. Possible alternatives to traditional
insurance include self-insurance by the cooperative or a larger
pool of communities. Several communities or persons are required
for viable self-insurance programs. Therefore, smaller landfill
facilities with limited service areas may be unable to consider
this option without outside assistance. State and Federal funds
for insuring landfills are not currently available.
5-4
-------
USE AND CALCULATION OF TIPPING FEE
The host municipality can incorporate the above costs with
traditionally incurred costs of landfill operation and develop-
ment into their tipping fee. This holds true for actual costs
and perceived costs. The following list summarizes the costs
that should be reflected in an equitable tipping fee:
0 Landfill development and operational costs
(operational costs will vary considerably
depending on volume received);
0 Closure costs and post-closure care;
0 Disamenities for host municipality (noise, litter,
odors, etc.);
0 Economic losses (loss of development potential of
i^n^fill property itself, road wear, etc.); ars^
0 Risks and uncertainties (e.g., groundwater and
drinking water contamination from leachate).
The concept of equity is usually incorporated implicitly
rather than explicitly because accurate data concerning the
multitude of factors involved and their interactions is lacking.
Incorporating these various considerations is ^usually accomplished
/
/
via negotiation. Through negotiation, the me'mber municipalities
/
of a cooperative landfill can set the range of possible tipping
fees for any site, determining an upper and lower bound.
The upper bound for tipping fees is usually derived from
the costs of the alternative disposal services available.
Calculating these costs is complicated by the wide variety of
pricing systems used by alternative services (some using flat
fees, some differentiating by waste composition, and others
providing membership incentives) and by the different life
5-5
-------
expectancies of these alternatives. Market alternatives, even
with the complexities of comparison, are the best approximations
of the maximum tipping fees that could be charged by cooperative
landfills considering only market conditions. The maximum fees
of the market should not be seen as practical, however. It is
necessary in cooperative arrangements to take into account
non-market factors, such as establishing goodwill and working
relationships among member municipalities, when setting actual
fees. All of these factors enter into the negotiation process
of fashioning an agreement that suits the participating members.
The lower bound for tipping fees usually can be defined
by calculating the costs of planning, development, operation/
closure, and post-closure of the landfill and distributing
those costs over its projected lifetime.
In addition to the level of tipping fees, cooperative land-
fills need to address the structure of the fees. Fee structure,
the method of ascribing fees to users, will have a large impact on
t
the equity of the tipping fee. The simplest Structure is based
/
»
on a flat fee charged at the time of tipping/ it is easily
administered and is usually supplemented either by making a
lump sum payment to the host municipality or by dedicating a
portion of the tipping fee for use by the host municipality.
Alternatively, fees could be assessed annually to host and
member municipalities. Other fee structures could include per
capita ceilings., large-volume penalties, per container charges,
per volume charges, and varying charges on the basis of waste
5-6
-------
composition (e.g., bulky waste, yard waste, incinerator ash,
etc.).
The complexity of tipping fee calculation rises with the
number of participating municipalities. The number of alternative
disposal methods available to each participating municipality
will further complicate the calculation process. Host munici-
palities may want to establish a low tipping fee to encourage
landfill use. High tipping fees might serve as an incentive
for use of disposal options with more negative environmental
impacts. Overall, the complexity of the fee calculation task
requires thorough analysis of the implications for participating
and interested communities and coordination at all levels
of government. In summation, the tipping fee has important
implications for the equity of the cooperative arrangement and
the region's solid waste management strategy.
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF COMPENSATION
Tipping fees are only one method of compensating host
/
municipalities and encouraging municipalities to consider host-
ing cooperative landfills. Various incentives and compensation
techniques for parties affected by the presence of hazardous
waste management facilities have been evaluated and are presented
in Exhibit 5-1. The U.S. EPA has also published a handbook
which discusses compensation and incentives in siting hazardous
waste managment facilities (4). Most of the concepts developed
are relevant to non-hazardous waste facilities. Incentives and
compensations which can be applied to sanitary landfills/ are
5-7
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1.
AN EVALUATION MATRIX OF INCENTIVE AND COMPENSATION TECHNIQUES*
SOURCE OF FUNDS
ft
Landfill Ownrr/OaxTBIor
•pra*f4
ration and
mtcnafict
_ » «•
?e
•S
«
w
e
«
c
•>
6
>•
a
•• «
c •>
•> 3
s-
*r-
e t
je
•5 a.
H
5 o2
* s?
X E 5.
4 >. _
V « —
!? t *
"" "•.•!
1=
V »
».
• *
4
..»
•*
U
i»
*-
s
fc
«
f.
6
*;•
S 5
3 2
ii
Jl
••
••
7
?
t»
o
|
>ik Of..
•
w
£
tajnpa»Oi
t**u) i(ii
<« ex
^
•»
M
.-ralor
«
c
"3.
t
•
i
u
•I
cloturt ci
1
^
c
ni«re»( la.
W city
•
0
Primer ilv
W
o
•*
c
ft.
u
i rtv«nut-
.iyinrnt!>
Stale
i
ll
1
I
«.
fr
t ?
m
\
•*
J5
Mysleal (•pact*
nou*. AMI, Ml let,
truck Irafftci 4*l*ttoMll«t
In
00
4«cr«*M to potpOTty ••!«••
«*cllf» to »••! ••••!• <«»«
rc«lrlcl*4 la«4 ••* •ftlatu
Serial >•*••€!•
c*u«« to ^MHir »r ur*
to** IN •••iMlIc *ato«
Milk* «M! MNc«rlatotU«
»
0
0
0
0
0
0
fir* wt4
fcraldk
M«M(cto«l f •v«ra»**t
Itwck traffic
Kc«*omlc
SaclaJ laiftac
Mt»k«
v«l«r
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• 0 •
• 0 <
^ •
* +
0 0
. •
« 0 <
« 0
• ,
• • • 0
» • 0 0
» 0 0 •
> 0 0 •
> 0 0 •
» • 0 0
» • • •
» • • »
• • • •
0
0
0
•
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#
.
0
e
0
•
•
•
•
«
•
•
0
0
•
»
0
•
•
*
•
0
•
•
•
0
0
• •
•
• '
0
0
0
»
0
•
•
0
•
•
»
0
0
•
0
*
0
0
•
0
•
0
0
•
0
KCTi
•pccUlc
• Fat
• N» •ffcctl
* SOUICE: Stoith, M. et al. 1985. Costs and Benefits to Local Government Due to the Presence of a Hazardous
Waste Management Facility and telated Ccnpensation Issues. Institute of Environmental Studies at the
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. p.J'2.
-------
divided into three major categories:
0 Preventive measures to assist the host municipal-
ity in avoiding adverse impacts (e.g., purchasing
a buffer zone);
Mitigating measures to reverse adverse impacts
experienced by the host (e.g., provisions to
repair roads suffering from excessive wear); and
0 Compensation measures to provide the host
municipality with benefits in recognition of
those lost by virtue of the landfill's proximity
(e.g., funding for construction of a park or a
library [2]).
Each of the sixteen methods surveyed in Exhibit 5-1 has a
different degree of effectiveness in mitigating impacts on the
various affected parties. Improved operation and maintenance
proves to be one of the most effective measures for a majority
of the affected parties. This conclusion coincides with current
findings that the public is more interested in reducing perceived
risks through better operational procedures and design features
than it is in monetary compensation.(3) It has been traditionally
argued that balancing costs and benefits will convince people
*
to accept undesirable public service facilit4.es. This has not
proven realistic in efforts to site new landfills.
The assessment of equity of any cooperative arrangement will
differ with each participant. The differences will vary with
local circumstances. Only after each participant recognizes
its actual solid waste management costs can they evaluate
whether any compensation alternative is appropriate, including
tipping fees, lump sum payments, service bartering or other
methods.
5-9
-------
REFERENCES
1. Smith, M., et al. 1985. Costs and Benefits to Local
Governments Due to the Presence of a Hazardous Waste
Management Facility and Related Compensation Issues:
Final Report. Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, p. 3.
2. Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee, Pollution
Liability Work Group. 1985. Legislative Proposal for
Long-Term Solution to Unavailability of Pollution
Insurance. Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts, p. 76.
3. Portney, K. 1984 Allaying the NIMBY Syndrome: The Potential
for Compensation in Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility
Siting. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials 1:3.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Using
Compensations and Incentives When Siting Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities. SW-942. Washington, D.C.
5-10
-------
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cooperative landfill arrangements are in place in several
municipalities, and other areas could benefit from landfill
sharing. Cooperatives can extend the useful capacity of land-
fills by using space more efficiently, and members can experience
net savings in waste disposal costs if the waste volume can
create economies of scale.
Cooperative landfill use is best coordinated through a
written agreement. However, there is great variation among
municipalities, and a number of factors should be addressed.
Several conditions may exist in a community that can make
cooperative landfill arrangements an attractive option for solid
waste disposal. These include landfill capacity constraints,
high costs of operating a single-municipality landfill, history
of cooperative efforts by potential participating communities,
and reasonable distances between prospective members of the
/
/
cooperative. t
/
Economies of scale may be achieved when cooperatives are
formed, because the larger waste flows may allow purchase of
more efficient compacting equipment and the use of less cover
material for a given volume of solid waste, both of which will
extend the useful capacity of the landfill. Other economies of
scale may result from improved administrative procedures and
more effective use of personnel.
6-1
-------
Information in the literature on cooperative landfilling
is scarce. However, there are examples of existing cooperatives
and attempts at cooperatives that are instructive. Experiences
in ten states have been discussed and these examples show that
cooperative landfill arrangements can work.
Institutional difficulties can act as barriers to the
formation of shared landfill arrangements. However, these
problems can be overcome through the use of mediation and assis-
tance to communities in the areas of planning, implementation,
public participation and legal support.
The process for developing a cooperative arrangement
consists of a series of sequential steps: development of a
conceptual arrangement among participants; determination of
options for management of facilities; selection of landfill
sites; ratification of a final arrangement; and implementation
of that arrangement. Throughout the process a well-structured
public participation program is essential to success. The key
*
for successful development of a cooperative arrangement is a
mediation-negotiation process whereby all the prospective mem-
bers meet to fashion the arrangement. As part of this mediation
process, all the various roles and interests of the parties
involved are discussed and resolution on these issues is reached.
There are six key issues involved in any cooperative
arrangement: management, facilities, regulations, liability,
operation, and cost. Management issues entail deciding on
authority, responsibilities, rights, and duties of the members.
