United Stares
environmental Protection
Agency
Solic Wane
Region VIII
1350 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
A TECHNICAL
MARCH. 1982
OGRAM REPORT
WASTE-TO-ENERGY OPTIONS FOR
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
<
-------
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM REPORT:
WASTE-TO-ENERGY OPTIONS FOR
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
Market Center
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
March, 1982
-------
ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII
Grand Forks
9 Great Fall)
Fargo#
• BISMARCK
Missoula
• HELENA
# Miles City
• Butte
Billings
Aberdeen
PIERRE
• Rapid City
Sioux Falls •
Rock Springs
# Rawlins
CHEYENNE
• SALT LAKE CITY
LARIMER COUNTY
• DENVER
• Grand Junction
Green River q
• Pueblo
-------
Public Law 94-580 - October 21, 1976
Technical assistance by personnel teams. 42 USC 6913
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel, including
Federal, State, and local employees or(Contractors (hereinafter referred to as
"Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels") to provide States and local gov-
ernments upon request with technical assistance on solid waste management,
resource recovery, and resource conservation. Such teams shall include techni-
cal, marketing, financial, and institutional specialists, and the services of
such teams shall be provided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Project
Officer, EPA, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Project Officer: William Rothenmeyer
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ii
List of Figures iii
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 3
Background 5
Study Area 5
Population 5
Waste Generation Rates 6
Waste Load 10
Waste Composition 12
Facility Start-up Date 16
Existing Solid Waste Management System 17
Current Solid Waste Collection 19
Recycle Something 22
Resource Recovery Options 26
Modular Incineration 26
Waterwall Incineration 32
Cogeneration 33
Potential Incinerator Sites 35
Colorado State University-Main Campus 35
Colorado State University Foothills Campus 37
Larimer County Landfill 41
Industrial Parks 41
Downtown Steam Loop 42
Cost-Effectiveness 43
Capital Costs 43
Operating and Maintenance Costs 44
Transportation Costs 48
Revenues 48
Tipping Fee 49
Results of the Analysis 49
Conclusions and Recommendations 52
Appendix A - 1981 Landfill User Rates
Appendix B - Waste Stream Flow Control
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Population Projections for Larimer County 1981-2001 7
2. Waste Generation Rates--Lbs./Capita/Day 9
3. Larimer County Projected Waste Load 11
4. Seasonal Variation in the Larimer County Landfill Waste Load (TPD) 13
5. Solid Waste Composition—Percent by Weight 14
6. Tonnage of Resources in Larimer County's Solid Waste, 1986 15
7. Recycle Something—Impact on Solid Waste Load of
Larimer County Landfill 24
8. Potential Steam Production from Incinerated Solid Waste in
Larimer County 29
9. Auxiliary Consumption for a 450 TPD Modular Incinerator 30
Producing Steam
10. Labor Requirements for a 450 TPD Modular Incinerator 31
11. Potential Energy Produced from Municipal Waste vs.
Foothills Campus Energy Requirements 40
12. Estimated Capital Costs for 450 TPD Modular Incineration and
Waterwall Incineration Facilities 45
13. North Little Rock Modular Incinerator Actual Capital
Cost Breakdown 46
14. Projected Optimum Operating and Maintenance Costs for
North Little Rock, Arkansas, Modular Incinerator 47
15. Revenues from Resource Recovery Options:
450 TPD Facility (In 1981 Dollars per Ton Processed) 50
16. Tipping Fees for Resource Recovery Options
(In 1981 Dollars per Ton Processed) 51
- i i -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Typical Modular Incinerator System 27
2. Colorado State University 36
3. Colorado State University Foothills Campus 38
- i i i -
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fred C. Hart Associates (FCHA), under contract to the Region VIII office
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, conducted a preliminary evaluation
of the solid waste management system in Larimer County, Colorado, and an assess-
ment of the potential for incorporation of a waste-to-energy resource recovery
facility. The evaluation consisted of estimating solid waste quantity and com-
position, determining seasonal generation patterns and assessing collection,
transportation and disposal practices. Several sites were considered as possi-
ble locations for modular or waterwall incinerator facilities. The existence of
an energy consumer as well as ease of access, availability of land, proximity to
existing steam distribution lines and expected public attitudes were considered
for each site.
After completing these evaluations, it was concluded that a waste-to-
energy facility is not economically feasible at the present time in Larimer
County. The major reasons for this are:
o lack of suitable energy consumers;
o existence of an efficient and comparably low-cost 1 a ndfi1 ling
operation;
o high capital and operating costs of incineration facilities; and
o relatively low energy costs.
A brief review of independently-developed cost figures for construction and
operation of a waste-to-energy facility performed by the Platte River Power
Authority corroborated the FCHA finding that waste-to-energy is not currently
feasible on economic grounds.
The study further determined that changing conditions in the future may
combine to create a favorable climate for the installation of a waste-to-energy
plant in Larimer County. Also, present and future recycling activities are
desirable rather than detrimental in terms of waste-to-energy feasibility
- 1 -
-------
because these programs may be integrated into a diversified waste management
system which can optimally utilize waste stream components with regard to cur-
rent market and technology conditions.
The process of studying the solid waste management system in Larimer
County pointed out a need for current, accessible local solid waste data for
planning purposes. As a result, remaining funds were utilized to prepare a
recommended solid waste data management system for the county to begin compila-
tion of needed statistics.
- 2 -
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present a preliminary evaluation of alter-
native systems that could be used by Larimer County to retrieve usable energy
and/or materials from the controlled burning of solid waste. Resource recovery
technologies such as source separation recycling, composting and methane recov-
ery, though also potential alternatives, were not considered since the project
scope was limited.
The study assesses available solid waste data in the County and consoli-
dates this baseline information. For example, per capita solid waste generation
rates, waste volumes entering the County landfill, costs associated with collec-
tion and disposal, and costs associated with resource recovery were estimated to
the level of accuracy permitted by existing records. Sites were investigated to
determine their suitability for location of either a modular or waterwall incin-
erator facility. These two waste-to-energy technologies were chosen for speci-
fic study as national operating experience has indicated that modular and water-
wall incineration would be most appropriate for the Larimer County area. This
study represents an initial feasibility assessment to determine whether waste-
to-energy should be examined in greater detail as a solid waste management tool
and conservation strategy at the present time in Larimer County. Much more spe-
cific analysis of the individual options will have to be performed prior to a
decision to implement a resource recovery project.
Nationally, public demands for mitigation of negative impacts of existing
solid waste management practices, particularly landfilling, were formalized in
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. Specifically, Sub-
title B, Section 2003 of RCRA charges the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to provide technical assistance to federal, state, and local governments in the
area of solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource conservation.
- 3 -
-------
In January, 1979, Larimer County Commissioners began the process of inves-
tigating the feasibility of energy recovery from solid waste generated in the
County. This resulted in a request by the Larimer County Health Department for
technical assistance from the EPA in more fully examining resource recovery
options. The request was approved by the EPA and Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
(FCHA), EPA's Region VIII Technical Assistance Panels contractor, was authorized
to begin work on the project. Work commenced July, 1981.
- 4 -
-------
BACKGROUND
Some key variables that affect the waste stream available for a resource
recovery system need to be identified and the level of documentation for each
assessed before a preliminary assessment of resource recovery can be attempted.
These variables include: 1) the study area, 2) the study area population and
expected growth, 3) waste generation rates, 4) waste load, 5) waste composition,
and 6) facility start-up-date.
STUDY AREA
The study area, as defined in the scope of work, includes the service area
of the Larimer County landfill near Ft. Collins. Presently, this encompasses
the whole County except for a small population using the Wellington landfill and
a larger number of residents and tourists utilizing the Estes Park landfill.
There is a possibility that both of these landfills will close during the twenty
year study period and the solid waste loads will be diverted to the County land-
fill. The solid waste load from the Wellington area is negligible relative to
the County's total waste load (approximately 1 percent). The waste load from
the Estes Park landfill, while more substantial, would not be enough to signifi-
cantly affect the feasibility of a resource recovery system. Therefore, for the
purpose of this study, the study area has been assumed to include the areas cur-
rently using the County landfill.
POPULATION
Population figures used in this study were obtained from the U.S. Census
Bureau and various local planning agencies. As in many other places in the
country, Ft. Collins officials question the accuracy of the 1980 census re-
sults. Evidence to support the city's contention that the population of
Ft. Collins is substantially higher than the number reported by the Census
Bureau is being prepared. The city has considered bringing suit against the
U.S. Census Bureau but has taken no legal action to date. Loveland officials
also question the census figures but plan no formal objection. For the purposes
- 5 -
-------
of this study, the population figures generated during the 1980 Federal Census
count were utilized. The purported discrepancies in the population figures for
these two cities will not substantially affect the results of this study.
