EPA/600/A-92/170
LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY/UTILIZATION -
OPTIONS AND ECONOMICS
Susan A. Thomeloe
Global Emissions and Control Division
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
United Stales Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
ABSTRACT
The decomposition of landfllled waste results in a gas which can be a source of
pollution as well as a resource. Of the more than 6,000 active municipal solid waste
landfills in the United States (U.S.), there are 114 landfill gas (LFG) energy projects. This
paper describes the options and economics for LFG utilization, as well as ongoing research
associated with encouraging/facilitating energy recovery from LFG. "fte health and
environmental concerns are described as well as the economic, environmental, and energy
benefits associated with LFG utilization. Six case studies are also provided to illustrate the
options for LFG utilization. In addition, the results of a recent EPA survey of U.S. LFG
utilization are provided.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research that is described in this
paper was conducted as pan of EPA's Global Climate Change Program on emissions from
landfills and other waste facilities that contribute to global climate change (Thomeloe,
1991). EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL) has
responsibility for EPA's research on emissions and mitigation for the major sources
contributing to global climate change.

-------
LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY/UTILIZATION -
OPTIONS AND ECONOMICS
INTRODUCTION
LFG is generated from the anaerobic decomposition of landfilled biodegradable
waste. The composition of the gas is typically 50 to 55% methane, 45 to 50% carbon
dioxide, and <1% nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs). The concentration of
NMOCs can range from 240 to 14,300 ppm (EPA, 3/91). LFG can also contain
chlorinated and fluorinated compounds, paniculate, water vapor, and occasionally air. Air
is present from air intrusion into the landfill (i.e., it does not result from the anaerobic
decomposition of wastes). There are economic incentives as well as safety considerations
to operate the gas extraction wells so that air intrusion is minimized. Air intrusion can (1)
kill the anaerobic bacteria that are needed to decompose organic refuse and (2) cause a
landfill fire. Air infiltration is also minimized because it dilutes the gas and increases the
cost of recovering energy from the gas.
The average heat content of LFG ranges from 17 to 20 MJ/dscm (450 to 550 Btu/dscf).
Laidlaw Technologies, Inc., with responsibility for 12 LFG energy recovery projects,
estimates that between 1.250 and 1,600 kWe of energy is generated from 28,000 scmd (1
million scfd) of LFG at 17 MJ/scm (450 Btu/scf) (Jansen. 1992). Consequently LFG is
recovered to take advantage of the energy potential. This results in reducing emissions of
methane, NMOCs. and toxics. In addition, emissions are reduced at coal-fired power
plants, and global resources of fossil fuel are conserved.
The environmental and health concerns associated with municipal solid waste
(MSW) landfills have been well documented. In the U.S., EPA has documented 40 cases
of gas migration resulting in explosions and fires. Of these 40 cases, 10 resulted in
* injuries and death (EPA, 3/91). The methane is also a concern because of its contribution
to global warming. Landfills are a significant source of methane, ranking third in
anthropogenic sources after rice paddies and ruminants (Peer et al., 1992, Khalil and
Rasmussen, 1990). A third concern with LFG emissions is the contribution of NMOCs to
tropospheric ozone which affects human health and vegetation. The EPA has estimated
that roughly 1% (i.e., 260,000 Mg/yr) of the NMOC emissions from stationary sources in
the U.S. are emitted by MSW landfills. Toxic constituents typically found in LFG include
vinyl chloride, toluene, and benzene. The toxic constituents may contribute to possible
cancer and non-cancer health effects. A fifth concern is the odor nuisance associated with
LFG. Because of the health and environmental concerns, the EPA has designated "MSW
landfill emissions" as a pollutant. The EPA has proposed Emission Guidelines for
existing landfills and New Source Performance Standards for new landfills (F.R., 5/91).
The regulations are scheduled to be promulgated this Fall.
The regulatory alternative proposed by the Clean Air Act regulations would result
in requiring 621 landfills to collect and control MSW landfill air emissions, (p. 24480,
F.R., 5/91). It is hoped that the sites affected by these regulations will utilize the gas as
opposed to flaring the gas. The use of energy recovery for the control of MSW landfill
air emissions will result in decreased emissions of methane, NMOC, and toxics. In
addition, there are benefits associated with the development of an alternative source of
energy which results in decreased emissions at coal-fired power plants and a decreased use
of fossil fuels. The focus of this paper is to identify the options for LFG gas utilization
and provide an overview of the economics associated wish each option. Case studies are
presented to illustrate the options for LFG utilization.
2