A management structure and a dispute resolution process, for
6-2
-------
solving complaints after the arrangement has been formed, both
need to be designed. The issue of facilities concerns the
present status of all facilities involved and related capacity
issues. Participating municipalities should also be familiar
with applicable State and Federal regulations, as they will
affect an agreement.
Liability issues must be worked out in drafting a coopera-
tive arrangement. The most common approach is for the host
community to assume the majority of the responsibility and
liability of the project. Operational issues, such as daily/
weekly amounts of solid waste to be accepted and possible waste
restrictions should also be decided. The issues related to
various costs must also be resolved.
After the major elements of the arrangement are worked out
and the agreement is in place, attention is then turned toward
implementation of the arrangement. A process should be designed
to assure that the responsibilities of the various parties are
t
carried out. The arrangement should also be/structured to
i
•.
accommodate changing situations, (withdrawal or addition of
members) and to plan for unforeseen events (floods, strikes,
etc. )
The possible roles of State and Federal government in set-
ting up a cooperative arrangement should be considered. Applicable
regulations, technical assistance and advice, monitoring and
enforcement actions, and financial assistance will impact a
cooperative arrangement.
6-3
-------
Costs are an important motivating factor in solid waste
decision-making, but difficulties in landfill cost accounting
may obscure the real costs of single municipality landfill
operation. This factor may inhibit formation of cooperative
landfills.
Cooperative landfills are pursued on the basis of their
perceived benefits and efficiencies. The full efficiency of a
cooperative landfill cannot be clearly seen without a delinea-
tion of present disposal costs for use in comparing proposed
disposal options. Capital and operational costs will depend
on local conditions and will affect the municipality's budget
allocations and priorities.
Transportation costs that limit a cooperative landfill's
market area will become more important in rural areas or other
areas without easy access to alternative disposal facilities.
Accurate accounting of a municipality's solid waste disposal
costs is necessary to clarify the net benefits that accrue to
the cooperative landfill alternative. f>
t
The equity of costs and benefits is a prime concern for
all participants in cooperative landfills because of possible
uneven distribution of these costs and benefits among host and
guest municipalities. The equity of the costs and benefits
is crucial in obtaining voluntary participation by all of the
municipalities. Each cooperative proposal should be evaluated
before selecting an appropriate strategy to achieve an equitable
arrangement.
6-4
-------
Municipalities need to evaluate other factors that affect
solid waste management decisions, in addition to the cooperative
landfill option. For instance, the solid waste management
policies of relevant Federal and State agencies and regional
authorities can significantly affect a municipality's perception
of the value of various options, including cooperative landfills.
The risks and uncertainties placed on the host of a
cooperative landfill have usually been covered by insurance.
Insurance is a particularly useful method for municipalities to
equitably share the risk of a cooperative landfill among all
participants. However, the current difficulty in obtaining
environmental insurance in general may inhibit development of
cooperative landfill arrangements.
After establishing a need for compensation of the host
municipality, the method of compensation should be selected.
Differential tipping fees are a common method used at landfills
and can be used as a compensation vehicle. However, lump sum
t
payments and bartering can be used as compensation methods to
t
accommodate particular local circumstances. 7Negotiation is
required in order to reach equitable compensation schemes
among participating municipalities.
A great deal of motivation is required to ensure the suc-
cess of such a complex voluntary agreement among municipalities.
One key person should be "in charge of" the effort. In some
cases, this motivation is provided by circumstances facing one
of the prospective members. Federal and State governments
could provide incentives, in the form of technical and legal
6-5
-------
assistance, to entourage more municipalities to use landfill
sharing.
Preparing a written agreement that sets out in advance
the responsibilities of member municipalities with respect to
liability, insurance, future solid waste disposal capacity,
financial support, and other matters requires a thoughtful
process. Without such agreements, however, municipalities
having capacity are unlikely to share landfill space.
Cooperative landfill arrangements, whether for solid waste
or for ash, are a type of landfill use that merits the active
support of State and Federal governments. EPA supports the
concept of cooperative arrangements as a means to achieve
better landfilling practices.
6-6
-------
PART n
METHANE PRODUCTION AT CLOSED LANDFILLS
-------
SECTION 7
INTRODUCTION
At both closed and operating landfills, landfill gas (LFG)
is generated as a product of the anaerobic decomposition of
organic matter and consists of nearly equal parts of methane
and carbon dioxide plus trace amounts of other gases.
LFG generated at closed and operating landfills poses a
concern for safety. LFG can migrate both horizontally and
vertically below the surface and may pose an explosive danger
on a landfill and nearby surroundings: fatalities and property
damage have resulted from LFG explosions. Control of these gases
through recovery and utilization systems or control systems
can reduce the danger of explosion and may help abate odors,
thus aiding in the beneficial future use of closed landfills.
The Federal regulations for the control of LFG are published
at 40 CFR Part 257.3-8. These regulations establish criteria
/
for methane concentrations in the soil at a landfill's property
boundary and in structures on the site.
Several states have adopted regulations concerning LFG
that include gas control at both operating and closed landfills.
Often, closure requirements address gas concerns, as in the
State of Washington, where most relatively large landfills are
now required to collect or vent LFG.
LFG can be recovered and used as a replacement for or as
a supplement to natural gas. Such recovery of LFG is generally
limited to relatively large sites with nearby markets for the
7-1
-------
energy. The recovery of LFG is attractive because it can
reduce gas-related dangers while generating revenue. However,
limited sites across the nation are viable candidates for LFG
recovery, because potential sites generally must contain a
minimum volume of refuse and have a market for the recovered gas.
The latter sections of this report include discussions of economic
factors that have an impact on gas recovery, and a decision
maker's guide is also provided which describes a methodology that
can be used to perform a preliminary assessment of the viability
(technical and cost) of gas recovery.
7-2
-------
SECTION 8
POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND DANGERS OF LANDFILL GAS
During the natural decomposition of organic waste in waste
disposal sites, gases generated are referred to as landfill gas
(LFG). LFG is composed of roughly equal quantities of methane
and carbon dioxide, in addition to other trace gases. Methane
is the principal gas of concern because it can be recovered and
used as an alternative fuel; however, its explosive potential
can pose a danger to persons, structures, and equipment on or
near a disposal site.
RECOVERY AND USE
At some landfills, LFG can be recovered for beneficial use.
The technical and economic viability of LFG recovery depends on
size and depth of the disposal site and the presence of markets,
among other factors. Recovery of LFG is similar to that for
*
/
natural gas, in that wells are installed, and a/e connected by
»
manifolds called header pipes. Gas is withdrawn by applying a
suction to the header pipes. Before the gas is used, it usually
undergoes processing that removes water and sometimes separates
the methane from other constitutent gases, specifically carbon
dioxide.
Landfill gas can be used in several ways. It can replace
or supplement natural gas as a boiler fuel or in other combus-
tion applications. It is frequently used as a fuel for internal
combustion engines (turbines are used at very large sites) to
8-1
-------
generate electricity. LFG can also be upgraded to pipeline
quality and injected into natural gas pipelines. This requires
extensive processing to remove the carbon dioxide and other
constituents.
In the United States, more than 50 sites recover LFG for
commercial utilization (Exhibit 8-1). Exhibit 8-2 lists LFG
recovery sites that are currently planned. California currently
leads the list of States with the greatest number of operating
commercial LFG recovery facilities. Many more projects in other
parts of the country are being evaluated, designed, or have
begun operation. Within the past several years, State-mandated
closure regulations specific to LFG have increased landfill
owners' interest in using LFG to help offset closure costs and
comply with closure regulations.
The data in Exhibits 8-1 and 8-2 are summarized in
Exhibit 8-3 to provide a perspective of the end ^use and energy
/
production rate ranges of the 89 active and pla'nned LFG recovery
/
facilities. More than half (49) of these sites are generating
electricity or plan to do so/ but of the direct gas utilization
sites, only 18 percent (7 out of 40) upgrade LFG to a high-Btu
content. These figures reflect the versatility of electricity
generation and the limited applicability of upgrading LFG.
The minimum size of landfill at which LFG can be profitably
recovered is quite variable and highly market dependent. One of
the smallest landfills at which LFG is profitably recovered is in
Brattleboro, VT, which serves a residential population of about
19,000 plus associated commercial and industrial waste sources.
8-2
-------
EXHIBIT 8-1. ACTIVE LFG RECOVERY SITES
Location - Output
CALIFORNIA
Azusa - 1.7 mcf
Corona - 5 mW
City of Industry - 0.5 mcf
Duarte - 2.3 mW
Lompoc - 0.6 mW
L.A. Bradley East - 3.0 mcf
L.A. Lopez Canyon - 2.0 mcf
L.A. Mountaingate - 4.0 mcf
Marina - 1.2 mW
Martinez (Acme) - 2.0 mcf
Menlo Park - 2.0 mW
Monterey Park - 4.0 mcf, H
Mountain View - 0.5 mcf
Mountain View (Shoreline Park) -
3.5 kW
Napa County (American Canyon) -
1.5 mW ,
Olinda - 5.7 mW 1 mcf
Oxnard - 15.8 mW (in phases)
Palo Alto - electricity
Palos Verdes - 1.3 mW
Penrose - 9.4 mW
Salinas - 1.4 mW
San Fernando (North Valley) -
1.1 mcf
San Jose (Newby Island) - 2.0 mW
San Leandro (Davis Street) - 3.0 mcf
Santa Barbara County (Tajiguas) -
electricity r
Santa Clara City - 1.4 mW
Santa Clara County (Guadalupe) -
1.5 mW
Stockton - 1 mW
Sun Valley (Sheldon-Arietta) -
1.7 mcf, H
Toyon - 9.4 mW
Upland - 0.5 mW
Whittier'(Puente Hills A)
Whittier (Puente Hills B)
Wilmington - 2.5 mcf
CONNECTICUT
Naugatuck - 0.5 mW
4.0 mW
0.17 mcf
MARYLAND
Rockville (Gude) -
2.8 mW
MICHIGAN
Detroit ("Holloway
Junior") - 1 mcf
Lansing - 130 mcf/year
MISSOURI
St. Louis - 0.2 mcf
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Manchester - 0.7 mW
NEW JERSEY
Cinnaminson - 0.5 mcf
Deptford Township - 2 mW
' Dover Township - 0.4 mW
NEW YORK
Babylon - 0.5 mW
Holtsvi£le - 0.5 mW
Huntin/^ton - 1.0 mW
Onondaga (Syracuse) -
2 mV/
Riverhead - 0.5 mW
Smithtown (public) - 0.5 mW
Smithtown (private) -
1 mW
Staten Island (Fresh
Kills) - 10.0 mcf, H
Yaphank - 2.0 mW
NORTH CAROLINA
High Point - 3 mcf
OREGON
Oregon City - 2 mcf, H
8-3
-------
EXHIBIT 8-1. ACTIVE LFG RECOVERY SITES (CONT.)