Larimer County has experienced widely variable rates of growth throughout
its history. The absence of a steady trend makes predicting future growth dif-
ficult. Projected growth rates supplied by the cities of Ft. Collins and Love-
land and the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Government were applied to the
1980 figures to generate future population characteristics in the County (see
Table 1).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in April 1980, Larimer County had a
population of just over 149,000 people. Of this total, 64,600 or 43 percent
resided in the City of Ft. Collins, 30,200 or 20 percent resided in the City of
Loveland and 48,000 or 32 percent resided in the unincorporated areas of the
county. Of this last group, the great majority of that population live in the
eastern third of the county. The western two-thirds of the county, exclusive of
the Estes Park area, is almost wholly owned by the U.S. Forest Service.
Regional officials expect Larimer County's population to increase by
92 percent during the project period (1981-2001) with even larger gains in
Ft. Collins (117 percent) and Loveland (123 percent). This continued rate of
population growth requires carefully considered planning and presents the oppor-
tunity for innovation in terms of resource use and supplying public services.
One distinctive feature of the Larimer County population is the relatively
large number of tourists for several months of the year. It is estimated that
the Estes Park area supports a population of 50,000 during the summer months
which represents almost a ten-fold increase over the resident population. Rocky
Mountain National Park drew approximately 3,000,000 visitors in 1980.
WASTE GENERATION RATES—POUNDS/CAPITA/DAY
The Larimer County Landfill does not have a scale for weighing garbage
hauling vehicles. Consequently, it is not possible to precisely determine local
- 6 -
-------
TABLE 1
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR LARIMER COUNTY 1981 - 2001
19801
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Berthoud
2,362
2,442
2,889
3,376
3,844
4,478
Estes Park
2,703
2,798
3,337
3,936
4,388
5,187
Area
6,733
6,972
8,327
9,819
10,957
12,950
Ft. Col 1i ns2
64,632
68,650
88,650
108,650
128,650
148,650
Loveland3
30,244
31,647
39,318
48,210
58,520
70,472
Timnath
185
193
234
271
296
338
Weili ngton
1,215
1,260
1,493
1,686
1,951
2,328
Unincorporated Areas
47,843
48,847
54,040
58,585
62,378
67,198
Larimer County
149,184
155,828
189,961
224,714
260,027
298,651
Landfill Users^
141,236
147,596
180,141
213,209
247,119
283,373
Source for all growth rates except footnoted figures: Larimer-Weld Regional
Council of Governments Adopted Dec. 7, 1977
1 U.S. Census - 1980 count
2 City of Ft. Collins Planning Department - Kenneth G. Waido, Senior Planner -
July 22, 1981 - supplied growth rates.
3 City of Loveland Planning Department - William E. Collins III, Planner II -
July 21, 1981 - supplied growth rates.
4 Population of Larimer County exclulding Wellington and Estes Park Area.
- 7 -
-------
waste generation rates. Enough information is available, however, to evaluate
the applicability of published figures on per capita waste generation to Larimer
County. Solid waste reference materials report a range of waste generation
rates due to the fact that per capita solid waste generation rates are affected
by a number of variables.
The most critical of the variables affecting per capita waste generation
is whether the study area population is urban or rural. This factor affects the
waste generation rate because of the way in which the rate is defined. Solid
waste generation rates include household waste plus commercial and industrial
wastes. Demolition wastes and bulky goods are typically not included. Since
rural areas lack substantial commercial or industrial waste streams, rural waste
generation rates are lower than urban waste generation rates. Currently accep-
ted rates are approximately 5.0 lbs./person/day for urban areas and 3.0 lbs./
person/day for rural areas.
Other important variables to consider are: the level and type of indus-
trial activity, climatological factors, the existence of unique waste streams,
the predominant landscaping styles of the area and the rate of economic growth.
Table 2 lists, in increasing order, examples of waste generation rates and
illustrates the range of reported values. The non-local estimates are the
result of quantitative analyses. As can be seen from Table 2, local estimates
(examples 7 and 8) tend to be larger than the estimates specific to other areas
but confidence in these estimates must be tempered by the fact that they are
based on the estimated waste load at the Larimer County landfill for which there
are no measured data. To determine a reasonable waste generation rate for
Larimer County several sources were checked. Landfill operations personnel pro-
vided volume estimates which were substantiated by examining dump ticket and
cash receipt records at the landfill office. Local haulers were contacted to
further verify waste generation and to provide density figures for compacted and
uncompacted refuse.
Examples 4 and 9 in Table 2 were derived when records from Loveland were
compared with waste generation models from other locales. The City of Loveland
operates a municipal garbage collection service for all residential customers
- 8 -
-------
TABLE 2
WASTE GENERATION RATES - LBS./CAPITA/DAY
Reported Waste
Example
Generation Rates
Number
Lbs ./Capita/Day
Locale - Source
1
3.5
National - U.S. EPA, 1979
2
3.9
Monroe County, Indiana, 1980
3
3.92
Eagle County, Colorado, 1979
4
4.03
Lower Bound Estimate
5
4.70
Boulder County, Colorado, 1981
6
5.00
Used For Projections In This Study
7
5.32
Larimer County, 1974
8
5.84
Local Estimate, 1981
9
6.05
Upper Bound Estimate
10
6.50
Denver County, Colorado, 1981
(1) Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, July 1979
Page 109, 110
(2) Quantity and Composition of Solid Waste in Monroe County, Indiana
U.S. EPA Project, November, 1980
Page 11
(3) Resource Recovery Feasibility Analysis Phase I for Eagle County, Colorado
Franklin Associates, Ltd., July 1980
Page 33
(4) Derived from assumption of Loveland residential waste generation rate of
2.42 lbs./person/day as 60 percent of the total urban rate.
(5) Feasibility Analysis for Resource Recovery from Solid Waste, Volume I
Ralph M. Parsons Company, March 1976
Page 3-1
(6) Resource Recovery Options for Boulder, Colorado.
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., October, 1981.
(7) Larimer County Solid Waste Management Plan
Brisco/Maphis Inc., May 1974
Page 31
(8) Based on estimated landfill volumes and 1980 census figures
(9) Derived from assumption of Loveland residential waste generation rate of
2.42 1bs./person/day as 40 percent of total urban rate
(10) The Feasibility of Resource Recovery in the State of Colorado,
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. (Unpublished).
- 9 -
-------
within the city limits. Records are maintained on the number of loads of com-
pacted waste which are taken to the County landfill. The city trucks are
weighed for a week's time, four times throughout the year to determine average
waste density and seasonal variation. As a result, values for residential waste
generation are reasonably accurate. In 1981 this amounted to 2.42 lbs./person/
day which does not include tree waste, appliances and bulky goods. Several
studies have suggested that residential solid waste in a medium to large city
represents between 40 and 60 percent of the total waste stream. If residential
waste represents 40 percent of the waste stream, the aggregate per capita waste
generation rate is 6.05 lbs. per person per day. But, if residential solid
waste is 60 percent of the waste stream, the aggregate per capita waste genera-
tion rate is only 4.03 lbs. per person per day.
Determining the exact per capita waste generation rate without current
weight records of landfilled solid waste is not possible. Taking into account
the higher estimates obtained from local officials and by applying the 40 and 60
percent proportions to the Loveland residential rates it was determined that,
for the purposes of this study, a county-wide waste generation rate of 5.0
lbs./person/day is a reasonable estimate.
Some studies have predicted increased waste generation rates as a continua-
tion of a trend which was observed during the 19601s and 1970's. Other studies
suggest that waste generation rates have leveled off and may decline due to
economic pressures to conserve and expanded participation in recycling pro-
grams. This study assumes that the present level of waste generation will
remain constant throughout the project period.
WASTE LOAD
Using the population and waste generation figures presented in Tables 1
and 2 the total waste load at the landfill can be estimated. These figures are
presented in Table 3. This table displays the total county waste load and the
portion which is presently being disposed of in the Larimer County landfill.
The landfill user population excludes the populations of the Estes Park area and
the town of Wellington from the total population because these areas have local
landfills for solid waste disposal.
- 10 -
-------
TABLE 3
LARIMER COUNTY PROJECTED HASTE LOAD
1980
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Larimer County Total
- Tons Per Day
373
390
475
562
650
747
Larimer County
Landfil 1
-Tons Per Day
-Tons Per Year
353
129,200
369
134,685
450
164,250
533
194,545
618
225,570
708
258,420
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. based on projected population figures in Table 1
and estimated per capita waste generation per day of 5.0 lbs. - expected to remain at the
same level throughout project period.
- 11 -
-------
Waste generation exhibits seasonal fluctuation. Typically, waste genera-
tion is highest during the summer and lowest during the winter largely due to
the presence or absence of yard wastes in the waste stream. Most studies assume
a 25 percent seasonal increase or decrease greater or less than the average.
Discussions with waste haulers confirmed that this was a reasonable figure.
Table 4 illustrates the probable seasonal variations in the tonnage of solid
waste entering the landfill if one assumes a 25 percent seasonal difference for
the resident population.
WASTE COMPOSITION
Waste composition is a significant factor in assessing the feasibility of
waste-to-energy systems. Composition figures provide a basis for calculating
the waste stream's heat value as well as providing estimates of the amounts and
types of materials physically available for recycling.