-------
Fnprpv Utilization Options
A recent EPA survey identified 114 LFG energy recovery projects in the U.S. The
results from this survey are summarized in Table 1. Detailed results of this EPA survey
are scheduled lo be published this summer. This survey was conducted in coordination
with the Solid Waste Association of North America and used ihe results of recent U.S. LFG
surveys (Berenyi and Gould, 1991, Waste Age, 1990). Only sites that arc actually
operating LFG energy projects are included in Table 1.
Figure 1 provides a breakdown of the type of energy projects in the U.S. Most of
the projects (i.e., -15%) generate electricity which is either used on-site or sold lo a local
utility. Of the projects generating electricity, approximately 344 MWe of power is being
produced with 61 projects using internal combustion (1C) engines, 21 projects using gas-
fed turbines, and 3 projects using steam-fed turbines. Pipeline quality gas is produced at 6
sites, and 1 site is processing LFG to produce diesel fuel. The most economical options
for LFG utilization tend lo be direct uses such as for process heat and as boiler fuel.
Direct use of LFG as medium-heating value fuel is occurring at 21 sites.
Figure 2 provides a breakdown of the U.S. LFG projects by state indicating the
number of projects for states where there are at least three active LFG utilization projects.
California has the largest number of LFG projects partially due to stale and local
requirements resulting in the collection and control of gas. However, many LFG energy
projects have been initiated because of attractive economics particularly in the early 1980s
when the price of energy helped make this more economical. Waste Management of
North America has installed gas collection and controls as pan of their operating policy.
Waste Management has LFG energy recovery projects at 25 sites with plans to start new
projects at 5 additional sites. The Clean Air Act regulations proposed May 30, 1991. arc
expected to result in additional LFG utilization projects.
Direct-Gas Use (Medium-Heating Value). The options for medium-heating value
LFG (i.e.. -19 MJ/dscm (-500 Btu/dscf)] include use as boiler fuel, space heating and
cooling, and industrial heating/cofiring applications. The most typical use is as boiler fuel
lo produce steam. The majority of the 21 sites selling LFG for direct use are supplying
fuel for boilers. This is a particularly attractive option since conventional equipment can
be used with relatively little modification. In addition, boilerc tend to Jbc less sensitive lo
LFG trace constituents and consequently less gas cleanup is required compared to the
other alternatives. A limitation in the selection of this option is that a LFG customer must
be relatively near, typically less than 1,600 to 3,200 meters (1 to 2 miles) is considered
desirable.
The other options for medium-heating value gas include industrial applications
such as lumber drying, kiln operations, and cement manufacturing. An advantage of
many industrial applications is that fuel is required continuously, 24 hours per day. LFG
can also be used as a supplemental fuel that meets a portion of the total demand. LFG to
produce space healing is in limited use primarily due to piping costs and difficulty in
matching up the LFG energy output with nearby user needs. Depending on climate and
other factors, heat energy supplied by 14,000 semd (500,000 scfd) LFG corresponds to
heating needs of a 18,600-93,000 m 2 (200.000 to 1,000,000 sq ft) facility. The main
difficulty with space heating is that loads tend to be variable over time, both during the
day and by season. One of the case studies, however, demonstrates the successful use of
LFG for producing space healing.
Electricity Generation. Of the 114 U.S. LFG energy recovery projects. 61 projects
generate electricity using 1C engines and 24 projects generate electricity using turbines.
Of the 344 MW, of energy produced at these sites, 50% is generated using turbines and
50% is generated using IC engines. The type of equipment is generally determined by the
volume of gas available and the air pollution requirements of the area in which the project
3