FLORIDA
Pompano Beach - 3.3 mcf, R
GEORGIA
Atlanta - 3 mcf
Macon - 2 mcf
ILLINOIS
Blue Island - 4.0 mcf
Calumet City - 2.5 mcf, H
Chicago (CID) - 3.5 mcf
CANADA
Germanton - 6.6 mW
Kitchener - 0.5 mcf
PENNSYLVANIA
Lebanon - 1.2 mW
Montgomery County - 6mW
Scranton - 2 mcf, H
VERMONT
Brattleboro - 0.3 mW
WASHINGTON
Vancouver (Leichner) -
0.35 mcf
WISCONSIN
Franklin - 3.3 mW
NOTE:
Output figures, actual or estimated, are in millions of cubic feet
per day (mcf) of natural gas or in megawatts (op kilowatts) of a
site's electrical generation capacity. The letter "H" in the copy
indicates high-Btu gas is produced by a site; all others report.
medium Btu output. • >
SOURCE: Waste Age, March 1986,
8-4
-------
EXHIBIT 8-2. PLANNED LFG RECOVERY SITES
Location - Output
CALIFORNIA
Bonsall - 1.4 mW
Burbank - 500 kW
Fresno - 3.5 mW
Fresno (BFI) - 1 mW
Fresno County - 750 kW
Kern County (China Grade) -
1.5 mW
Orange County (Coyote Canyon) -
20 mW
Otay - 1.9 raw
Ox Mountain - 1 mW
San Jose (Singleton Road) -
1.0 mW
San Marcos - 1.9 mW
Saugas - 1.4 mW
Whittier (Puente Hills) - 40 mW
Yolo County - 2 mW /
Yuba/Sutter - 1.5 mW
CONNECTICUT
New Milford - 1.2 mW
Torrington - 0.25 mW
Wallingford - 0.6 mcf
DELAWARE
Pigeon Point - 1.5 mcf
FLORIDA
Lantana/Lakeworth - gas
Pasco County - electricity
ILLINOIS
Barton - medium Btu gas
MARYLAND
Montgomery County - 2.5 mW
Prince Georges County -
1.0 mcf, 30 mW
MASSACHUSETTS
Amesbury - 2.5 mW
Worcester - 2.3 mcf
MICHIGAN
Detroit (Holloway) - 6.0 mcf,
H
Riverview - 7.5 mW
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Nashua - 2.0 mW
NEW JERSEY
Kearny - 6 mcf
NEW YORK
Albany - 1.5 mcf
Bronx - eleptricity
Brooklyn (Bountain Ave.) -
6 mcf
Goshen - 245 mW
Islip - 2 mW
Merrick - electricity
Oceanside - gas, H
Oyster Bay - 2 mW
Port Washington - 1 mcf
NORTH CAROLINIA
Greensboro - 3 mcf
Winston-Salem - 0.85 mcf
OHIO
Cincinnati (Rumpke) - 6.0 mcf
8-5
-------
EXHIBIT 8-2. PLANNED LFG RECOVERY SITES (CONT.)
OREGON
Newburg - 1.5 mW
PENNSYLVANIA
Boyerton - 1 mW
F. R. & S. - 1.3 mW
GCS (PenArgyl) - 2 mW
Helva (Whitehall) - 1.2 mW
RHODE ISLAND
Cranston - medium Btu gas
Cumberland - 0.8 mcf
Johnston (Central Landfill) -
4.5 mW
SOUTH CAROLINA
Greenville - gas
TEXAS
Ft. Worth - gas or
electricity
Houston (McCarty road)
89.0 mcf
VERMONT
Rutland - 500 kW
NOTE:
Output figures, actual or estimated, are in millions of cubic feet
per day (mcf) of natural gas or in megawatts (or kilowatts) of a
site's electrical generation capacity. The letter "H" in the copy
indicates high-Btu gas is produced by a site; a,ll others report
medium-Btu output. /
SOURCE: Waste Age, March 1986.
8-6
-------
EXHIBIT 8-3
LFG RECOVERY SITES BY END USE AND ENERGY PRODUCTION RATE
Generation of Electricity
Active
Planned
Energy Production Rate Range
(Megawatts) No.
0- 2
2- 5
5-20
Total
10
9
J5
24
Energy Production Rate Range
(Megawatts) No.
0- 2
2- 5
5-40
Total
13
8
^4
25
Medium Btu Gas
Active
Planned
Energy Production Rate Range
(mcf/day) No.
0- 2
2- 5
5-10
Total
Active
13
9
_2
23
High Btu Gas
Energy Production Rate Range
(mcf/day) No.
0- 2
2- 5
5-10
Total
1
-1
4
Energy Production Rate Range
(mcf/day) No.
0- 2
2- 5
5-10
Totffl
/
Planned
5
3
10
Energy Production Rate Range
(mcf/day) No.
0- 2
2- 5
5-10
Total
1
0
_2
3
Totals may not add to that shown on Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2 due to
mixed-use facilities where no end use quantity was specified.
8-7
-------
The site receives approximately 40 tons of refuse per day and has
some 360,000 tons of refuse in place.(1) This site is far smaller
than the 400 tons per day often considered to be the minimum
required for profitable LFG recovery, thus illustrating the
site-specific, variable nature of such projects.
MIGRATION AND EXPLOSION
Landfill gas is generated below the surface of disposal sites
and tends to migrate along paths of least resistance, eventually
venting into the atmosphere above the site. If a natural or man-
made, relatively impermeable layer is present and overlays a
relatively permeable layer, LFG can migrate laterally. Lateral
migration can extend up to several thousand feet or more from a
landfill and create a hazardous condition. LFG tends to accumulate
in enclosed spaces such as cavities in the landfill or in basements,
crawl spaces, or even rooms in structures. As a primary compo-
nent of LFG, methane accumulated in such spaces* poses danger
/
because it is explosive even whefo it comprise^ as little as 5
to 15 percent of the air mixture (referred to as the lower
explosive limit or LEL). When methane comprises more than 15
percent methane, the mixture is flammable. (2) Although explo-
sions of LFG are not common, such events have damaged structures
and equipment and caused injuries and fatalities. Explosions
have occurred on landfills and in adjacent structures including
occupied houses. Exhibit 8-4 is a tabulation of some of the
damage cases attributed to LFG migration.
8-8
-------
Migration of LFG and its explosive potential can be controlled.
Numerous engineered systems can be used to prevent the migration of
LFG from a disposal site or to protect individual structures. These
systems often include gas monitoring facilities. Generally, gas
control systems prevent migration through the use of barriers or
by safely venting LFG to the atmosphere.
REGULATIONS
Federal
There are no Federal regulations for the recovery and use
of LFG. The Environmental Protection Agency has published the
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
and Practices at 40 CFR Part 257.3. These criteria essentially
define a sanitary landfill, but are neither binding on the
States nor Federally enforceable. Explosive gases (methane) are
addressed in 40 CFR 257.3-8, which specifies that methane is not
to be present in the soil at the property bounda/y above its LEL,
/
nor is it to be above 25 percent of the LEL in atay site structure.
State
Several states have adopted regulations that address LFG
control at both operating and closed landfills. In many states,
closure requirements often address gas concerns.
States with LFG regulations include Florida, Pennsylvania,
California, and Washington. Florida has closure plan regulations
requiring sanitary landfills to conduct a gas migration inves-
tigation. This investigation must include monitoring of test
points along the property boundary and within on-site structures.
8-9
-------
EXHIBIT 8-4
LANDFILL GAS MIGRATION DAMAGE CASES
Landfill Name,
Location,
and Date
Methane Detected
Off-Site AboveLEL?/
Di stance*
Explosion/ Landfill Characteristics
Fire?** And Corrective Action*
Damages and Other
Comments
Data Sources
Bakersfield
Fresno,CA.
April 1984
Landfill
Yes/N/A
Yes Control system installed
On-Site after incident.
Fresno police bomb squad
used site for practice
A bomb was buried and
was detonated causing
LFG explosion.
Explosive levels of
methane were migrating
off-site
oo
Operating Industries
Landfill
Monterey Park, CA
August 1983
Yes/No information No
aval table
Class 1 landfill
LFC recovery system
present
Control system existed
prior to incident.
Vinyl chloride detection
casued SCAOMD to order
30-day shutdown of land-
fill. It reopened,
subject to closure in
six-months.
BKK Landfill
West Covina, CA
August-October 198%
WalHngforrf Landfill
Wallingford, CT
June 1984
Shawnee County Landfill
Topeka, KA
August 1983
Yes/250 Yes
Yes/No Information No
available
Yes/NO information No
available
Class I Landfill
Control System
expanded after
incident.
LFC recovery
system present.
No information
aval I able
Twenty residences temporarily
evacuated due to explosive
methane levels in adjoining
soiIs.
Explosive levels of methane
detected in dog pound.
Dog pound temporarily closed,
ventilation system to be
installed.
Home abandoned due to high
methane levels.
I, 2
1,
Symbols
N/A Not applicable
* Reported distance (in feet) of maximum migration, or distance to
affected structure.
** Personal injuries sustained and/or death occured.
* Landfills are municipal solid waste landfills (publicly or privately
owned/operated) unless otherwise noted.
Sources
I. UPI or other news sources
2. SCS Engineers
3. Contact with local officials
4. Princeton's Risk Assessment of the Monument Street Landfill
5. "Gas Control in Landfills: A Case Study" paper presented
by Donald L. Feuerstein at the Fifth National Congress
On Paste Management Technology and Resouce and Energy
Recovery, Dallas, TX, December 7-9, 1976.
-------
EXHIBIT 8-4 (con't)
LANDFILL GAS MIGRATION DAMAGE CASES
Land?III Name,
Location,
and Date
Methane Detected
Off-Site Above LEL?/
Distance*
Explositon/
Fire?**
Landfill Characteristics
and Corrective Action
Damages and Other
Comments
Data Sources
oo
I
Anderson Township Landfill
Cincinnati, OH
1983
Warner Hill Landfill
Cleveland, OH
1980
Fells Street Landfill
Richmond, VA
1975
Yes/300
Yes/I00
Yes/20
Fells Street
Richmond, VA
1982
Landfill
No/tN/A
Yes**
Off-Site
Yes**
Off-Site
Yes
Off-Site
Yes**
On-Site
Ocean County Landfill
Manchester, NJ
December 1983
Hanaque, NJ
March, 1984
Babylon Landfill
Comaek, NJ
May 198%
No/N/A
No Information
available
Yes/50
Yes
k-»n-Site
Yes
Yes**
On-Site
No Iiner present.