As with waste generation, no studies of Larimer County's solid waste compo-
sition have been performed, therefore, no specific waste composition figures are
available. However, several waste composition studies have been conducted in
other regions and these show relatively close agreement (see Table 5). Only the
components of paper and yard waste exhibit significant variation. This study
has utilized the figures in the last column of Table 5 for analytical purposes.
Most of the estimates for this study are simply in the mid-range of reported
values. The paper component is slightly higher reflecting the increased impact
of Colorado State University's waste stream which contains a very high percent-
age of paper products.
Municipal solid waste with a composition exhibiting the general proportions
shown in Table 5 has an average heat value of 4,500 Btu/lb. This figure is
widely accepted in the literature and by incinerator manufacturers. This study
utilizes the 4,500 Btu/lb. of solid waste for planning purposes. Waste composi-
tion estimates are also useful in determining the volumes of resources being
"lost" in the landfill which have the potential to be recycled. However in
terms of recycling, even a full scale system would not recover 100 percent of
the tonnage of a particular component. Table 6 translates the waste composition
results into tons per day and tons per year of lost resources. (1986 is used as
- 12 -
-------
TABLE 4
SEASONAL VARIATION IN THE LARIMER COUNTY
LANDFILL WASTE LOAD* (TPDT
1980
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Average
353
369
450
533
618
708
Summer
441
461
563
666
773
885
Winter
265
277
337
400
463
531
Vari ance
88
92
113
133
155
17 7
Tons Per
129,200
134,685
164,250
194,545
225,570
258,420
Year
1 Assumes 25 percent seasonal variation over the annual average during the
summer and 25 percent under the annual average during the winter.
- 13 -
-------
TABLE 5
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION - PERCENT BY WEIGHT
Components
Regional
19851
Typical
19742
National
19793
Range
(Rounded Off)
FCHA
Estimate
Paper Products
41.7
55
32.4
33-55
45
Newspri nt
12.0
Cardboard
11
Mi seellaneous
32
Metal lies
9.2
9
9.3
9
9
Ferrous
8.0
7
8.3
7-8
8
Non-Ferrous
1.2
2
1.0
1
1
Glass
9.0
9
10.1
8-10
9
Plastic
5.0
1
3.2
1-5
3
Yard
13.5
5
19.1
5-19
12
Food
12.0
14
16.8
13-17
13
Wood
3.6
4
3.5
4
4
Rubber and Leather.
2.8
2.6
3
3
Mi seellaneous
1.5
3
1.5
2-9
1
Textiles
1.7
1.5
2
1
Total Percent
100
100
100
100
100
1 Feasibility Analysis for Resource Recovery from Solid Waste, Volume 1, Ralph M. Parsons
Company, 1976. (Estimated composition of solid waste for 1985 DRCOG area).
2 Larimer County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1974.
3 USEPA Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction, Fourth report to Congress, EPA Publica-
tions SW-600, Washington, D.C. U.S. E.P.A., 1977, p. 18.
- 14 -
-------
TABLE 6
TONNAGE OF RESOURCES IN LARIMER COUNTY'S SOLID HASTE, 1986
COMPONENTS
Percent by Weight
Per Day
Per Year
Paper Products
45
202
73,912
Newspri nt
10
45
16,425
Cardboard
9
40
14,782
Miscellaneous
26
117
42,705
Metal lies
9
40
14,782
Ferrous
8
35
13,140
Non-Ferrous
1
5
1,642
Glass
9
40
14,782
Plastic
3
14
4,928
Yard
12
54
19,710
Food
13
59
21,352
Wood
4
17
6,570
Rubber and Leather
3
14
4,928
Miscellaneous
1
5
1,643
Textiles
1
5
1,643
TOTAL
100
450
164,250
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
- 15 -
-------
the base year in Table 6 for reasons discussed in the following section). The
potential for recovery of some components is much greater than others. However,
this provides a baseline by which to measure maximum feasible materials recycl-
ing levels.
The waste volume and waste composition estimates are adequate for a prelim-
inary planning effort such as this. However, in the event that waste-to-energy
planning proceeds to a more detailed stage, a detailed work survey will need to
be conducted to assure the accuracy of the data for more in-depth facility
design and financial planning.
FACILITY START-UP-DATE
This study represents a preliminary evaluation of resource recovery in
Larimer County. In the event a decision is made to pursue the development of an
incineration facility detailed implementation, financial and engineering plan-
ning will have to be conducted. Given the preliminary stage of the current
planning process, it is unlikely that a resource recovery facility in Larimer
County would come on stream in less than five years. Therefore, in making pro-
jections of waste quantities for designing systems and for estimating resources
recovered, population and waste load estimates are developed for the year 1986.
- 16 -
-------
EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
At present, virtually all of the solid waste generated in Larimer County is
disposed of in one of three County-run landfills. A small amount of waste is
being separated into usable materials by individual households and delivered to
recycling collection points. Recycling activities will be discussed in another
section.
The largest of the three landfills is the Larimer County landfill which is
located approximately 2 miles west of U.S. 287, 5 miles south of Ft. Collins and
7 miles north of Loveland. The landfill is jointly owned by Larimer County
(50 percent), the City of Ft. Collins (25 percent), and the City of Loveland
(25 percent). It is managed by the Larimer County Public Works Department,
Solid Waste Department. Area fill with daily cover is the predominant method of
operation with trench fill techniques used where appropriate. Equipment in use
includes two bulldozers, a compacter, a front-end loader, a blade, and a water
truck. The facility consists of 480 acres of which approximately 60 acres have
been filled. The landfill is expected to have sufficient capacity to remain
open for over 20 years although no detailed growth and volume projections have
been compiled to support this projection.
Solid waste loads are not weighed at the landfill since no scales have been
installed. Instead, a fee schedule for various vehicles has been developed (see
Appendix A). Commercial compactor trucks pay for their loads on the basis of
volume at the rate of $.75/yd^. Commercial haulers and frequent users of the
landfill purchase "dump tickets". The gateman punchs out the amount charged to
the trucks when they enter the premises. Other users are charged by the gateman
on a cash basis according to the fee schedule. The facility is open 360 days a
year to receive waste.
It has been estimated that the landfill accepts approximately 2,750 yd3 of
solid waste per day. Much of this volume is uncompacted. By applying a reason-
able density figure to this volume and comparing it with expected waste genera-
tion figures, the actual tonnage received is about 369 tons per day. This
results in an annual waste load of 134,690 tons. The 1981 budget for the land-
- 17 -
-------
fill is $429,410 or $3.18/ton of waste disposed. The Larimer County landfill
also maintains a disposal lagoon for septic tank waste. Approximately 252,000
gallons are accepted each week.
Several groundwater monitoring wells have been drilled in and around the
landfill area and as yet have shown no groundwater contamination. In terms of
cover requirements and other regulations the landfill is in compliance with the
State Health Department. No major or minor improvements in the landfilling
operation are required or planned.
The Estes Park landfill is the second largest of the three Larimer County
landfills. The facility is located at the site of the City's municipal service
center. It handles wastes from Estes Park and its environs plus the wastes gen-
erated by visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park and surrounding Roosevelt
National Forest areas. The City of Estes Park owns the 10 acres which comprise
the landfill area though the landfill is managed by Larimer County. County
officials expect it to remain functional until sometime in 1983. Area fill is
the method of operation used but a severe shortage of cover material exists.
Cover material is imported and officials and are constantly on the lookout for
excavations and other activities around the County where it may be acquired.
The Estes Park facility does not have scales, so again, it is not possible
to obtain highly reliable figures for waste load at the landfill. It is estima-
ted that 15,000 tons/year of solid waste are disposed of in the landfill. Estes
Park is a popular summer resort, the population of which increases dramatically
during the June through September season. The City of Estes Park contracts with
a private hauler for collection of municipal solid waste.
Some thought has been given to acquiring land for a new landfill when the
capacity of the present one is exhausted. The County has made inquiries con-
cerning a new site. Several obstacles will need to be removed before this
alternative is chosen. The lack of cover material will continue to be a problem
at the new site. An easement for an access road would need to be acquired and
inevitable public resistance to siting of a new landfill would have to be met.
Estes Park and the County are in the preliminary stages of determining the opti-
mal method for disposing of Estes Park's waste. Cost information on the Estes
Park landfill is not available.
- 18 -
-------
The third operating landfill in Larimer County is the Wellington landfill
which is located approximately three-quarters of a mile west of Interstate High-
way 25 and 3 miles north of the town of Wellington. The 20-acre site is owned
by Larimer County and serves Wellington and the surrounding rural areas. The
facility has an estimated life of at least 10 years. It is open on Saturdays
and Sundays and handles approximately 50 tons per week or 2,600 tons per year.
The present solid waste disposal system as it exists in Larimer County is
such that 149,000 people generate approximately 375 tons per day (TPD) or
136,875 tons per year (TPY) of solid waste. Approximately 95 percent of the
waste load is disposed of in the Larimer County landfill. During the next
20 years, it is likely that the Estes Park landfill will be closed and Estes
Park's wastes will be diverted to the Larimer County landfill. It also appears
likely that the Wellington landfill will be closed. Therefore, by the year
2001, the Larimer County landfill may be required for disposal of twice the
waste load it presently handles (see Table 3) due to population growth and
landfill closures. Any problems associated with landfilling will be greatly
exacerbated by increased volume.