-------
TABLE 1. U.S. LANDFILL GAS ENERGY PROJECTS	USBPA- Thomeio*. 5/7/92


landKIName
bscntion (CJty)
tact-
ion
Use of land*! Gas
Date Gas
n«eo*tfy
Began
LFG
ReaaVi
(mtom)
(sdd)
Gross
ln»By
R*Wd
(MW)
Total
Land-
(IB
(KM)
OnoM
Mnhln*
|w«]
R»fuse
Buried
On-
SAq
(ml T)
If 0 Developer/Operator
1
Northslde
Birmingham
AL
Pipeline Quality Gas
Apr-88
2.7
NA
100
80
5.8
Birmingham Gas Resources
2
Huntsvllle
Huntsvllle
AL
Direct Gas User - Boiler
May-90
2.3
NA
45
12
0.5
The Magulre Group Inc.
3
Oflnda
Brea
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Nov-84
3.0
5.7
135
135
12.0
GSF Energy
4
Burtjenk
BurbanH
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Aug-88
4.4
0.8
86
24
1.4
J.W. Operating Co.
5
Temescal Road
Corona
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Jan-86
1.0
2.3
90
90
4.0
O'Brien Energy Systems
6
Ouarte (*)
Ouarte
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Oct-87
0.5
1.6*
33
33
1.6
O'Brien Energy Systems
7
Souitieast Regional
Fresno
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Feb-89
0.7
0.7
70
70
2.0
Monterey Landfill Gas Corp./J.W.
Oper. Co.
8
Industry Hills
Industry
CA
Direct Gas User - Med Btu
Feb-81
0.5
NA
150
150
1.5
City ot Industry
9
Altamont
Llvermore
CA
Electricity Gen • Gas Turbine
(2)
May-89
2.0
6.0
225
225
14.3
Waste Mgmt of North America
10
Mountain Gale
Los Angeles
CA
Direct Gas User - Boiler
Nov-84
5.0
NA
80
80
10.0
GSF Energy
11
Toyon Canyon
Los Angeles
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Dec-85
4.0
10.0
90
90
16.0
PacHIc Energy
12
Monterey Regional
Marina
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Dec-83
0.9
1.2
478
60
3.7
Monterey Regional Waste Mgmt
13
Acme
Martinez
CA
Direct Gas User - Med Btu
Apr-82
1.7
NA
270
270
5,0
GSF Energy
14
Marsh Road
MentoParit
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Jan-83
1.4
2.0
160
100
4.0
Laldtaw Gas Recovery Systems
15
Mountain View
Mountain View
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Dec-85
2.2
3.5
300
200
3.0
Laldlaw Gas Recovery Systems
16
American Canyon
Napa County
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Dec-85
0.8
1.5
122
70
?
Laldtaw Gas Recovery Systems
17
Coyote Canyon
Orange County
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Feb-89
14.4
20.0
300
300
50.0
Laldlaw Gas Recovery Systems
18
Oxnard Power
Station {•*)
Oxnaiti
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Mar-85
3.S
5.1
140
140
2.7
Pacific Energy
19
Palo Alto
Palo Alio
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Apr-90
0.8
1.1
80
60
2.5
Monterey Landfill Gas Corp.
20
Spadra
Pomona
CA
EtecMdty Gen - Steam Fed
Turbine/Direct Use In Boiler
Feb-90
4.3
5.0
210
210
9.0
LA County Sanitation Districts
21
Palos Verdes
Rolling Hills
|E states
CA
Electricity Gen - Steam Fed
Turttne/Dtrect Use In Boiler
Mar-88
11.0
9.0
173
173
18.0
LA County Sanitation Districts
22
Sacramento jsacramento
CA
Direct Gas User - Boiler
90
1.0
NA
113
4ol 2.6
Laldlaw Gas Recovery Systems
1 f|3 e 0.028 1 acre • 4046.9 m*; 1 ton ¦ 90? kg
NA = Not Applicable. ? = No! Available
(Continued)

-------
TABLE 1.U.S. LANDFILL GAS ENERGY PROJECTS (Continued) usepa, Thonwio*. 5/7/92