Control system in-
stalled after the
incident.
No liner present.
SoiIs consist of
silt and clay.
Control system in-
stalled after the
incident.
No liner present.
No information
available.
Ventilation and alarm
systems to be installed
in the remaining mainten-
ance garage.
Control system proposed
for school located on a
closed landfi11.
No liner present. Sandy
Soils. Control system
installed after incident.
Explosion destroyed re- 2
sidence across the street
from the landfill. Minor
injuries reported.
Explosion killed foundry 2, 3
worker on site adjacent
to landfill.
In 1975, explosion occurred in 2, 3
nearby apartment building.
The City decided to buy and de-
molish it. Two schools sited
on the landfill were closed until
a control system was installed.
The 1982 incident occurred when 2, 3
children trespassed onto the
landfill site, entered a control
system manhold, and lit a match,
resulting in an explosion. The
nature of the associated injuries
has not been disclosed. The
case is in litigation.
Spark from landfill pump probably 1
ignited methane gas, causing ex-
plosion and fire. One person
sustained first and second degree,
and flash burns. .Office building
destroyed.
No information available. 1
Methane migrated to the scale- 1, 2
house on-site. Explosion killed
one person and injured another.
Symbols and Sources (Refer to first page)
-------
EXHIBIT.8-4 (con't)
LANDFILL GAS MIGRATION DAMAGE CASES
Landfill Name
Location,
and Date
Methane Detected Explosion/
Off-Site Above LEL?/ Fire?**
Distance*
Landfill Characteristics
and Corrective Actions-
Damages and Other
Comments
Data Sources
Monument Street Landfill Yes/No Information No
Baltimore, MA. available.
April 1983
oo
I
PJP Landfill No/N/A
Jersey City, NJ
I98
-------
EXHIBIT 8-4 (con't)
LANDFILL GAS MIGRATION DAMAGE CASES
Landfill Name,
Location,
and Date
Methane Detected
Off-Site Above LEL?/
Dlstance*
Explosion/ Landfill Characteristics
Fire?** and Corrective Action*
Damages and Other
Comments
Data Sources
Lees Lane Landfill
Louisville, KY
1978
Yes/I,000
Allegheny County Landfill Yes/200
Frostburg, MD
1978
oo
U)
>
Beantown Dump
Rockvitle, HD
1980
Winston Salem, NC
1969
NO/N/A
Yes/100
Port Washington Landfill Yes/200
North Hempstead, NY
1981
Snithtown Landfill
Smlthtown, NY
Yes/200
Yes** No liner present.
Off-Site Soils are clayey silt
to gravelly sand.
Control system installed
after the incident.
Yes** No liner present.
Off-Site Soils are silt and
clay. Control system
installed after the
incident.
,Yes** Old, inactive dump
Off-Site site. Building con-
structed on inactive
disposal site.
Control system in-
stalled after the
incident.
Yes** Codisposal
Off-Site No liner present.
Control system in-
.-, stalled after the in-
v» cident.
Yes** Liner present
Off-Site Soils sandy with some
clay and silt layers.
Yes** Liner is present.
Off-Site Soils are sandy
Small fires and explosions.
Several houses evacuated
-------
EXHIBIT 8-4 (con't)
LANDFILL GAS MIGRATION DAMAGE CASES
Landfill Name,
Location,
and Date
Methane Detected
Off-Site Above LEL?/
01 stance*
Explosion/ Landfill Characteristics
Fire?** and Corrective Action*
Damages and Other
Comments
Data Sources
Hardy Road Landfill
Akron, OH
1984
Yes
500-1,000
Yes** No liner present.
On-Site Control system in-
stalled after incident.
One house destroyed.
Ten houses evacuated
temporarily. Several
minor injuries.
1, 2
oo
*—•
u>
00
Landfill near
Lake Township
Canton, OH
198%
Tyler, TX
Nay 1982
I-95 Landfill
Lorton, VA
1984
Yes/No information
available
No/N/A
No
"No
Yes
300-1,000
Yes**
Off-Site
No information
available.
Control system existed
prior to incident.
No liner present.
Soils range from
clay to sandy clay
to sand.
Control system
installed after the
incident.
Two homes and a day
care center temporarily
evacuated.
TOPS office building sited
on closed landfill. Methane has
caused problems since early 1970's.
Failure of ventilation exhaust fan
resulted in "significantly high"
levels of methane in the building.
One man was fatally injured and
another burned over 50% of his
body during explosion and limited-
f i re.
I, 2
Creentree Hills Landfill Yes
Madison, Wl 100-150
Off-Site
Soils are composed of
clay, glacial fill,
sand, weathered and
fractured bedrock.
Explosion blew out one sidewall of 1,3
a townhouse. Three adjacent apart-
ment buildings and several homes
evacuated for 20-30 days. Two
people seriously injured. Claims filed
against the; City total $5.2 million.'
dollars.
Symbols and Sources (Refer to first page)
-------
Gas control systems are required at sites where methane concen-
trations exceed the LEL in soils at the property boundary
or 25 percent of the LEL within structures on the property. In
addition, Florida's sanitary landfill criteria require that,
"All sanitary landfills where gas generated by decomposition of
wastes is not readily dispersed into the atmosphere shall be
provided with a gas control system."(3) The criteria further
requires that emissions from a gas control system not violate
state air quality standards. Gas control systems have also
been installed to reduce odors.
Most States have adopted EPA's criteria for methane
concentrations in on-site structures and in the soi] at property
boundaries, or have more stringent criteria. For example, the
State of Washington requires that methane must not be present
in off-site structures above 100 parts per million by volume of
hydrocarbons. Their criteria apply to both operating landfills
*
/
and those closed after the effective date of the' legislation,
r
November 27, 1985.(4) Landfill operators in Washington State may
be required to monitor for LFG at the property boundary and in
on-site structures and to report the results to county health
departments on a quarterly basis. A State-approved LFG monitoring
plan may be required. Operators of large landfills in Washington
(greater than 10,000 cu. yd. per year) must continuously collect
methane either for sale, for flaring, or for utilization as
energy. However, operators of smaller landfills are not subject
to this requirement, and may vent LFG in lieu of the above.(4)
8-14
-------
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Aside from safety aspects of explosion and fire, there are
othar environmental concerns associated with landfill gas and
collection systems. First is the subject of condensate. When
landfill gas is first removed from extraction wells, it is usually
quite warm and high in entrained moisture which will drop out as
liquid (or "condensate").
In general terms, there are two types of condensate associated
with collection systems. The first type drops out in collection
pipelines. Unless handled properly, these liquids can accumulate
at low points and eventually block gas flow. To prevent this,
collection piping is sloped to pre-defined low points. Dedicated
"moisture traps" collect condensate for control.
The second type of condensate is that which drops out at the
gas processing facility, usually the result of active LFG dehydra-
tion. Most States will not allow disposal of these liquids back
to the landfill. States typically require that these liquids be
t
r
treated and/or hauled off-site. Depending on composition, con-
r
densate may be a hazardous waste, increasing further the cost for
condensate handling.
Trace constituents are a second environmental concern
associated with gas control and recovery systems. Trace consti-
tuents comprise less than one percent of LFG, and may include
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Vinyl chloride, benzene,
toluene, and xylene are examples of VOCs. Many of those compounds
8-15
-------
are toxic at certain concentrations. Though the concentrations
of those compounds do not usually exceed applicable health
standards, they may exceed some State ambient air guidelines/
standards in some instances, and have garnered attention from
State and local regulatory authorities. Proper LFG control and
combustion should reduce VOC concentrations to below acceptable
levels.
A third environmental concern is flaring of LFG. Disposal of
collected LFG can be a problem at gas control sites, or even
recovery sites where more gas is withdrawn than can be used. If
freely vented, LFG can cause odor problems and/or other concerns
(see above). The usual approach is to combust the gas on-site.
Simple combustion uses the methane content of the LFG itself, and
auxiliary fuel is not usually required. Burning the LFG is mostly
successful in abating any odor problems (malodorous compounds are
destroyed), and in reducing VOCs to safe levels. LFG combustion
/
can be performed with simple candle flares, or/with more sophisti-
cated combustion units (e.g., ground flares and even incinerators)
which enclose the combustion process, may require auxiliary fuel,
and generally achieve greater gas destruction.
8-16
-------
REFERENCES
1. Personal Communication, Lewis Audette, President, New England
Alternate Fuels, June 2, 1986.
2. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Protection Guide
on Hazardous Materials, 7th Edition. Section 325 M. 1978.
3. Florida Administrative Rules 17-7.073, Sanitary Landfill
Closure Plan Requirements.
4. Washington Administrative Code 173-304, Minimum Functional
Standards for Solid Waste Handling.
8-17
-------
SECTION 9
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
When organic matter decomposes, it is transformed into a
variety of simpler organic materials by the action of micro-
organisms abundant in solid waste. Some of the components in
the solid waste have already begun to decompose before being
disposed in a landfill. Typically, early decomposition of such
components is caused by aerobic bacteria utilizing readily
available oxygen. The oxygen is readily depleted and anaerobic
processes then begin decomposing the organic constituents.
These processes, both aerobic and anaerobic, produce
principally methane and carbon dioxide. The rate of the LFG
production is dependent on a number of site-specific factors,
including the age of the landfill, moisture content and solid
waste composition and quantity. Other factors that affect LFG
generation are temperature conditions in the lajfdfill, nutrients,
/
infiltration of oxygen, and the in-place density of the refuse.
LFG generation begins almost immediately upon burial
and increases rapidly with steady generation beginning within
several months to a year. Relatively steady generation may
continue for ten years or longer.(1) Thereafter, the generation
rate decreases, but gas generation continues for many years.
These changes in generation rates are illustrated in Exhibit 9-1
and are based on the assumption that LFG generation is based
on so-called "zero order reaction rates". Not all authorities
agree with this assumption and since LFG research has only been
9-1
-------
EXHIBIT 9-1 EXAMPLE OF LFG GENERATION VS TIME
o
c
o
o
*J
0.75 -\
0.50
0.25 4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (years)
-------
conducted for the past 10 to 15 years, little data are available
to support one hypothesis over another.
There is current research relating to enhancing methane
production through utilization of sewage sludge. Preliminary
results show that with the addition of sludge cake to municipal
refuse, the production of LFG is hastened. Total gas production
from test cells vs. control cells (those without sludge added)
is about the same.