CURRENT SOLID HASTE COLLECTION
The refuse collection system is significant in a resource recovery program
because it affects the availability of refuse for materials or energy recovery.
Municipal collection, commercial private collection, and individual private col-
lection are currently being used in the study area. In a predominantly private
system, such as in Larimer County, solid waste would be provided for resource
recovery under two conditions: 1) if the cost to the hauler were lower than the
costs of alternative disposal methods (i.e., landfilling), or 2) in response to
a waste flow control ordinance (see Appendix B).
Larimer County maintains two transfer stations to collect solid wastes in
outlying areas for ultimate disposal at the County landfill. The Berthoud
transfer station is located approximately one-half mile inside Weld County,
south of Highway 56. The transfer station is open two days a week on Saturday
- 19 -
-------
and Wednesday to serve the town of Berthoud and surrounding areas. Approxi-
mately 45 tons are collected each week and hauled to the landfill by a private
hauler, under contract to the County. The cost to the County is about $12.76/
ton.
The other transfer station is in the Red Feather Lakes area, north and west
of Ft. Collins. The transfer station is open only on Saturdays and collects
3-7 tons of solid waste per week. The difference between the high and low esti-
mates reflects seasonal differences. Tourist and residential populations are
much greater during the warm weather months. The County transports the solid
waste to the Larimer County landfill. No cost information is available for this
service.
The City of Loveland operates a municipal waste collection service for
residents within the city limits. Households are allowed to put out any number
of containers of trash. No building materials, rocks, sand or dirt are accep-
ted. Each spring, for a 2-week period, appliances and properly bundled tree
limbs are allowed. The fee for this service is $3.50 per month which is added
onto the electric bill. The City owns six trucks and runs four of them five
days per week. The Superintendent of the Refuse Department has estimated that
the average round trip to the landfill is approximately 10 miles. Loveland dis-
posed of 13,370 tons of solid waste (approximately 10 percent of the County
landfill's waste load) in 1980. The average cost of collection and disposal was
approximately $29.50 per ton.
Colorado State University hauls the trash generated on the Main and Foot-
hills campuses to the County landfill. Approximately 8,465 tons of solid waste
are generated directly by the University per year with 84 percent of this ton-
nage being produced during the 39 week school year. This presently represents
about 6.6 percent of the Larimer County landfill solid waste load. The cost of
collection and disposal is approximately $12.80/ton.
At least nine private commercial haulers operate in Larimer County. They
pick up the commercial and industrial wastes in Loveland and all types of gar-
bage in Ft. Collins and the rural areas. Rates for residential collection vary
- 20 -
-------
according to the number and location of the containers. Pick-ups are made once
a week and cost from $5.00 to $10.00 per month. Collections are made 7 days per
week. The sixth and seventh days are usually light days.
There are also a substantial number of individuals hauling their own gar-
bage to the landfill. In 1980 only 53 percent of the revenues of the County
landfill were from private commercial haulers. This estimate is supported by
discussions with the gatemen at the landfill and examination of the cash
records. Approximately 150 to 200 cash transactions typically occur each day
with that number rising to as many as 1,000 on weekends.
- 21 -
-------
RECYCLE SOMETHING
An active member of the Colorado Recycling Cooperative Association (CRCA),
Recycle Something is currently operating in Ft. Collins. The organization col-
lects a small but steadily growing percentage of the solid waste generated in
Larimer County. Its goals are to provide comprehensive and convenient recycling
of a wide variety of items and to involve a substantial portion of Larimer
County's population in this effort.
Recycle Something was begun in 1975 as a volunteer organization using com-
munity groups on Saturdays to pick up recyclables left at drop sites. CETA
funds provided the group with their first full-time employees and the City of
Ft. Collins has provided land for a storage and office site. The group incor-
porated as a nonprofit organization a year ago and presently (July, 1981) is run
with a permanent staff of four plus three CETA workers. Community groups are
still used for Saturday collections.
In addition to the main storage site, Recycle Something maintains two col-
lection stations at Ft. Collins shopping centers. Newspaper, glass, aluminum,
tin cans and high-grade paper are accepted.
At present, Recycle Something meets its expenses through three main
sources: 1) sale of materials, 2) revenue sharing funds, and 3) donations. In
1980, Recycle Something had fixed operating costs of approximately $33,000 a
year. Almost 94 percent of these costs, or approximately $31,000, were covered
by the sale of materials and donations. The organization also receives $64,000
a year in revenue sharing funds which can be used only for vehicle maintenance.
At present, Recycle Something owns one dump truck and a semi-trailer.
Newspaper is the mainstay of Recycle Something's program in terms of
amounts processed and income generated. The market situation for this material
illustrates some of the problems associated with development of a truly viable
recycling program in Ft. Collins and throughout the State of Colorado. No local
buyer of the newspaper exists. Instead, it must be sold in California which
greatly reduces the revenues to Recycle Something. Additionally, the demand for
newsprint, which is chiefly used for building insulation, is highly seasonal,
- 22 -
-------
which may affect Recycle Something's revenues by a factor of three. High-grade
paper, glass and aluminum are also only slightly profitable. Tin recycling is
not currently profitable.
Although quantities of materials handled by the organization are less than
1 percent of the waste load (see Table 7) entering the Larimer County landfill,
the tonnages handled have been increasing steadily. The directors of Recycle
Something think they have the potential to handle a far greater amount of
material.
Recycle Something's major buyer is Tri-R Systems in Denver. Tri-R is cur-
rently able to buy any quantity of goods the organization can provide. The
limiting factors, therefore, appear to be the level of public participation and
Recycle Something's preparation, transportation and storage of the recycl-
ables. Economic and political conditions have hindered the organization's abil-
ity to overcome these limits.
Recycle Something has not had funds to advertise, which the directors think
has the potential to greatly increase participation in the program. The organi-
zaton has also been unable to upgrade equipment, storage, and sorting facili-
ties. This, in turn, has severly limited their ability to increase efficiency
and income. For example, mixed glass cullet currently sells for about $28 per
ton whereas color-separated cullet sells for $40-$50 per ton. However, Recycle
Something cannot separate the glass because they lack space and containers.
Their income has also been significantly diminished by the active aluminum buy-
back programs of Coors, Reynolds, King Soopers and Safeway.
Tin is a saleable product which has been unprofitable because a minimum of
one rail car of flattened, shredded cans must be accumulated. Recycle Something
currently has twice that amount, however, they do not have the equipment to
flatten or shred it.
The group has recently acquired new warehouse and office facilities in
north Ft. Collins consisting of 4,000 sq. ft. of space with rail capacity and
truck loading docks.
- 23 -
-------
TABLE 7
RECYCLE SOMETHING - IMPACT ON SOLID WASTE LOAD OF LARIMER COUNTY LANDFILL
(In Tons Per Year)
1 Materials Recycled
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
lk,ewspaper
15
300
450
500
520
660
igh-Grade Paper
0
10
25
30
45
60
luminum
0
6
5
4
4
-
(Glass
0
1
5
65
75
125
in
0
0
5
15
20
-
OTAL
15
317
490
614
664
845
1 Larimer County Waste Load
111,000
114,600
118,200
121,800
125,400
129,000
ecycled Material
| as % of Waste Load
.01
.28
.41
.50
.52
.66
- 24 -
-------
The directors would like to purchase several pieces of new equipment. A
baler-shredder would allow baling of newsprint and a higher selling price as
well as the possibility of stockpiling it during low-price periods. Cardboard,
a potentially profitable material, could also be collected and sold. Recycle
Something would ideally like to purchase another truck, a forklift and
conveyors.
The directors of Recycle Something plan to institute a buy-back program for
various recyclables. The start-up costs of such a program make it infeasible at
the current time.
- 25 -
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS
There are several resource recovery options which recover either energy
and/or materials. However, many of these systems are in only experimental or
developmental phases. The options which will be discussed are: 1) modular
incineration, 2) waterwall incineration, 3) cogeneration, and 4) a combination
of two of these options.
MODULAR INCINERATION
Modular incinerators are prefabricated, controlled air combustion units of
relatively small capacity which can be combined to achieve capacity, reliability
and redundancy specifications for a particular purpose. They were developed in
response to the need for a clean incineration system for solid waste disposal
and a concurrent awareness of the energy potential of solid wastes.
The most common design for heat recovery is the two chamber incinerator
(see Figure 1). These operate by burning waste in the primary chamber. The hot
gases from the primary chamber are mixed with air in the secondary chamber
(afterburner) and ignited. If the heating value of the gases from the primary
chamber is too low to sustain combustion an auxiliary fuel is used to sustain
the afterburner temperature. A heat exchanger recovers the heat from the after-
burner and generates energy in the form of hot air, water or steam. Ash from
the primary chamber is water quenched and landfilled.
Modular incinerators are manufactured by at least 18 different companies.