LantffflNanM
Location (City)
im-
lion
(SM)
Um ot Landfill Gas
Dm Gas
BtCBWqf
Began
IFG
Raoov'd
(mftorn)
(sdd)
Gross
Energy
Raoov'd
|MW)
Total
Land-
Ml
(«aw)
OrraM
M«ihan*
Racottiy
(¦cm)
Refuse
Buried
On-
Site
(mil)
IFG Developer/Operator
23
Crazy Horse
Canyon
Salinas
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Dec-86
0.8
1.1
125
125
1.8
Paclllc Energy
24
Otay Landfill (#)
San Diego
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Dec-86
1.9
3.4
525
400
6.1
Pacific Energy
25
Sycamore Canyon
San Diego
CA
Electricity Gen • Gas Turbine
Dec-88
1.2
1.7
532
100
4.5
Laldlaw Gas Recovery Systems
26
Nowtoy Island
San Jose
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Aug-84
3.0
5.0
342
170
?
Laldtaw Gas Recovery Systems
27
Oavls Street
SanLeandro
CA
Direct Gas User • Med Btu
Jul-81
1.9
NA
100
100
9.7
GSF Energy
28
San Marcos
San Marcos
CA
Electricity Gen - Gas Turbine
Dec-88
1.2
1.7
95
95
3.8
Laldtaw Gas Recovery Systems
29
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Dec-86
0.9
1.1
165
125
3.5
Paclllc Energy
30
Guadalupe
Santa Clara Co.
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Apr-84
1.1
2.6
115
65
3.5
Laldlaw Gas Recovery Systems
31
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
CA
Electricity Gen • Gas Turbine
Nov-88
0.6
0.9
100
30
4.5
Laldlaw Gas Recovery Systems
32
Austin Road
Stockton
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Dec-85
0.4
0.8
171
140
1.9
Paclllc Energy
33
Bradley
Sun Valley
CA
Direct Gas User • Med Btu
Jun-89
3.0
NA
209
209
13.4
Waste Mgmt ol North America
34
Penrose (##)
Sun Valtey-LA
CA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Dec-85
4.9
10.0
72
72
9.0
Paclllc Energy
35
Stieldon-Arleta
Sun Vatley-LA
CA
Direct Gas User - Med Btu
Jan-88
0.8
NA
40
40
3.0
Pacific Energy
36
BKK
WestCovlna
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
86
23.0
5.0
500
500
25.0
Douglas Energy
37
Puente Hills- Rio
Hondo (MNI)
Whlttler
CA
Direct Use - Boiler A Cogen
Engine
Mar-84
0.5
0.55*
570
570
60.0
LA County Sanitation Districts
38
Puente Hills-Gas
Turbines {###)
Whlttler
CA
Electricity Gen - Gas Turbine
Dec-83
4.0
4.0
570
570
60.0
LA County Sanitation Districts
39
Puente Hllls-PERO
(«««)
Whlttler
CA
Electricity Gen - Steam Fed
Tuttlne/Dlrect Use In Boiler
Nov-86
33.0
50.0
570
570
60.0
LA County Sanitation Districts
40
Yolo County
Yolo County
CA
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Nov-89
1.3
1.5
700
' 116
3.1
Monterey Landfill Gas Corp.
41
Templeton Gap
Colorado Springs
CD
Pipeline Quality Gas
Jun-91
2.4
NA
40
33
2.0
Fuel Resources Development Co.
42
County Line
Littleton
CD
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
(1)
Dec-86
0.3
0.8
90
90
3.1
Waste Mgmt of North America
43
Synhltech
Pueblo
CD
Upgrading Gas Into Diesel
Fuel
Jul-91
2.0
NA
114
114
3.5
Fuel Resources Development Co.
44
New Mllford
New Mlllord
CT
Electricity Gen - Gas Turbines
(1)
Jun-91
2.0
3.3
90
90
3.6
Waste Mgmt of North America
1 ft3 = 0.028 m3; 1 acre = 4046.9 m2; 1 ton = 907 kg
wa _ Mni Amiirahln ' = Not Available
(Continued)

-------
TABLE 1. U.S. LANDFILL GAS ENERGY PROJECTS (Continued) usepa. Thomiioe, 5/7/92