9-3
-------
REFERENCES
Lockman and Associates, Inc. Recovery, Processing, and
Utilization of Gas from Sanitary Landfills.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report No.
EPA-600/2-79-001. February 1979.
9-4
-------
SECTION 10
LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY
Recovery of LFG for beneficial use is currently practiced
at more than 50 locations nationwide with more than 40 other
systems in the planning stages, as shown in Exhibits 8-1 and
8-2 respectively. This section addresses four topics related
to LFG recovery: uses of recovered gas, criteria for the
selection of sites suitable for gas recovery, technical factors
related to LFG recovery, and LFG processing techniques.
USES OF RECOVERED GAS
LFG can be used directly as a medium-Btu fuel or upgraded
through processing to a higher heating value. LFG recovery
projects to date have concentrated on three general uses:
0 Direct use of medium-Btu gas by industrial customers after
minimal processing for water removal.
0 Combustion of medium-Btu gas to generate/'electricity for
sale to the local utility^ '
c Upgrading of LFG to pipeline standards (high-Btu) for
injection into utility (natural gas) pipelines.
The production of medium-Btu gas for direct use in boilers
or similar applications is the simplest process. In this case,
LFG is typically processed to remove entrained moisture and
particulates. The product gas has an energy value ranging from
400 to 600 Btu per cu. ft.(l), making it suitable as a boiler
fuel, and can be sold for this purpose to industries nearby.
Industries currently utilizing LFG include refineries, chemical
plants, and power plants.
10-1
-------
Medium-Btu LFG can also fuel internal combustion engines
or gas turbines to generate electrical power after moisture,
particulates, and corrosive materials have been removed from
the gas. Although steam boilers could provide higher efficiencies
than internal combustion engines, the capital and operational
costs of a steam plant require a large-scale operation (greater
than 20 megawatts) to be economically viable.(2) At present,
no LFG recovery projects employ a steam boiler for on-site
power production; only some of the nation's largest landfills,
such as the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, produce
enough LFG necessary to run a 20 mW (megawatt) plant. Generation
of electricity may be enhanced with passage of legislation
requiring public utilities to purchase electricity from qualifying
facilities at the utility company's avoided cost. The avoided
cost represents the cost to the electric utility of generating
the next increment of electricity. However, these prices are
/
sensitive to costs for fossil fuels used to generate electricity.
The third category of LFG use is upgrading to pipeline
quality standards. The production of pipeline quality gas
(950 to 1,000 Btu per cu. ft.) requires removal of carbon dioxide,
moisture, and particulates, and possibly other trace gases.
Carbon dioxide can be removed via several treatment processes
including physical absorption, chemical absorption, and membrane
separation. If nitrogen is present, it can be removed by
fractional liquifacation. The cost is usually so great, however,
that this option is precluded when significant air (nitrogen)
intrusion is present. Because of this, high-Btu gas production
10-2
-------
systems typically withdraw less of the available LFG than other
systems in order to prevent the air intrusion caused by high
pumping rates.
CRITERIA FOR SITE SELECTION
The quantity, quality, and ability to collect LFG, and the
availability of markets are factors critical to the success of
a LFG recovery project. Until LFG is collected and sold, it is
merely a waste product representing a potential odor or migration
liability.
Assuming that LFG markets are present, potential recovery
sites are generally evaluated based on the following five criteria:
1. Amount of refuse — The quantity of LFG produced depends
first on the amount of refuse available for decomposition.
For commercial applications, an LFG recovery site should
have a minimum of roughly one million tons of refuse in
place, an average depth of 40 feet, and a fill area of 40
/
/
acres.(1) These figure? are general guidelines based on
engineering experience. Generally, sites which fall below
these limits are too small (thus producing too little
gas to be economically recovered and used), or too shallow
(thus making it difficult and/or expensive to recover).
An engineering evaluation and projection of LFG use for
each site should be conducted.
2. Refuse composition and moisture content — Waste compo-
sition can limit both the total yield and rate of LFG
10-3
-------
production. In general, LFG production is stimulated
by a waste having a high percentage of readily decompos-
able organic materials (e.g., food and garden wastes).
The recoverable landfill gas is derived from biodegra-
dation of these and other organic constitutents.
Sufficient moisture must be present to support the
biological activity and nutrient transport necessary for
LFG production. Moisture content and movement are
generally the limiting factors in LFG production, with
disposal sites in arid locations generating LFG at a
slower rate for a longer duration. Too much moisture
can inhibit LFG migration to the collection system,
plug collection wells, and promote the generation
of leachate. In addition, toxic industrial wastes or
other inhibitory materials present can upset the
activity of methane-forming bacteria and reduce LFG
generation rates.
/
3. Age of the landfill — As biodegradaticfh of organic
/
materials is completed, LFG production is reduced to
a minimal level. Therefore, older disposal sites will
produce less LFG because the decomposition rate has
decreased. The rate of LFG generation through decomposition
of buried wastes determines the useful life of a landfill
for gas recovery. This generation rate varies
significantly among landfills, but the total volume
of LFG generated is thought to be fairly constant.
10-4
-------
The area under the curve illustrated in Exhibit 9-1
is the total volume of LFG generated. Basically, the
LFG generation rate increases with time during active
filling. Shortly after filling is complete, the rate
levels off and remains relatively constant. This
steady-state condition may endure 10 or more years,
depending on the actual conditions which exist in the
landfill. For example, a moist landfill with a high
generation rate per unit mass will have a shorter
life than a dry landfill with a lower generation
rate.(3) In either case, a point is reached where
the generation rate begins to decline as the quantity
of decomposable matter decreases. At some stage, the
rate of LFG production is reduced to an amount below
that necessary for viable recovery.
4. Receipt rate — The average age of the refuse in a
/
landfill is directly related to the rate at which
refuse was received during the site's operational
life. The lower the receipt rate, the greater the
decomposition at the time of closure. To assure an
adequate quantity of LFG production, a potential
recovery site should have a receipt rate of at least
400 tons per day or more.(4) However, much smaller
sites are recovering LFG, including the landfill at
Brattleboro, VT, where waste receipts average less
than 40 tons per day.(5)
10-5
-------
5. Permeability of cover and surrounding soils — Landfill
sites constructed in or with impermeable soils or materials
are favorable for LFG recovery. Because LFG tends to
travel the path of least resistance, its tendency to
migrate increases with the permeability of surrounding
soils. High permeability soils, i.e., sand and gravel,
allow LFG to escape from the landfill, thereby inhibit-
ing recovery. Landfills constructed with impermeable
materials, such as clay soils and synthetic caps,
prevent the escape of LFG and inhibit the entry of air
into the landfill during LFG recovery. This containment
is important because air decreases LFG quality and also
inhibits methane production by anaerobic bacteria.
At closure a sanitary landfill is to be provided with a
cap of compacted soil. Such caps decrease LFG escape
through the surface. Post-closure construction activities
t
such as paving or compacting the landfall surface also
aid in preventing LFG escape. However, one drawback of
making the landfill surface less permeable is that it
promotes lateral migration if the surrounding subsurface
soils are more permeable than the cap. Thus, if LFG is
not being extracted from a capped landfill, the landfill
perimeter should be monitored to detect any migration
and identify the possible need for LFG control.
10-6
-------
TECHNICAL FACTORS RELATED TO LFG RECOVERY
The first component in LFG recovery is the collection
system. The design of the collection system depends primarily
on landfill conditions. LFG collection typically involves an
induced exhaust well system, which extracts LFG through a net-
work of wells joined by a header pipe to a blower. Exhibit 10-1
depicts a typical layout of an extraction system. Wells are
drilled in the refuse with perforated pipe placed into a gravel-
packed section of each boring. This perforated zone is typically
designed to be about half the depth of the well and is located
in the lower portion to minimize air intrusion. Exhibit 10-2
shows a detail of a typical LFG extraction well. Other design
elements include the well depth, spacing, and setback distance
from the landfill perimeter.
The design of the collection system does not depend on the
intended end use for the LFG, but rather on landfill conditions.
i
For example, recovery well depths are typically designed to be
50 to 90 percent of the landfill depth.(6) Similarly, the
setback distance from the landfill perimeter will depend on the
cover material. Since the permeability of the cover material
determines the likelihood of air intrusion through the side
slopes, the setback distance will vary accordingly to minimize
intrusion. The steepness of the sideslopes must also be
considered since flatter slopes decrease the possibility for
such intrusion.
Well spacing depends on the planned flow rate, and is
10-7
-------
FACTORY.
O
oo
REFUSE FILL
EXHIBIT 10-1 LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY SYSTEM
-------
HEADER PIPE
*»" DIAMETER PVC PIPE
3' IMPERMEABLE PLUG
GRAVEL BACKFILL
SL9TTED PIPE
REFUSE
HOLE
EXHIBIT 10-2 TYP1CAL
10-9
-------
usually based on a concept called the "radius of influence."
The radius of influence describes that landfill area within
which the extraction well causes a change in pressure. The
size of the radius depends on such parameters as refuse density,
LFG production rate, and landfill depth, and is often determined
empirically, using data from a pump test program. A typical
test program will apply varying pumped withdrawal rates to an
extraction well, and measure the corresponding pressure changes
in surrounding monitoring wells. After the radius of influence
is estimated, the well-spacing for the full-scale design can
be determined.
In addition to the vertical well systems described above,
LFG can also be extracted by means of a trench collection
system, also called a horizontal well system. This type of
system requires installation of trenches as the landfill
progresses. The trenches consist of rows of crushed stone
/
running the length of the landfill and located^ at various
»
levels as the landfill expands vertically. The stone surrounds
a perforated pipe connected to a header pipe at one end, and
as with a vertical well system, LFG is extracted by a blower
connected to the header pipe.
Regardless of the type of collection system, vertical or
horizontal wells, the rate of LFG production at the specific
site determines the upper boundary of recovery rates. Ideally,
the recovery system should collect LFG at the same rate it is
being produced within the landfill. Under such ideal conditions,
no LFG would be available for migration, and no air would be
10-10
-------
drawn into the landfill.
A well-designed and constructed recovery or control system
need not have negative impacts on the end use of the site.
Both horizontal and vertical well systems can be built with
virtually all collection pipes and equipment below the surface.
Only blowers, gas processing equipment, controls, and flares
are above the surface, where they can be centrally located and
designed for minimum visual and operational impact. An excellent
example of a methane recovery system designed to complement
landfill end use is the Industry Hills Civic-Recreational-
Conservation Area located in the City of Industry, California.