System configurations vary among the manufacturers. However, aside from their
primary advantage of recovery of energy from otherwise wasted materials, modular
incinerators have several other benefits. As mentioned before, the small volume
modules can be combined to achieve optimum sizing and this in turn allows for
maintaining plant efficiency even in response to seasonal variations in the
waste stream and unscheduled downtime of a module. Modular incinerators produc-
ing steam have exhibited energy generation efficiencies of 50-70 percent while
reducing the volume of municipal solid waste deposited in the landfill by 80-90
percent.
- 26 -
-------
FIGURE 1 TYPICAL MODULAR INCINERATOR SYSTEM
© ©
Site— -L.---
A skid steer
t rtor (1) pushes the waste to the
automatic loader (2). The loader then
a-somatically injects the waste into
t gas production chamber (3)
v are transfer rams (4) move the
material slowly through the system.
T high temperature environment
in the gas production chamber is
provided with a controlled quantity
of air so that gases from the process
are not burned in this chamber but
fed to the upper or pollution control
chamber (5). Here the gases are mixed
with air and controlled to maintain a
proper air fuel ratio and temperature
for entrance into the heat exchanger
(6) where steam is produced. A steam
separator (7) is provided to ensure
high quality steam. In normal opera-
SOURCE: CONSUMAT SYSTEMS, INC.
tion gases are discharged through
the energy stack (8). When steam is
not required or in the event of a power
failure, hot gases are vented through
the dump stack (9). The inert mate-
rial from the combustion process is
q'ected from the machine in the form
of ash into the wet sump (10) and
conveyed (11) into a closed bottom
container (12) which can then be
hauled to the landfill for final
disposal.
- 27 -
-------
Given the uncertainties in providing an assured waste supply, it was decid-
ed not to design excess capacity into the Larimer County system for population
growth. The average waste load for 1986 (see Table 3) was used as a design fig-
ure. A facility of this size should be able to handle the low season waste load
(see Table 4) for at least 10 years. The technologies chosen for study would be
relatively easy to expand to accommodate increased waste loads.
A modular incinerator with a throughput capacity of 450 TPD would have an
average burning rate of 37,500 lbs. per hour (see Table 8). Municipal solid
waste has an average heat value of 4,500 Btu/lb. Based on 150 psi saturated
steam with 75 percent condensate return at 180°F an incinerator of this size
could produce an average of 96,400 lbs. of steam per hour and a maximum steam
production of 135,000 lbs./hr.
Table 9 presents the auxiliary needs for a 450 TPD modular incinerator.
Supplementary fuel at a rate of 90,000-250,000 Btu per ton of solid waste is
required to maintain the afterburner temperature. Several alternative fuels
could be used for this purpose. Choice of auxiliary fuels would be based on
cost, availability and storage facilities when a site for an incinerator is
selected.
A 450 TPD modular incinerator running 24 hours per day, 7 days per week
would require a total staff of about 24 people. Table 10 illustrates the labor
force required. Labor costs amount to about one-third of the annual operating
and maintenance budget.
The solid waste stream may contain hazardous or explosive materials. In a
modular incineration system the problems with these materials are similar in
nature to problems with these materials at a landfill site. Potentially explo-
sive wastes may be identified on the tipping floor and removed. The incinera-
tion chambers are designed to withstand explosions. Toxic materials can threat-
en the health and safety of employees moving the solid waste. Precautions such
as dust control measures and personal protection equipment for employees must be
supplied. Additionally, sufficient air pollution control equipment must be
installed to prevent release of these substances to the environment.
- 28 -
-------
TABLE 8
POTENTIAL STEAM PRODUCTION FROM INCINERATED SOLID WASTE IN LARIMER COUNTY
Year
Daily Waste
Quantity Received
(tons)
Average
Burning Rate
(lb./hr.)!
Average
Steam Production
(Ib./hr.)2
1986
450
37,500
96,400
1991
533
44,400
114,000
1996
618
51,500
132,000
2001
708
59,000
152,000
1 Assumes 24 hour/day, 7 days/week continuous operation.
2 Assumes 4,500 Btu/lb. SW and steam production at 1,750 Btu/lb. steam based on
150 psi saturated steam with 75 percent condensate return at 180°F. Source:
Consumat Systems, Inc.
- 29 -
-------
TABLE 9
AUXILIARY CONSUMPTION
FOR A 450 TPD MODULAR INCINERATOR
PRODUCING STEAM
Inputs Per Ton Per Day
Auxiliary Fuel Consumption (Btu) 90,000-250,000 40.5-112.5x106
Electrical Consumption (Kwh) 25-30 11,250-13,500
Ash Quench Water (Gal) 40 18,000
Source:Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
- 30 -
-------
TABLE 10
LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR A 450 TPD MODULAR INCINERATOR
Per Week
Administrative --- 1 Facility Manager 1
1 Secretary (per refuse-recieving
shift) 1-2
1 Chief Engineer (with license) 1
Receiving and Processing — 1 Loader-Operator per shift 5
1 Fireman per shift 5
1 Utility Man 3
Maintenance — 1 Mechanic per shift 5
1 Electrician (daylight shift, only) _2
Total — 24
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
- 31 -
-------
Durability of modular incinerator systems has been questioned. Manufactur-
ers' claims range from 15-30 years and some of these may be optimistic. Conven-
tional fuel systems generally have longer lifetimes.
In 1978 a U.S. Congressional committee completed a report following a tour
of eight resource recovery plants which made three major points: 1) claims made
in behalf of waste-to-energy plants were overstated and costs were understated;
2) technologies needed further development; and 3) the economics for waste-to-
energy would become more favorable as the costs of disposal rise.
WATERWALL INCINERATION
The basic difference between waterwall and modular incineration is that in
the waterwall incinerator both the burning of the unprocessed waste and energy
recovery occur in one chamber rather than the separate chambers associated with
modular incineration. Water-filled boiler tubes embedded within the walls of
the burning chamber give waterwall incinerators their name. These boiler tubes
recover the heat from the burning waste and produce steam to be used directly or
converted to electricity.
Compared to modular incineration, waterwall incineration units are gener-
ally available in large configurations (typically 300 TPD and greater) and capi-
tal costs are significantly higher. However, energy recovery efficiencies for
waterwalls are significantly higher. For very large units--on the order of
1,000 TPD--operating costs can be lower for waterwalls than modular
incinerators.
Waterwall incinerators with energy recovery have been operated successfully
for more than 50 years. Nearly all operating' experience has been in Europe.
Waterwall incineration has not been utilized to a great extent in the U.S.
Significant problems have been encountered with corrosion of the boiler tubes as
they are exposed to a wide range of combustion conditions associated with the
burning of solid waste. Waterwalls offer less flexibility in meeting fluctuat-
ing demands for burning waste or providing energy than modular units.
- 32 -
-------
COGENERATION
Cogeneration refers to the utilization of both useful heat and electric
power from a combustible fuel. In this case the primary product would be elec-
tricity with simultaneous use of the "waste" steam. In a typical system steam
would be generated through incineration of solid waste and used to run a tur-
bine. The steam from the turbine, the energy value of which has been diminish-
ed, is then secondarily utilized for process or heating uses.
Either a modular or waterwall incinerator could be coupled with a super-
heater to provide steam sufficient to generate electricity. A "condensing" tur-
bine is added to the incinerator for this purpose. Steam is produced and expan-
ded in the turbine for electricity generation. Process or heating steam is
extracted at whatever rate necessary after leaving the turbine. This type of
system is substantially less efficient at approximately 30 percent efficiency,
than straight steam production and use.
The advantage of a cogeneration facility is the increased siting flexibil-
ity and saleability of the product (i.e. electricity). In Larimer County, there
is only one steam user that requires the total amount of steam which a steam-
only plant could produce. Generally, to be cost-effective, steam plants mist be
sited within one to two miles of the consumer. Electricity is a more saleable
product in that it doesn't necessarily require a specific customer but instead
can enter a grid system and be utilized where needed. Also electricity can be
transmitted over long distances without prohibitive losses.
A cogeneration facility of the type envisioned for Larimer County would
have the same basic auxiliary requirements (see Table 9) as a modular inciner-
ator system producing only steam. The superheater addition utilizes stack gases
and radiant heat from the primary chamber to heat steam to the proper levels
needed by the turbine. As a result, one significantly different requirement of
a cogeneration system is the water needed for cooling of the condenser. Approx-
imately 225,000 gallons of water would be needed per day. With installation of
a cooling tower, actual discharge could be held to 22,000 to 65,000 gallons per
- 33 -
-------
day. A portion of this discharge could be used to meet the 18,000 gallon per
day need for ash quenching purposes. The remainder of the discharge would be
disposed of in the sanitary sewer.
Currently, there are no operable cogeneration facilities which utilize
incinerators. Two are in the developmental stages. In light of this situation,
no operational data is available and potential problems are not known.