Immrnm
LxaHon
Loa-
ns!
ISM}
UaeftanMGai
MaGai
RsoBwfy
Began
IF6
(mlbm)
(sdd)
Grass
Ensify
RfloWd
|MW)
Total
Land-
in
|acm)
DmM
Uithm
nscrarf
| SOOT)
RfftlB#
Buried
On-
SM
irGO«wteperiO{*rarof
45
Kenltworth Parti
Washington
DC
Direct Gas User- Med Btu
Nov-82
0.3
NA
145
12
2.7
National Park Service
46
Cherry Island
Wilmington
CE
Direct Gas User - Med Btu
Oct-90
0.9
NA
30
17
0.8
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
47
Central Disposal
(CDSL)
Pompano Beach
fl
Electridty Gen • Gas Turbines
(5>
May-89
10.0
15.0
210
210
15.3
Waste Mgmt ol North America
48
Watts M LandlRl
Atlanta
OA
Pipeline Quality Gas
Apr-86
1.1
NA
55
55
3.0
Browning Ferris Industries
49
Macon
Macon
GA
Direct User • Brick Kiln
Jan-85
1.1
NA
120
69
3.5
Gas Resources Corp.
50
Kapaa
Kattua.Oahu
H
Electricity Gen - Gas Turbines
May-89
2.1
3.3
42
42
1.2
Lakflaw Gas Recovery Systems
51
Settler"* Hill
Batavta
L
Electricity Gen - Gas Turbines
(2}
Oet-88
2.5
3.9
179
179
7.7
Waste Mgmt ol North America
52
Blue Island
Blue Island
L
Direct Gas User • Med Btu
Nov-83
1.0
NA
130
130
5.0
GSF Energy
53
CD
Chicago
1.
Electridty Gen - Gas Turttnes
(3)
May-89
6.0
9.0
173
173
20.0
Waste Mgmt ol North America
54
Tazewell
East Peoria
IL
Electricity Gen * IC Engines
(2)
Jul-89
0.8
1.6
125
110
2.2
Waste Mgmt ol North America
55
Milam
Madison
K
Electrtdty Gen • IC Engines
(2)
Apr-91
0.9
1.6
110
110
4.3
Waste Mgmt ot North America
56
Lake Landfill
Northbrook
L
Electrtdty Gen - Gas Turbines
(2|
Jul-88
4.0
6.0
187
187
12.6
Waste Mgmt ol North America
57
Pennington Ave
Baltimore
IVD
Direct Gas User • Med Btu
Apr-84
0.9
NA
60
50
2.0
Maryland Recycling & Rehandlfrtg
58
Brown Station Rd
Prince George's
County
M>
Electrtdty Gen • IC Engines &
Direct Use
Jun-87
1.0
2.6
40
20
4.0
The Magulre Group Inc.
50
Gude Soutfilawn
Rockvflle
ND
Electrtdty Gen • IC Engines
Dec-85
1.4
2.5
91
91
4.8
Pacific Energy
60
Wayne Disposal
Belleville
M
Electricity Gen • IC Engines *
Direct Use
Jun-84
0.8
1.4
300
300
12.0
Wayne Energy Recovery, Inc.
61
Wood Street
Lansing
M
Electrtdty Gen « IC Engines
Oet-85
0.7
?
200
55
1.6
Granger Renewable Resources. Inc.
62
Rlvervlew
Rlvervlew
M
Electridty Gen - Gas Turbines
Dec-87
3.8
6.1
250
145
10.0
Rlvervlew Energy Systems. Inc.
1 Its » 0.028 m3; 1 acre - 4046.9 m*; 1 ton - 907 kg
NA = Not Applicable, ? - Not Available
(Continued)

-------
TABLE 1. U.S. LANDFILL GAS ENERGY PROJECTS (Continued) usepa, Thomeio*. 5/7/92
'nJ

i ¦«	
KJIUilR rGfiW
location (City)
Ifld-
Ikn
(S®»1
UstefUwrtlGa
DaMGs
Beg»
LFG
RsoWd
(mitocrj)
(sdfl
Gross
En«W
ReooVd
(MW)
Total
Land-
fii
(•em)
DmM
MMrant
Racottiy
(«ew)
Rates
Buried
Ov
SM
(ml.T)
LFG Dffwtoper/Operator
63
Grand Ledge
Watertown
M
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Apr-91
1.2
2.4
200
60
?
Granger Renewable Resources, inc.
64
Woodland Meadows
Wayne
M
Direct Gas User • Boilers
Jan-91
2.1
NA
203
175
7.0
Waste Mgmt of North America
65
Anoka
Anoka
MN
Direct Gas User • Med Btu
Nov-89
0.8
NA
100
1O0
3.8
Waste Mgmt ol North America
66
North Sanitary
Maryland Hts
M3
Direct Gas User - Med Btu
Jun-81
0.3
NA
50
30
?
Fred Weber Company
67
Little Dixie
Jackson
MS
Direct Gas User • Med Btu
Sep-90
1.6
NA
30
30
1.8
Browning Ferris Industries
68
Rowland
Raleigh
NC
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Jun-84
0.0
0.1
25
4
0.1
Natural Power
69
Wilder* Grove