There, a vertical well system recovers methane from a closed
municipal landfill. The surface of the site is used as a golf
course with the gas used for space and water heating at a
convention complex next to the golf course. This project was
selected as the Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement of
/
1981 by the American Society of C^ivil Engineers'. (7)
/
LANDFILL GAS PROCESSING
Landfill gas is seldom used directly upon withdrawal from
a site. The type and degree of processing depends on the charac-
teristics of the gas and the end use. Exhibit 10-3 illustrates
typical processing steps. Each step is briefly described below
followed by a methanol process that combines three operations.
Particulate Removal
Particulates are sometimes entrained in the LFG stream
as the gas is drawn from the landfill. The simplest removal
10-11
-------
technique is reduction of gas velocity, whereby LFG passes
through a tanK-like vessel where its velocity decreases and
particulates drop out via gravity. Another method is the use
of a venturi scrubber.
Trace Constitutent Removal
Trace constituent removal can be accomplished using any
of a number of solvent, membrane, and carbon treatment systems.
For example, the solvent process involves absorption of these
constituents in a relatively small amount of the solvent, which
is regenerated by application of heat sometimes aided by the
addition of air. The membrane technology process, also called
physical membrane separation, is a proven technique for removing
trace constituents (gases) using mechanical separation.
Carbon Dioxide Removal
Carbon dioxide is removed for high-Btu applications. Its
removal results in the production of pipeline quality methane.
7
The most practiced methods by which carbon dioxide is removed
from LFG are adsorption. Carbon dioxide removal can also be
accomplished using membrane technology.
Dehydration
Landfill gas usually has a high moisture content as it
first comes from a well collection field. This moisture is
highly corrosive, and can cause problems with recovery, proces-
sing, transmission and user equipment. Depending on the
initial moisture content and the end-use requirements, various
methods can be applied to remove this water. Once removed,
10-12
-------
EXHIBIT 10-3
GENERALIZED SCHEMATIC OF LFG PROCESSING
Raw LFG
J
Participate Removal
J
Compression/Dehydration
I
Trace Constituent Removal
I
Carbon Dioxide Removal*
I
End Use
BSSeBS»SS88BS=SSS88SSBS3SBSB8SBS3SBSBSSS83SS88BS388B8S3SSS83SBSS8BSS88SBS3BSaSS
NOTE:
Any combination of unit processes may be used depending on gas characteristics and
end use. /
* Only for high-Btu applications'
10-13
-------
the liquid is known as condensate.
One way in which water is removed from the gas stream is
cooling of the gas. A certain amount of cooling is inevitable
in any collection system, as hot gas is removed by wells deep
in the landfill and brought into contact with cool ambient air
in collection pipes on or near the surface. This liquid is
collected and controlled via "moisture traps" (see page 8-15).
Additional processes can further reduce the remaining
moisture content of LFG. One of the most effective approaches
for a landfill gas application is cooling of the gas using
mechanical refrigeration. The refrigeration cools the gas to
a temperature usually above 32° F and condenses the majority
of the water vapor. The water vapor is then separated as a
condensate and the partially dehydrated gas is then available
for use. Additional dehydration can be achieved by reducing
the temperature to below 32° F. However, in order to avoid
freezing, a substance such as methanol must be ipjected so
/
/
that the condensate can be removed as a liquid.'
/
Other methods of dehydration have been attempted with LFG
but have not been completely successful. These methods include
the use of triethylene glycol which is used in the natural gas
industry for dehydration. This method is sensitive to chlorides
and oxygen that may be present in LFG and will deteriorate the
glycol solution, creating a corrosive product.
10-14
-------
Methanol Wash
Methanol wash is a non-proprietary process that removes
chlorinated trace constituents, carbon dioxide, and moisture in
a single process. It is based on the process of using methanol
for removal of trace constituents and carbon dioxide from coal
gas and natural gas. Several variations on the methanol
wash process have been demonstrated at the pilot scale.
This process offers the promise of being an economical way
to remove trace constituents, carbon dioxide, and moisture.
10-15
-------
REFERENCES
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Landfill
Methane Utilization Technology Workbook. Prepared for U.S.
Department of Energy, Division of Building and Community
Systems.
Gas Recovery Systems. The Economics of Landfill Gas Projects.
GRCDA 9th International Landfill Gas Symposium, May 1986.
SCS Engineers. Toyon Canyon Landfill Gas Utilization Study.
Prepared for Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public
Works/ City of Los Angeles, California. December 1982.
Bogardus, Ellen R. Landfill Gas Recovery Comes of Age. 14th
Composting and Waste Recycling Conference, Washington, D.C.
May 8, 1984.
Personal Communication with Lewis Audette, President, New England
Alternate Fuels, June 2, 1986.
EMCON Associates. Methane Generation and Recovery From Landfills.
Ann Arbor Science. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1982.
Ugly Dump Site Transformed Into Recreation Mega-Facility. Civil
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 51,
No. 6. June 1981.
10-16
-------
SECTION 11
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES
OF NOT RECOVERING OR CONTROLLING LANDFILL GAS
SAFETY
Safety is a primary concern in dealing with any combustible
gas. Landfill gas is combustible and can cause explosions and
fires if allowed to accumulate in confined areas. Subsurface
features such as underground trenches, vaults, utility conduits,
and other structures may allow gas to accumulate. LFG can also
be an asphyxiant displacing oxygen in enclosed areas.
Structures on closed landfills should be monitored and
protected from LFG. Closed landfills operated as recreation
areas or other public uses should include LFG protection for
restrooms, pavilions, equipment and administrative buildings,
and other enclosed structures. The dangers of LFG may mandate
/
strict safety precautions at closed landfills, particularly
during construction. Testing of the subsurface and the near-
surface atmosphere at construction sites may dictate appropriate
safety measures, including forced ventilation, specialized
breathing apparatus, or non-sparking tools and equipment.
Closed landfills present potential LFG problems for
buildings both on and near the site. Closure of landfills
includes installation of an impermeable cap to prevent
moisture movement through the solid waste and subsequent
production of leachate. The cap also retards emission of gas
through the landfill surface. The subsequent LFG production
11-1
-------
creates pressure in the landfill, forcing the gas to migrate
laterally through the most permeable soil lenses. Gas has been
documented to travel up to several thousand feet laterally from
a site (see Exhibit 8-4). Whenever structures are located near
landfill areas, monitoring should be performed to determine if
gas is migrating toward the structure. Site conditions may
preclude migration? however, landfills can be expected to generate
LFG, and should be assessed by specialists familiar with gas
migration and control. In questionable situations, subsurface
gas monitoring may be appropriate. If gas is found in the soil
at the property boundary at or above the LEL, an engineered
control system is needed.
POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF NOT RECOVERING OR CONTROLLING LFG
The consequences of not recovering or controlling LFG from
a landfill will vary according to the site conditions and the
quantity of gas generated. The potential consequences, both
environmental and economic, however/ can be quite significant.
Foremost, is the danger of LFG migration that is likely to occur
without recovery or migration controls. LFG migration presents
serious risks/ including fire, explosion, and asphyxiation, to
residents and workers on and near a landfill. LFG can also be
harmful to vegetation. It is an asphyxiant to many plants,
trees/ and shrubs, causing vegetative kills by precluding the
presence of air at normal levels.
Without recovery or migration control, the primary mechanism
preventing migration is the natural venting of LFG into the
11-2
-------
atmosphere. However, this may cause environmental problems
in the form of odors. Although methane is odorless, other
constituents of LFG, such as hydrogen sulfide, are odorous even
in trace quantities. Some LFG control systems incinerate the
gas to control odors; others merely vent to the atmosphere with
no odor treatment.
Although they are effective in controlling LFG hazards,
control systems without recovery do not take advantage of the
potential economic benefits. LFG recovery systems .can provide
revenue through the sale of generated electricity or gas. In
addition, the use of LFG reduces the overall consumption of
non-renewable fuels. Therefore, LFG recovery systems should be
considered over control-only systems at landfill sites where
recovery is economically feasible. At sites where recovery is
unwarranted, LFG control measures may still be necessary to
protect the surrounding area and allow future use of the closed
/
/
landfill. Where recovery is warranted, separate control
features may be required beyond that included in a recovery
system to ensure that complete control coverage is provided.
11-3
-------
SECTION 12
FACTORS AFFECTING ECONOMICS OF GAS RECOVERY
LANDFILL CONSIDERATIONS
In assessing the economic viability of landfill gas recovery,
the landfill characteristics are the first set of conditions
to be investigated. These characteristics impact the quantity
of gas generated, the percentage that can be collected, the
quality of the gas, and the gas generating lifetime. Generally,
three factors influence total gas generation: (1)
1. Waste Quantity. All things being equal, landfills
with more waste will generate more gas than smaller
sites. Thus, gas recovery and utilization is generally
more profitable at sites with large quantities of
refuse. One million tons of refuse in place is a
commonly-used minimum figure. However,* smaller sites
/
may be economically viabjle.
2. Age of the Waste. If the refuse was recently deposited,
it is likely to be at its peak generation rate. Refuse
in-place for 10 to 20 years may have passed this peak,
and recoverable quantities of gas will be less than at
younger sites.
3. Other Considerations. Factors relating to the type
of waste and its current condition include moisture
content, pH, organic content, etc.
12-1
-------
The second set of considerations relating to landfill
gas recovery deals with collection capability. The following
factors affect collection capability: (1)
1. Depth vs. Area. Deep landfills are preferable to those
spread out over large areas and shallow depths. Generally,
landfills more than 40 feet deep allow collection of a
high percentage of the gas generated. In addition,
collection systems are less expensive when one deep well
can collect gas from the same waste volume as multiple
shallow wells.
2. Mounded vs. Subsurface Configuration. The less surface
area exposed to atmosphere, the less gas will dissipate
into the air and escape the collection system. When
landfills are constructed below grade, a larger portion
of gas generated can be recovered than from mounded
fills.
*
3. Cover Soil Permeability. Generally, tne tighter the
cover soils, the greater the gas retention and the
greater volume of gas collected. Permeable cover soils
allow gas to dissipate to the atmosphere and escape the
collection system.
4. Water Content. High moisture content at the site
generally increases the rate of waste decomposition
and gas generation compared to dry sites. Higher
gas generation rates normally improve the viability
of a gas recovery project. Excessive moisture in
12-2
-------
the fill, however, can be a problem because if wells
flood with water, the ability to collect the gas is
reduced.