- 34 -
-------
POTENTIAL INCINERATOR SITES
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY - MAIN CAMPUS
The main campus of Colorado State University (CSU) in Fort Collins is the
single largest existing steam consumer in Larimer County. Steam, which is used
for heating, cooling, laboratory equipment, laundry, cooking and hot water, is
generated in the University's central heating plant. The heating plant equip-
ment consists of four boilers capable of firing natural gas or number 6 oil,
with a combined steam generating capacity of 305,000 pounds per hour (pph). At
a performance design temperature of -9°F recommended by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, the campus requires 210,000 pph of steam. Presently, the
central heating plant at CSU relies heavily on Boiler #4 which has a capacity of
150,000 pph. It is expected that it will be necessary to replace the three
older and smaller boilers during the 19801s to assure the campus of adequate
heating capacity in the event of a failure of Boiler #4 during the winter
months. A modular incinerator facility generating only steam could supply as
much as 101,000 pph of steam during the winter months in 1986. Thus, the CSU
main campus initially seems to have a high potential as a consumer of the
steam. However, several other factors affect the feasibility of supplying the
campus with steam from a modular incinerator fueled by municipal solid waste.
In general, a steam generating plant should be located within one to two
miles of the steam customer or heat and pressure losses become excessive. The
need for a site located on or near the main CSU campus represents a major obsta-
cle to the installation of a modular incinerator. An incinerator facility hand-
ling the volumes of solid waste generated by Larimer County (450 TPD) would
require a minimum of 5 acres including processing building, tipping area, park-
ing area, access drives, etc. The functioning central heating plant is located
on the northeast edge of the campus (see Figure 2). There is no open space near
the plant and the present building occupies only about 20,000 square feet (.5
acres) itself. If a facility were to be located adjacent to the central heating
plant, academic buildings would have to be demolished to make room.
- 35 -
-------
FIGURE 2 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
CENTRAL HEATING PLANT
1 INCH-700 FT
- 36 -
-------
Adequate open space is available on the south or southwest side of the cam-
pus, however, distribution lines originate at the central heating plant at the
extreme opposite end of the campus. Steam lines are such that they get progres-
sively smaller as distance from the steam source increases. Therefore, siting
of a satellite steam plant would require major upgrading of the existing distri-
bution system.
In conjunction with these obstacles is the fact that the fuel supply and
storage system is functioning well for the CSU main campus. The central heating
plant has interruptible natural gas service from The Public Service Company of
Colorado. As a backup the University stores 180,000 gallons of number 6 fuel
oil in tanks adjacent to the plant with another 1,000,000 gallon tank located
approximately 1 mile away. The heating plant has an overall efficiency of about
70 percent.
Additionally, it is assumed that public opposition to the siting of a solid
waste incinerator in the center of Ft. Collins would be strong. Traditional
prejudices associated with garbage plus concerns about increased truck traffic
and siting constraints would create major difficulites in developing community
support for a modular incinerator located on the main CSU campus.
For these reasons the CSU main campus does not appear to be a good location
for installation of a solid waste fueled modular incinerator.
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOOTHILLS CAMPUS
A waste-to-energy plant supplying the Foothills Campus (FC) of Colorado
State University is considered in this section. The Foothills Campus is an area
of 1,250 acres located approximately 4 miles west of Ft. Collins (see Fig-
ure 3). The campus functions as a research facility and is in the beginning
stages of development consisting of about 350,000 square feet of major building
area as opposed to 4,250,000 square feet on the main campus. At present, build-
ings which require heating have individual heating and cooling plants which uti-
lize electricity and natural gas supplied on a firm basis by Public Service
Company of Colorado. The buildings have steam, hot water and warm air heating
systems.
- 37 -
-------
Laporle Ave.
Vine Dr.
FOOTHILLS CAMPUS
Agricultural
Engineering
RiMirch
Cenlsr
Atmospheric
Scknee Leb
Engineering
RiMtrch
%tol«f
Colorado State
Forest $«ok«
Nursery
Solar *\
Vlllag
Physiology
Research
Surgical Lab
ffCRH Ub
OEnvtronmenlal Slress
Natl
Communicable
DImim Lab
SPORTS AREA
Hughes
Stadium
Parting
Rodeo S
Arvn«i !
Mulberry SI. (Hwy. 14)
Elizabeth SI.
Prospect SI.
rj
j • L
¦main campus,
I WEST I
N
0
1
a
ro
to
o
o
Drake Re
Laurel St.
MAIN CAMPUS,
CENTRAL
MAIN CAMPUS, SOUTH
Animal Med
-------
The master plan for the Foothills Campus assumes the addition of 100,000
square feet of research facility every five years. Building additions proposed
for the early 19801s have been dropped due to loss of expected federal funds and
the accuracy of other projections is questionable, depending on economic and
political factors. Energy consumption for existing buildings is not expected to
change during the project period. Energy consumption for new buildings is
expected to match current levels of approximately 400,000 Btu per square foot
per year (including electricity).
The Foothills Campus does not suffer from the same constraints as the main
campus. Space is abundant and available. Population density and building den-
sity is low in the Foothills Campus area. Presumably, public opposition would
be less than in a more densely used area. However, several important factors
limit its potential as a modular incinerator site.
The energy-use requirements of the Foothills Campus are extremely low com-
pared to the potential energy produced by a modular incinerator processing all
of the study area's waste. Table 11 compares the total potential energy gener-
ated by a modular incinerator with the total projected energy needs of the Foot-
hills Campus. In 1986, the Foothills Campus would utilize only 12 percent of
the energy available from the incinerator and this figure would rise to only 17
percent by 2001.
Another important consideration is that only one major building on the
Foothills Campus is steam heated. An extensive steam distribution system would
have to be installed and the internal heating systems of all the buildings
except the Engineering Research Center would have to be retrofitted to accommo-
date the new steam heating.
At this point, the Foothills Campus individualized heating system is func-
tioning well. Under conditions of major growth energy needs might begin to
approach a threshold level at which a central heating plant would become practi-
cal. At this time, considering the uncertainty of future growth, the potential
of the Foothills Campus as a site for a modular incinerator is limited.
- 39 -
-------
TABLE 11
POTENTIAL ENERGY PRODUCED FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE VS.
FOOTHILLS CAMPUS ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Quantity Of Energy Foothills Campus Percent
MSW Incinerated Produced! Energy Required? Energy Utilized
Year Annually (Tons) (Btu x IP10) (Btu x 1010) Foothills Campus
1986 164,250
1991 194,545
1996 225,570
2001 258,420
81
10
12
96
14
15
112
18
16
128
22
17
1 Assumes 4,500 Btu/Lb. MSW and an efficiency of 55%.
2 Assumes, as per master plan, the addition of 100,000 GSF of research-type
facility every five years with annual energy requirement of 400,000 Btu/GSF.
Energy requirements include natural gas usage (74%) and electricity (26 %).
- 40 -
-------
LARIMER COUNTY LANDFILL
Locating a waste-to-energy plant at the present Larimer County landfill has
several advantages. The landfill consists of 480 acres which are located
between Ft. Collins and Loveland near the foothills. Only about 60 acres are
filled so no spatial limitations exist. The collection and hauling system in
Larimer County is already geared to this location so delivery of the solid waste
to the plant would present no additional problems. Since there is little resi-
dential development near the landfill, opposition to siting of a waste-to-energy
plant would presumably be minimal.
However, there is one critical drawback to the site. There are no poten-
tial energy consumers near the landfill. The situation suggests a couple of
possibilities. One is the possibility of a cogeneration system located at the
landfill. Electricity, unlike steam, can be transmitted without excessive
losses for long distances. This would necessitate the construction of a hookup
to the county's present electricity grid system. A steam by-product would also
be available. The city or county might identify potential industrial users of
this steam and encourage the siting of such a facility on that property.
The other possibility is for the city or county to identify major residen-
tial construction planned within a reasonable distance and assess the possiblity
of a district heating system. These potential users, as mentioned before, would
have to be quite large as a cogeneration system could produce significant
amounts of electricity and steam.
These scenarios are something to keep in mind but exclude further analysis
due to the fact that no parameters in terms of energy usage, patterns and growth
can be assumed.
INDUSTRIAL PARKS
The scope of work calls for evaluation of a future industrial site which is
designed to maximize use of recovered energy. At the present time, industries
located in Larimer County are all light industries meaning they use relatively
small amounts of either steam or energy for process uses. The bulk of their
- 41 -
-------
energy use is for heating, cooling, hot water etc. For example, the Desk Top
Calculator Division of Hewlett-Packard on Harmony Road in Fort Collins has three
buildings of approximately 170,000 square feet. Only the "skin" of the build-
ings is heated and the interior is cooled year round. They have no need for
process steam.
This predominance of light industry is expected to continue. The amount of
energy recovered from a modular or cogeneration system will be of a much higher
magnitude than the needs of one such industry.
The ideal industrial customer for a 450 TPD modular incinerator would be
located fairly near the present landfill so as to reduce siting problems, col-
lection system disruption, ash disposal, etc. The customer would agree to build
a heating and/or process system which would be compatible with a modular incin-
erator or cogeneration plant. The customer would also agree to purchase all the
energy produced by the incinerator during its lifetime.
At present there are no industries or industrial parks which even approach
levels of energy use which would make siting of a modular incinerator feasible.