NC
Direct Gas User (Bolter Fuel) -
Med Btu
Dec-89
1.5
NA
125
90
3.5
Natural Power
70
Manchester
Manchester
W
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Jul-88
0.5
0.8
30
30
1.2
Energy Tactics
71
Turnkey
Rochester
m
ElecWdly Gen • IC Engines
Feb-92
1.3
2.4
96
50
3.1
Waste Mgmt of North America
72
Kinsley
Deptford
Township
Hi
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Jun-85
1.3
2.4
136
70
6,0
United Environmental Services. Inc.
73
Edison
Edison
Hi
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Sep-90
3.0
4.4
30
30
2.5
O'Brien Energy Systems
74
Hackensack
Meadowlands
Kearny
HI
Pipeline Quality Gas
Dec-89
7.2
NA
350
300
30.0
GSF Energy
75
H.S.L
Lafayette
til
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Aug-90
0.7
1.0
30
30
1.5
O'Brien Energy Systems
76
LAD
Mount Holly
NJ
Electricity Gen - Gas Turbines
(2)
Mar-90
2.5
3.9
175
175
3.3
Waste Mgmt ol North America
77
High Acres
Falrport
Nf
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
(2)
Apr-91
0.5
1.6
92
92
3.4
Waste Mgmt of North America
78
Mohawk Valley
Frankfort
Nf
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
(1)
Oet-91
0.4
0.8
80
50
1.7
Waste Mgmt of North America
79
Orange County
Goshen
m
Electricity Gen * Gas Turbines
Dec-88
2.1
3.3
70
70
4.0
Laldlaw Gas Recovery Systems
80
Blydenburg Road
Haufcauge
Nf
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Dec-88
2.3
4.0
70
40
2 Q JWP, Inc.
81
East North port
Huntington
Nf
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Apr-84
0,8
1.2
44
37
4 0 H. O. Penn Machinery, Inc.
82
Al Turt
Mlddletown
NY
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Jun*87
2.5
4.1
72
72
2 g J.W. Operating Co,
83
Hempstead
Oceanslda
M
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Dec-90
2.9
4,0
180
110
6 51 Energy Tactics
1 f|3 • 0.028 m3; t acre » 4046.9 m2; 1 ton - 907 kg
NA = Not Applicable, ? - Not Available
(Continued)

-------
TABLE 1. U.S. LANDFILL GAS ENERGY PROJECTS (Continued) usepa; Thomeho. sm92

lAndfflName
Uxtfon (CRy)
Lacs*
Hon
fS»»)
UMotUntftRGa
OaMGas
Rmntif
Began
IFG
ReWd
(mltora)
(tdd)
Ores*
Energy
ReoWd
(MW)
Total
Land-
fill
?«*l»
Dvratol
IMm
ftoeowiy
(¦cms)
Ratwa
Burwd
On-
Sfta
(mil)
IfG DwmoparJOpsratw
84
Oyster Bay
Oyster Bay
W
Electricity Gen - tC Engines
Dec -85
1.4
2.6
120
60
2,8
Energy Tactics
05
Rfvertiead
Rtvertiead
tit
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Jan-85
0.4
0.6
40
40
3.0
United Environmental Services, tne,
86
Monroe Livingston
Scottsvllle
Hf
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
«<)
Dec-88
1.7
3.2
90
90
2.9
Waste Mgmt of North America
67
Smlthlown
Smlthtown
m
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
Jan-85
0.7
1.0
30
20
1.4
Energy Tactics
88
Fresh Kids
Staten Island
w
Pipeline Quality Gas
Aug-82
9.5
NA
3,000
400
28.0
GSF Energy
89
Onondaga County
Syracuse
Ht
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
Dec-87
0.7
1.0
60
60
1.3
Energy Tactics
90
Horse BlocK Road
YaphanK
m
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
Jan-84
1,9
2.8
100
60
6.8
H. O. Penn Machinery. Inc.
91
Elda Landfill
Cincinnati
OH
Direct Gas User - Boilers
Apr-88
2.6
NA
106
106
5.8
Waste Mgmt ol North America
92
Rumpke
Coleraln
OH
Pipeline Quality Gas
Sep-86
5.4
NA
200
150
14.0
GSF Energy
93
Short Mountain
Lane County
CR
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
Jan-92
0.9
1.6
275
50
2.6
Emerald Peoples Utility District
94
F.R.4S.
Btrdsboro
PA
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
Jul-87
0.5
0,8
25
25
1.6
O'Brien Energy Systems
95
East Pennsboro
Enofa
PA
Eleetrtdty Gen • IC Engines
Sep-85
0.1
0.1
20
14
0.4
East Pennsboro Township
96
Mazzaro
Ftrtey Township
PA
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
May-89
2.0
2.4
90
30
3.0
O'Brien Energy Systems
97
GRCWS
Mofrtsvffl#
PA
Eleetrtdty Gen - Gas Turbines
m
Dec-B7
4.0
6.0
434
100
11.6
Waste Mgmt ot North America
98
Greater Lebanon
N. Lebanon
Township
PA
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
Nov-BS
0,9
1.2
75
40
1.0
Lebanon Methane Recovery, Inc.
99
Pottstown
Potistown
PA
Eleetrtdty Gen - Gas Turbines
(2)
Apr-89
4.0
6,0
178
90
9.9
Waste Mgmt ol North America
100
Consho-hocken
dHwoialV)
PA
Eleetrtdty Gen • IC Engines
Mar-86
2.0
2.8
25
25
3.6
O'Brien Energy Systems
101
Taylor
Taylor
PA
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
May-88
0.7
2.0
45
40
2.0
O'Brien Energy Systems
102
Central
Johnston
n
Eleetrtdty Gen • IC Engines
Nov-89
6.9
12.3
150
100
11.3
Palmer Capital
103
Chestnut Ridge
Hetskeff
TN
Eleetrtdty Gen - IC Engines
O)
Jan-92
1.0
2.4
108
75
2.8
Waste Mgmt ot North America
104
McCarty Road
Houston
TX
Pipeline Quality Gas
Feb-87
8.0
NA
270
270
14.0
GSF Energy
105
OFW
LwMsvttte
TX
Eleetrtdty Gen - Gas Turbine
(D
May-88
2.0
3.0
416
120
7.3
Waste Mgmt of North America
1 ft' ¦ 0.028 m^; 1 acre - 4046.9 m'; 1 ton ¦ 907 kg
NA * Not Applicable. ? « Not Available
(Continued)