MARKET CONSIDERATIONS
All existing landfill gas recovery and utilization projects
can be classified into three general types: (1) medium-Btu
applications, (2) electric generating applications, and (3)
high-Btu applications. Market considerations that impact gas
recovery viability differ according to those types of end uses.
Medium-Btu Uses
Typical medium-Btu gas uses include boiler fuel, space
heating, water heating, steam generation, or industry-specific
process applications. In these cases, only nominal removal of
particulates and moisture is performed before the gas is used.
Typically, medium-Btu gas applications entail transmission of
the gas to users near the landfill site. Factors impacting
f
the viability of medium-Btu applications include:
1. Proximity of User. This is a critical consideration
in the viability of a medium-Btu project. A market
should exist near the landfill gas site (e.g., within
5 miles) in order for the gas to be transmitted at
reasonable cost.
2. Transmission Distance and Access. As the transmission
distance increases, the cost of installing and main-
taining transmission lines increases proportionately.
Consideration must be given to the distance, securing
12-3
-------
right-of-way, terrain, obstacles such as rivers, and
transmission line maintenance over such distances.
3. Quantity of Gas Used. Ideally, most or all of the
landfill gas that can be collected should be used.
4. Variability of Gas Use. Natural gas use (and potential
landfill gas use) for space and water heating, may be
highly seasonal. Under these circumstances, gas demands
may be quite high during the winter months, but demand
could be low or non-existent during warm summer months.
During these times, the landfill gas cannot be stored,
but rather is vented to the atmosphere or flared without
economic return. Intermittent operations are also
undesirable. The ideal medium-Btu user is one that
consumes the landfill gas for process uses at uniform
rates throughout the year with operations 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year.
*
7
5. Quality Requirements. The quality ne^ds of the
medium-Btu user are highly variable. The first quality
requirement relates to moisture content. Landfill gas
is wet compared to natural gas, and some users may be
able to tolerate a relatively wet gas, but others may
not. If the gas must be as dry as natural gas,
considerable capital expense may be required to remove
the moisture.
6. Trace Constituents. Aside from removing moisture from
the gas stream, other trace constituents are present
that may have a deleterious impact on equipment. Many
12-4
-------
of the hundreds of trace compounds in landfill gas
are corrosive. Considerable capital cost may be
required to treat landfill gas to reduce trace
constituent levels to those usually found in natural
gas.
7. Pressure Requirements. Ideally, the landfill gas
developer can deliver gas to the medium-Btu user at
the minimum pressure necessary for transmission.
In some cases, however, high pressure requirements
at the point of use may exist, thus necessitating
additional compression of the landfill gas to
pressures as high as in large natural gas pipelines.
8. Price Paid. The largest determinant of medium-Btu
landfill gas use viability is the price paid by the
user. Typically this price is a function of the
current natural gas cost. Some discounts will have
/
to be offered compared to natural gas iprices in order
to encourage the user to convert to LFG. These
discounts have ranged between 10 and 40 percent, and
can be more depending upon the bur-den of retrofit
placed on the user.
Natural gas prices were quite high several years ago,
thus creating additional impetus for development of
medium-Btu landfill gas projects. In 1985 and 1986,
natural gas prices have decreased to record low levels,
resulting in a decreased economic viability for
medium-Btu uses.
12-5
-------
Electrical Generation
A second use for landfill gas is electrical generation.
In this case, nominal removal of participates and moisture may
be performed. The gas is used as the fuel for internal combus-
tion engines connected to a generator to produce electricity.
Gas turbines have been used for several electrical generation
projects at exceptionally large landfills. The electricity is
usually sold to the local electric utility. Under the Public
Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA), electric utilities
are required to buy electricity from small generators such as
those found at landfill gas sites, and pay the "avoided cost,"
which is essentially the utility's cost of generating the next
increment of electricity. A separate set of criteria impacts
the economic viability of electric generating projects. These
may include:
1. Proximity to Connection Points. This is usually
t
f
not a significant problem, as electric/lines are
often close to the landfill. The only question
then is whether they are of adequate capacity.
2. Access to Connection Point. In certain cases,
transmission for long distances may be necessary.
Access across adjoining properties and acquisition
of appropriate right-of-way may then be required.
3. Switching Requirements. A large cost associated
with electric generating facilities is the special-
ized switchgear needed to connect to the local
utility. These are highly variable and generally
12-6
-------
depend upon the requirements of the specific utility
and the conditions at the point of connection.
4. Utility Cooperation. Although PURPA requires utilities
to purchase electricity from small generators, some
electric utilities are more cooperative than others.
Obviously, good cooperation can speed up the contract
execution process, and allow for prompt project start-up.
5. Avoided Cost Paid. Utilities usually publish
schedules of current avoided cost and estimated
future escalations, which are highly variable.
Avoided costs are quite high in New York, the
New England States, and throughout California,
but are much lower in the Midwest and South since
the majority of electric power is derived from
burning coal. Thus, more electric generation
projects have been initiated in New York City and
/
California than elsewhere. /
»
High-Btu Uses
High-Btu gas is the third application for landfill gas use
to be discussed. For these uses, LFG is processed to remove
the carbon dioxide. The resultant gas is similar to natural
gas in terms of energy content. Considerations impacting the
economic viability of these projects are:
1. Available Pipeline of Adequate Capacity. Unlike
electric lines that are usually convenient and
accessible, large natural gas pipelines of sufficient
capacity near to a landfill site are not commonplace.
12-7
-------
2. Utility Cooperation. Sale of an upgraded high-Btu
gas may be made either to the local natural gas
utility, or perhaps to a major pipeline company.
Unlike electric generation where utility companies
are required by law to purchase the electricity,
there is no requirement in most jurisdictions for
gas utilities or pipeline companies to purchase
high-Btu gas.
3. Ease of Transmission. Transmission to the point
of pipeline injection can be costly and acquisition
of right-of-way may be both expensive and time
consuming. The same transmission considerations
applicable to medium-Btu use apply to high-Btu use.
4. Pressurization Requirements. Large natural gas
pipelines typically operate at high pressures, but
natural gas lines operated by small utilities usually
T
are not operated at such high pressure's. In either
/
instance/ however, some pressurization of the gas
will be required, possibly adding considerable cost.
5. Quality Requirements. Different gas utility and
pipeline companies have varying criteria for
acceptance of gas, which usually relate to moisture
content, energy (Btu) content, oxygen content, and
trace constituent levels.
6. Price Paid. In order to secure the cooperation of
the gas utility, a discount on the current price
paid by the utility for natural gas will likely be
12-8
-------
necessary. Since natural gas costs are currently
quite low, contracts negotiated during 1985 and 1986
are generally not favorable for the gas developer.
12-9
-------
REFERENCES
1. SCS Engineers. Landfill Gas Resource, Evaluation, and
Development Guidebook. Gas Research Institute. Report
No. 85/0250. November 1985.
12-10
-------
SECTION 13
DECISION-MAKERS' GUIDE
When a landfill is considered for gas recovery, a three-
step process is appropriate. The first step involves comparing
landfill site characteristics against various minimum acceptable
criteria. If the characteristics exceed these minimum values,
a more detailed feasibility study can then be performed using
more site specifics and formulas for gas recovery quantities,
revenues, and costs. Finally, a field testing program should
be performed. A testing program will confirm the rules-of-thuir.b
utilized in the first two steps and provide data that can be
used to design and construct the well field.
MINIMUM CRITERIA
The first assessment consists of comparing basic landfill
characteristics against selected minimum acceptable criteria.
i
r
These include: /
/
1. In-Place Waste Quantity. A value generally accepted
in the industry is that a landfill must have in excess
of 1 million tons of refuse in place.(1) Where condi-
tions for gas utilization are ideal, exceptions to
this minimum value may exist. However, in many cases,
landfills smaller than 1 million tons have proven to
be uneconomical.
2. Operational Status. Organic material has a limited
gas production lifetime. The volume of gas generation
initially will increase, and then start to decrease.
13-1
-------
Within a period of time (10 to 30 years), the rate of
gas generation will decrease to a point where the cost
of operating the recovery system exceeds revenues. It
is best that the site being considered either be
operational or have been recently closed.
3. Depth. For gas recovery to be economically viable,
the minimum landfill depth should be about 40 ft.(l)
Recovery from a landfill shallower than this is margi-
nal even when the total waste quantity is in excess
of 1 million tons.
4. Area. The landfill should have at least 40 acres of
fill area.(l) Most landfills with more than 1 million
tons meet this criterion.
If a site passes all of the above criteria, a more detailed
feasibility investigation should be performed. If the site fails
only one of the criteria and there are other strpng indications
/
/
of viable recovery, an expert in LFG recovery should be consulted
to assess recovery feasibility. An estimated 10 to 25 percent
of currently active landfills should pass the test for minimum
criteria. For those sites, the more detailed analysis below is
appropriate.
REVENUE VS. COST COMPARISON
The second more detailed assessment of LFG recovery viabil-
ity consists of estimating gas quantities and potential revenues,
estimating capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
for collection and utilization, and comparing revenues against
costs to determine profitability.
13-2
-------
In t ,, yua «-juaui.icies, these values can be used:
1. Generation Rate. Gas generation rates can vary from
0.08 to 0.28 cu. ft. per. Ib. of refuse per yr.(2) A
typical value is 0.15 cu. ft. per. Ib. per year.(3) Note
that this figure is for total generation, and that
collection will be a percentage of this value. In
determining the total number of pounds of waste at a
landfill, some assumption about landfill density must
be used; densities may range from 600 to 1,500 Ib. per
cu. yd.(4) If site densities are not known, a figure
of 1,000 Ib. per cu. yd. is a commonly used assumption.
2. Collection Rate. Not all landfill gas generated can
be collected. Collection efficiency is a function of
the landfill geometry, the layout, and design of the
collection system. Typical collection efficiencies
range from 25 to 75 percent of the gas generated.(3)
*
An average of 50 percent is reasonably/for estimating
»
purposes.(4) /
3. Energy Content. Methane concentrations in LFG average
about 50 percent; under conditions of collection, this
value may change.(4) Typical methane content of LFG
V
ranges from 40 to 60 percent, with equivalent energy
values of 400 to 600 Btu per cu. ft.(l) In the absence
of other information, 500 Btu per cu. ft. is a reasonable
assumption.