DOWNTOWN STEAM LOOP
The scope of work for this study initially called for consideration of a
downtown hotel-convention center as a potential site for an incinerator. During
the early stages of the study, plans for this complex were dropped. Therefore,
this site was not examined.
- 42 -
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The cost-effectiveness of any resource recovery system is a function of six
variables: 1) capital costs, 2) operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, 3) tran-
sportation costs, 4) revenues received for the recovered materials and energy,
5) tipping fees, and 6) costs of other disposal alternatives. These factors are
combined in the following way to determine cost-effectiveness:
Cost of Option (Capital + Operating and Maintenance +
Transportation) - Revenues = Required Tipping Fee
The required tipping fee for each option is then compared to the cost of the
other disposal alternatives (including landfilling and recycling). In this sec-
tion of the report, we first examine the meaning of each of the variables, esti-
mate their value for each option, and finally assemble the data for comparative
purposes.
Capital Costs. The capital cost of a resource recovery plant is the sum
of the costs for land, site preparation, design, and construction equipment, and
other costs such as bonding, insurance and interest during construction, etc.
To facilitate comparisons, capital costs are expressed on a per ton-of-waste-
processed basis, spread over the expected life of the facility. The formula is:
Capital Cost ($/Ton Processed) =
Capital Cost ($) X Capital Recovery Factor (Year~l)
365 Days/Year X Design Capacity (TPD) X Capacity
Utilization Factor (Dimensionless)
The Office of Technology Assessment's report entitled "Materials and Energy from
Municipal Waste" states that the "...annual tons of waste processible in a full
year is usually only a fraction of 365 times the maximum daily capacity since
the plant will not always operate at full capacity. This fraction, the capacity
utilization factor, ranges from 0.4 to 0.9. It is usually, however, taken to be
0.7 to 0.8 for resource recovery plants."
- 43 -
-------
Capital costs for the two technology options considered are derived in
Table 12.
A detailed cost analysis which itemizes each of the capital cost items is
beyond the scope of this feasibility study, however, Table 13, which lists the
capital costs incurred by the North Little Rock, Arkansas 100 TPD modular incin-
erator facility in 1977, is representative of the breakdown of capital costs for
either modular or waterwall incinerators.
Operating and Maintenance Costs. Literature information on operating and
maintenance (O&M) costs experienced by operable modular incineration and water-
wall incineration facilities is limited. The Office of Technology Assessment
reported average O&M Costs of $10.40 per ton processed for modular incinerators
in the 200 TPD range and $11.00 per ton processed for waterwall incinerators on
the order of 1,000 TPD (both costs are in 1979 dollars). The 100 TPD North
Little Rock modular incinerator incurred 0&M costs of $13.78 per ton of waste
processed in 1979.
Developing detailed, itemized 0&M costs is beyond the scope and purpose of
this feasibility study. Therefore, O&M costs per ton of waste processed were
derived from the OTA data for 450 TPD facilities by increasing the costs from
1979 to 1981 dollars assuming a 15% inflation rate per year and by extrapolating
the facility size cited in the OTA data to 450 TPD units. The O&M costs, there-
fore, are estimated to be $11.90 and $13.23 per ton processed for 100% steam,
450 TPD modular incinerators and waterwall incinerators, respectively; it is
assumed that the O&M costs for 100% electricity or cogeneration would be 15%
higher (same percentage as the capital costs) than for 100% steam generation for
both the modular and waterwall incinerators.
To provide a perspective on the relative costs of O&M components, Table 14
presents the O&M costs experienced by the 100 TPD North Little Rock modular
incinerator in 1979. Labor (salaries and benefits) represent greater than 50%
of the total O&M cost, followed by maintenance at 26%, auxiliary fuel and energy
at 16%, and the remainder of O&M costs at 6%.
- 44 -
-------
TABLE 12
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR 450 TPD MODULAR INCINERATION AND
WATERUALL INCINERATION FACILITIES
Technology Capital Cost! Factor2
Capital Design
Recovery Capacity
Modular Incineration
100% Steam
100% Electri-
city or Cog-
eneration
$13.5 mil lion 0.13388
$15.5 mil lion 0.13388
Waterwall Inceration
100% Steam
100% Electri-
city or Cog-
eneration
$22.5 million 0.13388
$25.9 mil lion 0.13388
(TPD)
450
450
450
450
Capacity Capital Cost
Utilization Per Ton
Factor Processed
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
$15.7
$18.1
$26.2
$30.1
Source: EPA, Solid Waste Data, Prepared by JRB Associates, August, 1981.
Assumes $30,000 per TPD of design capacity and $50,000 per TPD of
design capacity for modular and waterwall incineration,
respectively. Turbines and associated equipment for electricity
generation are estimated to add approximately 15% to the capital cost
of a 100% steam facility.
Assumes 12% interest and 20-year amortization period (Note: interest rates
for municipal bonds have fluctuated between 10 and 15% over the last 6-month
time period).
- 45 -
-------
TABLE 13
NORTH LITTLE ROCK MODULAR INCINERATOR ACTUAL CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN
(In 1977 Dollars)
Item Capital Cost ($) Percent of Total Capital Cost
Land
10,000
1
Site Preparation
101,000
7
Design
38,000
2
Construct ion
311,000
20
Real Equipment
969,000
64
Other Equipment
63,000
4
Other Costs
38,000
2
Total Capital Costs
$1,530,000
100%
Source: U.S. EPA, Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery: A
Technical, Environmental, and Economic Evaluation, Publication SW-797,
November, 1979.
- 46 -
-------
TABLE 14
PROJECTED OPTIMUM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, MODULAR INCINERATOR
(In 1978 Dollars)
Item
Salaries
Employee Benefits
Fuel - No. 2 Diesel
Natural Gas
Gasoline
Electricity
Water and Sewer
Mai ntenance
Replacement Equipment
Residue Removal
Chemicals
Other Overhead
Total Operating and
Maintenance Costs
($/Year)
$111,284
15,750
3,456
16,704
2,916
19,237
6,402
65,656
3,400
3,209
($/Ton Processed)1
$ 6.18
0.88
0.19
0.93
0.16
1.07
0.36
3.65
$248,014
0.19
0.18
$13.79
Percent Of
Total 0 & M
Cost
46
6
1
7
1
8
3
26
1
1
1003J
* Cost included in salaries and employee benefit categories.
Source: U.S. EPA, Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery: A
Technical Environmental and Economic Evaluation, Publication SW-797,
November 1979.
1 Facility normally operates 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year at a 0.7
capacity utilization factor.
- 47 -
-------
Transportation Costs. Incremental transportation costs need to be added to
the cost of each option if the distance that waste will be hauled to the site of
a new facility is longer than current hauling distances for disposal. Converse-
ly, if hauling distances are shorter, the difference in cost should be subtrac-
ted from the cost of each option.!
Since the four potential sites considered in this study - 1) CSU Main
Campus, 2) CSU Foothills Campus, 3) an undetermined industrial park, and 4) the
current landfill - are within a 10-mile radius of the current disposal site,
transportation costs to a resource recovery facility are not expected to
increase or decrease significantly.2 Therefore, for this draft the incremental
transportation cost is taken to be zero.
Revenues. Revenues for the two technology options considered in this
report would be generated from the sale of steam or electricity or both steam
and electricity depending primarily upon the site chosen and energy user(s).
For both the modular and waterwal1 incinerator options, mass burn incineration
is assumed to occur without prior separation of the incoming solid waste for
ferrous and non-ferrous metal and glass recovery. There is no prohibitive tech-
nical reason why the separation and incineration technologies can not be com-
bined but, in nearly all existing modular and waterwal 1 incineration units,
separation prior to burning for energy recovery is not practiced to an appreci-
able extent.
1 EPA's Solid Waste Data report prepared by JRB Associates indicates that dir-
ect haul (packer truck) costs rise at a linear rate of $0.44 per ton-minute
for round trip times ranging from 0 to 50 minutes.
2 To adequately develop incremental transportation costs, a collection route
analysis comparing existing versus potential future routes would have to be
performed. The level of detail required for this analysis would necessitate
limiting the analysis to the recommended incineration site.
- 48 -
-------
Estimated revenues for each technology option with various mixtures of
steam and electricity generation are presented in Table 15. For both the
modular and waterwall incinerator options the maximum revenues are derived by
100 percent steam utilization followed closely by the tandem cogeneration
cycle. 100 percent electricity utilization and the topping cycle reduce
revenues on the order of 20 to 55 percent.
Tipping Fee. A tipping fee is the fee charged to haulers for disposing of
solid waste at the resource recovery facility. For a facility to be economical-
ly competive with other disposal alternatives in Larimer County (the landfill),
the fee should be in the same range as anticipated tipping fees for the alterna-
tives.
Results of the Analysis
The required tipping fees for resource recovery options in Larimer County
are derived in Table 16, using the formula (Tipping Fee per Ton = Capital Cost +
0 & M Cost + Transportation Cost-Revenues) developed at the beginning of this
section. Tipping fees currently charged at the landfill range from $3 to $4 per
ton.