-------
TABLE 1. U.S. LANDFILL GAS ENERGY PROJECTS (Continued) usepa. Thomoto*. snm

LkidmNama
location (City)
Loca-
ton
(9»)
Use ol larxtfll Gas
DafeGs
flrowy
Began
LFG
Record
(mltara)
(sdd)
Grass
Energy
Record
(MW>
Tcxai
Land-
mi
(WW)
OrreM
Marfan*
flKOWiy
(¦cm)
Refuse
Buned
On-
Site
(ml.T)
LFG Developer/Operaor
106
lorton (1-95)
Fairfax County
VA
Electricity Gen • IC Engines
Nov-91
2.0
3.0
290
25
17.5
Ml Co-Gen
107
Mount Trashmore
Virginia Beach
VA
Electricity Gen • Gas Turbines
Apr-90
Temp.
Shutdown
9.0
350
70
7.0
City of Virginia Beach
108
Brattleboro
Brattleboro
VT
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
Aug-82
0.4
0.7
30
15
0.6
Vermont Energy Recovery, Inc.
109
Pheasant Run
Bristol
W
Electricity Gen - IC Engines
(2)
Feb-92
0.8
1.6
80
80
2.1
Waste Mgmt ol North America
110
Metro
Franklin
Wt
Electricity Gen • Gas Turbines
(2)
Jan-86
3.0
6.0
108
108
8.3
Waste Mgmt of North America
111
Omega Hills
Menomonee
Falls
W
Electricity Gen • Gas Turbines
(3)
Dec-85
4.0
9.0
83
83
8.2
Waste Mgmt of North America
112
Winnebago
Oshkosh
W
Electricity Gen - Gas Turbines
Jun-90
2.0
3.2
111
105
5.0
Winnebago County
113
Appleton
Outagamie
County
Wl
Electricity Gen • IC Engines &
Direct Use
May-91
1.4
2.5
460
77
3.0
Outagamie County
114
Land Reclamation
Radne
Wt
Direct Gas User - Med Btu
87
1.2
NA
61
45
?
Land Reclamation Co.
«
Supplemented with natural gas.









• •
Includes 1650 kW project expansion In 1991; receives gas from Ventura Coastal LF estimated at 28 hectares (70 acres) and 2.3 million tonnes ol

refuse (2/3 gas Ventura Coastal, 1/3 Santa Clara).







1
Includes 1850 kW protect expansion In 1991.








01
Receives gas from 3 landfills - Penrose, Shekton-Arieta, and Bradley.







#«*
This landfill has 3 separate energy recovery protects.