4. Operational Downtime. Further reductions to derive
ultimate gas collection volumes should be applied to
13-3
-------
account for downtime of the collection and recovery
system. Values typically range from 5 to 15 percent,
depending upon the quality of the collection system,
the degree of sophistication and the level of main-
tenance. For estimating purposes, the landfill gas
recovery industry uses values of 5 percent for medium-
Btu systems, 10 percent for electric generating plants,
and 15 percent for high-Btu processing plants.(2)
5. Gas Revenue Rates. Sale prices for medium- and
high-Btu gas vary as a function of prevailing local
prices for natural gas. Over the past several years,
these rates have ranged from a low of about $2 per
million Btu, to a high of $6 per million Btu. In
order to compete with natural gas, a landfill gas
developer must offer a discount on natural gas prices
to the potential user. These discounts are typically
*
/
from 10 and 40 percent. Local gas utilities can
provide data on their rates and a discount factor
applied. The discount should be directly proportional
to the degree of retrofitting required by the gas user.
6. Electricity Revenue Rates. Under PURPA, electric
utilities are required to buy electricity from small
generators, such as landfill gas recovery facilities.
The value paid is the avoided cost, and may range from
$0.01 to $0.10 per kwh. The local electric utility's
avoided cost must be obtained and converted to a
price per Btu. A typical conversion factor used is
17,500 Btu per kwh.(2)
13-4
-------
7. Energy Escalators. An escalator from current rates to
rates in the initial year of operation should be used
in the feasibility analysis. The cost for electricity
can be expected to escalate in the future. In certain
cases, electric utilities may be able to provide pro-
jections of future avoided costs. In other instances,
escalations have to be assumed. Values between 5 and
10 percent per year are often used. (2)
Similarly, escalation rates of 5 to 10 percent for
natural gas prices have been used. With the reduction
in natural gas prices over the past two years, cost
escalation predictions may not be reliable.
Costs for gas recovery and utilization systems are highly
variable depending upon site location, degree of sophistication,
useful life of equipment, site conditions, and other factors.
*
/
Despite such variability, there has been some agreement within
t
the industry on general rules-of-thumb for calculating capital
and O&M costs for gas recovery facilities. These formulas have
been presented in a document prepared for the U.S. Department
of Energy.(2) In this document, capital costs in 1982 for
various systems were described as follows:
1. Medium-Btu Facilities. Capital cost = $(0.2)(cu.
ft. per day) + $1,000,000. This formula is valid for
an operating range of 2 to 20 million cu. ft. per day
,of input gas.
13-5
-------
2. High-Btu Facilities. Capital cost = $(0.7)(cu. ft.
per day) + $1,000,000. This formula is valid for an
operating range of 2 to 10 million cu. ft. per day of
input gas.
3. Electrical Generating Facilities. Capital cost =
$(1.0)(cu. ft. per day) + $1,000,000. This formula
is valid for an operating range of 2 to 10 million cu.
ft. per day of input gas.
O&M costs are also quite variable, depending on plant
technology, labor requirements, and site factors. For example,
excessive landfill settlement may damage the collection system,
and necessitate frequent repairs or replacement. First year
O&M costs are estimated to be about 10 percent of capital cost.(2)
Some escalation in the O&M dollar amount thereafter to allow
for general inflation is appropriate. In addition, some non-
routine O&M expenditures at 5 or 10 year intervals may be
*
7
necessary for repair or replacement of process /and blower
/
facilities. A summary of expected capital and O&M costs for
facilities of various sizes based on these formulas has been
included as Exhibit 13-1.
Taxes can have a significant impact on the economic via-
bility of a gas recovery and utilization project when private
parties are the developers. Historically, investment tax credit
and energy tax credits have been advantageous to the development
of many projects, turning otherwise non-profitable or marginal
facilities into economically viable programs. However, tax
benefits vary widely depending on the nature of the individual
13-6
-------
project, and the tax status of the developing organization.
For 1987 only, qualifying LFG recovery projects can claim
a 10% tax credit. This credit is referred to as an Energy Tax
Credit or Business Energy Credit and is described in Internal
Revenue Code (IRC) Section 46(b)(2)(A). This credit is eliminated
after 1987.(5)
An Alternate Energy Production Credit is also available to
LFG recovery projects and is described in IRC Section 29(a).
It provides for a tax credit worth (in 1986 dollars) approximately
§4.50 per barrel of oil equivalent that an LFG recovery project
displaces. This credit applies to LFG facilities that were in
service after 1979 and will include facilities in service before
January 1, 1990. Credits are available through the year 2000,
and are variable as are described in the IRS Code.(5)
The estimated revenues and costs should be calculated on
an annual basis and compared. Capital costs should be annual-
*
/
ized and include debt service using interest ra&es and other
>
costs appropriate to the situation. If the cost analysis does
not show a break-even or profitable outlook, the concept of a
gas recovery and utilization facility should be abandoned
unless there are extenuating circumstances; e.g., a requirement
to provide odor or migration control.
FIELD TEST
If the cost analysis is favorable, a field test should
be conducted to confirm the estimates related to gas recovery.
Specialized equipment and experienced LFG engineers are required
13-7
-------
EXHIBIT 13-1
TYPICAL CAPITAL AMD O&N COSTS
Plant
Capacity
Mediu«-Btu
End Use
Electric Generation
End Use
High-Btu
End Use
X
(LFG Inflow Capital First Year Capital First Year Capital First Year
In m cfd) Cost O&N Cost Cost 0AM Cost Cost O&M Cost
2.5 $1,500,000 $150,000 *$ 3,500,000 $ 350,000 $2,750,000 $275,000
5.0 2,000,000 200,000 6,000,000 600,000 4,500,000 450,000
14
7.5 2,500,000 250,000 8,500,000 850,000 6,250,000 625,000
10.0 3,000,000 300,000 11,000,000 1,200,000 8,000,000 800,000
Jpour-foot earthen liner, leachate collection system, 40-acre site, 1,000,000 tons/
2,000,000 cubic yards, 15-year site life.
2Five-foot clay liner (on-site clays), leachate collection system, 40-acre site,
1,000,000 tons/2,000,000 cubic yards, 15-year site life, 30-year long-term care period.
3Coats are in 1985 dollars.
*Source: Gleb, R., and E. Scaro. 1985. Cost Accounting for Landfill Design and
Construction Past and Present. Waste Tech 1985 Proceedings, National Solid Waste
Management Association, Washington, D.C.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Landfill
Methane Utilization Technology Workbook. Prepared for U.S.
Department of Energy, Division of Buildings and Community
Systems. Report No. CPE-8101. February 1981.
2. Argonne National Laboratory. Methane from Landfills: Pre-
liminary Assessment Workbook. Prepared for U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Renewable Technology. Report No.
ANL/CNSV-31. 1982.
3. Walsh, J.J., and R.E. Zimmerman. Elements of a Landfill Gas
Utilization Feasibility Study. Report of the Landfill Gas
Feasibility Study Subcommittee of the Landfill Gas Committee,
Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal Association.
Silver Spring, Maryland. April 1984.
4. Lockman and Associates, Inc. Recovery, Processing, and
Utilization of Gas from Sanitary Landfills. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. No. EPA-600/2-79-001.
February 1979.
5. Internal Revenue Code. Washington, D.C. 1986.
13-9
-------
SECTION 14
SUlWiARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Landfill gas can be either a hazard or a benefit at closed
and operating landfills. Hazards are associated with the explosive
potential of the methane content of LFG. Additionally, concerns
have been raised (at least in California) about surface emissions
of LFG from landfills and their contribution to air pollution.
The gas is being recovered as an alternative fuel at several
sites where the economics are favorable.
When organic matter decomposes in a sanitary landfill, it
is transformed into a variety of simpler organic materials by the
action of microorganisms abundant in solid waste. These processes
produce principally methane and carbon dioxide. The rate of the
LFG production is dependent on a number of site-specific factors,
including the age of the landfill, moisture content and distri-
bution, and solid waste composition and quantity.
t
LFG generation begins almost immediately upon burial and
increases rapidly with steady generation beginning within several
months to a year. Relatively steady generation may continue for
10 years or longer. Thereafter the generation rate decreases,
but gas generation continues for many years.
Recovery of LFG for beneficial use is currently practiced at
more than 50 locations nationwide with more than 40 other systems
in the planning stages. The quantity, quality, and collectability
of LFG, and the availability of markets are factors critical to
the success of a LFG recovery project. Assuming that LFG markets
14-1
-------
are present, potential recovery sites are generally evaluated
based on the following criteria:
0 Amount of refuse — The quantity of LFG produced
depends first on the amount of refuse available
for decomposition. For commercial applications,
an LFG recovery site should have a minimum of
roughly one million tons of refuse in place and
an average depth of 40 feet.
Refuse composition and moisture content —
Waste composition can limit both the total
yield and rate of LFG production. In
general, LFG production is stimulated by a
waste having high percentage or readily
decomposable organic materials (e.g., food
and garden wastes).
0 Age of the landfill — As biodegradation of
organic materials is completed, less LFG is
produced (and eventually none is produced at
all). Therefore, older disposal sites will
produce less LFG because the rate of decom-
position has decreased. Recovery sites
should be recently closed, or preferably,
have active fill life remaining.
Capital and O&M costs for LFG recovery systems can be quite
high. Thus the right combination of site condition, gas volumes
and market conditions must be present to make recovery attractive
for financial reasons only. Capital costs will always be well
/
over $1 million with O&M costsrof more than ^.0 percent of capital
costs occurring every year.
The recovery of gas via collection systems can help achieve
the positive aspects of migration control, control of surface
emissions, and recovery of an alternative fuel. Recovery systems
withdrawing LFG can control migration and thus reduce the poten-
tial for explosions. Other types of control systems including
pressure curtains and vent trenches do not reduce surface emissions
14-2
-------
and actually encourage them. Systems recovering LFG for energy also
help control horizontal migration and surface emissions. However,
no one system will optimally meet all three goals, as mentioned
above.
State regulations exist and primarily focus on the control
of LFG* migration. However, both California and Washington have
regulations that encourage or require the collection, rather then
venting, of LFG. Thus in most parts of the country the recovery
of LFG is based almost exclusively on the value of the gas as a
fuel. Where it is profitable to recover LFG, it will be recovered.
The control of gas migration is related to site-specific situations
and is driven by safety considerations. This is true for both
closed and operating landfills.
The recovery of LFG as fuel currently rests on economics.
As more States, and possibly even the Federal government, move
toward LFG regulation, recovery will become increasily attractive.
As these regulations become more common, installation of recovery
systems will become more popular for both eloped and operating
/
sites. In addition to the economic benefits. LFG recovery will
aid in meeting landfill surface emission criteria and/or help
control horizontal migration. The combination of positive and
negative motivators (the value of the gas as a fuel and the
regulations) may result in more sites with control systems.
14-3
------- |