- 49 -
-------
TABLE 15
REVENUES FROM RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS:
450 TPD FACILITY (IN 1981 DOLLARS PER TON PROCESSED)
BTU KWH Steam Electricty Total
Technology Option Steam Energy Electricity Revenue1 Revenue^ Revenue
A. Modular Incinerator^
1. 100% Steam 4.95xl06 - $13.1 - $13.1
2. 100% Electricity4 - 527 - $10.5 $10.5
3. Cogeneration
i. Topping Cycle^ 2.77x10® 60 $7.3 $1.2 $8.5
ii. Tandem Cycle" 1.07xl06 148 $2.8 $3.0 $5.8
B. Waterwall Incineration
7
1. 100% Steam 6.30xl06 - $16.6 - $16.6
2. 100% Electricity4 - 671 - $13.4 $13.4
3. Cogeneration
i. Topping Cycle^ 3.53x10® 76 $9.3 $1.5 $10.8
ii. Tandem Cycle" 1.36x10® 188 $3.6 $3.8 $7.4
1 Assumes steam can be sold at same current (1981) price of interruptible gas -
$2.64 per 106 BTU.
2 Assumes electricity can be sold at 2$/KWH (2/3 of price currently paid by
CSU).
3 Modular incinerator steam generating boiler is estimated to be 55% efficient.
4 Assumes turbine efficiency (steam to electricity) to be 36%.
5 A topping congeneration cycle routes all of the superheated steam from the
boilers through turbine; the steam exhausted from the turbine is directed to
process uses before returning to the boiler as condensate. This cycle is
assumed to be 60% efficient after the boiler.
® A tandem cogeneration cycle splits the superheated steam from the boiler
approximately equally to a topping turbine and a condensing turbine. The
condensing turbine maximizes the usage of steam for electricity generation
and routes the spent steam through a condenser (with cooling tower) and the
condensate returns to the boiler. This cycle is assumed to be 32% efficient
after the boiler.
7 Waterwall steam generating boiler is estimated to be 70% efficient.
- 50 -
-------
TABLE 16
TIPPING FEES FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS (IN 1981 $ PER TON PROCESSED)
Capital
Transportation
Tipping
Option
Cost
+ 0 & M Cost
+ Cost
- Revenues
Fee
.. Modular Incineration
1A. 100% Steam
$15.7
$11.9
These options
$13.1
$14.5
IB. 100% Electricity
$18.1
$13.7
are not site-
$10.5
$21.3
1C. Topping Cogener-
specific ad-
ation Cycle
$18.1
$13.7
justments for
$ 8.5
$23.3
ID. Tandem Cogener-
transportation
ation cycle
$18.1
$13.7
cost will be
$ 5.8
$26.0
developed i n a
later draft report
!. Waterwall Incineration
1A. 100% Steam
$26.2
$13.2
$16.6
$22.8
IB. 100% Electricty
$30.1
$15.2
$13.4
$31.9
1C. Topping Cogener-
ation Cycle
$30.1
$15.2
$10.8
$34.5
ID. Tandem Cogener-
ation Cycle
$30.1
$15.2
$ 7.4
$37.9
- 51 -
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A waste-to-energy incineration facility is not economically feasible
in Larimer County under current conditions. There are four major fac-
tors which affect the feasibility: 1) the lack of an energy consumer;
2) high capital costs and interest rates; 3) relatively low energy
costs (natural gas and electricity); and 4) relatively low landfill
costs.
2. There is potential for the conditions affecting the feasibility of a
waste-to-energy facility to change such that the facility would quick-
ly become more favorable. These factors might include: 1) the loca-
tion of an organization with energy needs of the magnitude which a 450
TPD incinerator can provide; 2) decrease in interest rates; 3) sub-
stantial increases in the costs of energy such as natural gas, fuel
and electricity (the Reagan Administration has proposed deregulating
the price of natural gas at a much more accelerated rate than allowed
by currently existing legislation - if this occurs energy prices may
increase at a much more rapid rate than general inflation); 4) greatly
increased landfill disposal costs; and, 5) significant improvements in
incinerator technology such that capital and 0 & M costs decrease sub-
stantially. Any one or combination of the above factors might tip the
balance in favor of a waste-to-energy incineration facility for
Larimer County.
3. There is no incompatibility between Recycle Something and a waste-to-
energy facility. Instead, diversity of solid waste management is
desirable and both systems have important and mutually beneficial
effects. An expanded Recycle Something could reduce the costs of
incineration by reducing volume requirements of a modular incinerator
and removing the noncombustible fraction of the waste stream which
tends to cause maintenance problems.
- 52 -
-------
4. It is inevitable that solid waste management in Larimer County will
increase in complexity and cost in the near future. Regardless of the
ultimate disposal (landfil ling) or usage (various resource recovery
options) of Larimer County's solid wastes, accurate baseline informa-
tion should be compiled by the County to assist in planning and man-
agement efforts. The baseline information regarding solid waste vol-
umes, weights, composition, seasonal variation, and collection, trans-
portation, and disposal costs contained within this study should be
augmented by a concentrated, relatively low-cost county data tracking
program.
5. Resource recovery should be periodically reviewed as a potential tool
for incorporation into Larimer County's solid waste management
system.
- 53 -
-------
APPENDIX A
LANDFILL USER RATES
Effective Date: February 1, 1981
AUTOMOBILES
STATION WAGON OR VANS WITH MORE THAN 3 CONTAINERS
PICKUP TRUCK WITH 3 OR LESS CONTAINERS
2-WHEEL TRAILER - MAX, CU. YD. CAP.
4-WHEEL TRAILER
PICKUP WITH RAISED BED
OTHER TRUCKS
SELF-LOADER TRUCKS
OLD AUTO BODIES
COMMERCIAL APPLIANCES
HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES
DEAD ANIMALS UNDER 100 LBS.
DEAD ANIMALS OVER 100 LBS.
SEPTIC DISCHARGE WHERE ALLOWED
ALL PACKER TRUCKS
TANDEM AXLE TRUCKS
SEMI-TRAILER TRUCKS
$ Charged per Unit
Covered Uncovered
$ 1.25 $ 2.50
1.75 3.50
1.25 2.50
1.50 3.00
2.00 4.00
4.00 8.00
5.00 10.00
6.00 12.00
5.00
3.00
1.50
4.00
12.00
7.00
.75/CY 1.50/CY
8.00 16.00
10.00 20.00
-------
APPENDIX B
WASTE STREAM FLOW CONTROL
Historically, solid waste has been viewed as a nuisance, therefore, the
only controls placed on its use or destination after collection were those
designed to ensure its deposition in an appropriate disposal facility. Usually
these controls did not require that a particular facility be used but depended
upon economic considerations to regulate this.
With the advent of resource recovery technologies such as waste-to-energy
and recycling, solid waste has begun to be viewed as a resource which must be
managed. Waste stream flow control refers to legal or administrative (as
opposed to market) strategies which may be utilized to ensure an adequate supply
of solid waste to a resource recovery facility.
In the event that plans for a waste-to-energy facility are implemented,
control of the waste stream will assume critical importance in the success or
failure of the project. At present, only 15 percent of the landfill's waste
load is under governmental control (Loveland's residential solid waste and waste
transported from the two transfer stations). Assuming that the tipping fee at
the incineration facility is higher than the landfill tipping fee, private
commercial haulers will choose to use the landfill for disposal. If market
conditions for recycling improve, private haulers may also view collected solid
waste as a resource to be sold for materials recovery.
When the City of Akron, Ohio, was confronted with this situation, the City
Council passed an ordinance which required that all solid waste, including
commercially collected solid waste, generated within the city limits be taken to
the waste-to-energy facility. The ordinance was subsequently challenged in
Federal District Court. The plaintiffs challenged on the following grounds:
1. Violation of their right to due process of law under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
-------
2. Confiscation of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment as
applied to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Interference with interstate commerce in violation of Article I,
Section 8, of the Constitution.
4. Violation of the Ohio Constitution.
5. Violation of the Sherman Act.
The Federal Court upheld the ordinance and the authority of the city to require
that privately collected refuse be delivered to a specified facility.
The decision on this suit represents a great advantage to waste-to-energy
facilities. Under certain legal conditions, the promulgation of such ordinances
is relatively easy. However, it is uncertain as to whether this type of
ordinance would be permissible under current Colorado statutes.
In Eagle County, Colorado, this question was initially analyzed and it was
concluded that the county could not regulate the waste stream flow within its
limits. Further analysis qualified that somewhat by suggesting that if the
county was the owner or joint owner of a waste-to-energy facility then flow
control ordinances might be legally permittable.
Legal powers of municipalities in Colorado may allow cities to pass such
ordinances. However, in January 1982, a Supreme Court ruling regarding Boulder,
Colorado's regulation of cable television apparently threw the whole issue of
legal powers of municipalities and home-rule cities in the State into question.
The effect this ruling will have on waste flow control ordinances and many other
issues is not known. The Colorado Attorney General stated that, "to try to
speculate as to what this means to Denver or any other city at this point is
tough to do."
To conclude, the question of waste stream control is a critical issue and
the county's position in regard to methods of flow control must be investigated
and resolved at the earliest stages of resource recovery planning.
------- |