1 rt3 a 0.028 ml; 1 acre » 4046.9 m*: 1 ton » 907 kg
NA = Not Applicable. ? » Not Available

-------
c
o
•o
&
c
0
•a
a
1=3
•a
1
c
(U
1C Engines
Med Healing-Value Gas
Turbines
High Heating-Value Gas
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of LFG Projects
Figure 1. Number of U.S. Landfill Gas Projects by Energy Utilization Option
a CA
15 20 25
Number of LFG Projects
Figure 2. Number of U.S. Landfill Gas Projects by State
for those States with Three or More Projects
10

-------
is located. Engines are typically used at sites where gas quantity is capable of producing 1
to 3 MWe. Turbines are typically used at sites producing more than 3 MWe.
Reciprocating IC engines drive electrical generators to produce electrical power
which is typically sold to the local electric utility. Engines used in this application are sold
by three manufacturers - Caterpillar, Cooper-Superior, and Waukesha. Each of the 3
manufacturers has in place more than 20 engines at U.S. landfill sites (GRCDA, 1989).
These manufacturers design engines that are specific to LFG applications (i.e., corrosion
resistant). Typically, warranties that guarantee engine performance require the operator to
agree to certain conditions regarding engine operation and maintenance.
Reciprocating engines used for LFG applications may be stoichiometric
combustion or lean combustion engines. The "lean-bum" engines are turbocharged and
bum fuel with excess air. The stoichiometrically carbureted or "naturally aspirated"
engines have air in the fuel/air mix just sufficient to bum the fuel. The case studies provide
four examples-three LFG projects using lean-bum engines and one LFG project using
naturally aspirated engines.
The lean-bum engines are typically used where NO* and CO emissions are of
concern. Stoichiometric combustion can result in relatively high NO* emissions which can
vary widely due to carburetor setting and other variables. Waukesha suggested that 2.2 to
6.7 ng/J (6 to 18 g/hp-hr) is a typical range of NO* emission from stoichiometric engines
(Stachowicz, 1989). Lean-bum engines are available that minimize (1) the production of
NO, and (2) fuel consumption. At landfill sites with gas flows below -5,700 scmd
(-200,000 scfd), an operator could use one or two naturally aspirated engines. The NO*
emissions would be less than 230 tonnes/yr (250 tons/yr), and the source would not be
subject to new source review. At sites over -5,700 scmd (-200,000 scfd), lean-bum
engines are used to avoid new source review. The destruction performance of a lean-bum
engine manufactured by Cateipillar (i,e., the Caterpillar 3516 SI Engine) at various NO*
emissions levels reported by the manufacturer is (Chadwick, 1989):
NQi (Hg/fl	NQt (g/hp-hr)	NMOCDestruction Efficiency (%S
0.7	2.0	98.3
1.9	5.0	98.7
3.7	10.0	99.1
Note that there is a trade-off between low NO* emissions and the reduction of NMOCs.
Data from 15 IC engines fueled with LFG were collected by the EPA. The range
(at 15% Oj) of NO* was 50 to 225 ppmvd (0.6 to 3.3 g/hp-hr). The range (at 15% Oj) of
CO is 43 to 550 ppmvd (0.6 to 12 g/hp-hr). Emissions of SOj were measured for only
one IC engine: the concentration of S02 (at 15% O2) was 1.5 ppmvd (Thomeloe and
Evans, 1989; EPA, 3/91).
Gas-fed turbines are also used at landfills to generate electricity. Gas turbines take
large amounts of air from the atmosphere, compress it, bum fuel to heat it, then expand it
in the power turbine to develop shaft horsepower. This horsepower can be used to drive
pumps, compressors, or electrical generators (McGee and Esbeck, 1988). Gas turbines are
used at 21 U.S. landfills to produce 108 MW, of power. Waste Management of North
America, Inc. has found that gas-fed turbines typically have parasitic energy losses of 17%
of gross output as compared to 7% for IC engines. A factor to consider is that turndown
performance is poor in comparison to IC engines. Turbines perform best when operated
at full load, and difficulties can occur when operated at less than full load. In addition,
trace constituents have been reported to cause corrosion, combustion chamber melting,
and deposits on blades. However, these difficulties can be overcome as demonstrated by
11

-------
Waste Management of North America (Schlotthauer, 1991). A major advantage reported
by sites using gas turbines is that generally less day-to-day maintenance is required as
compared to the lean-bum engines.
Emissions of NOx for seven gas turbines fueled with LFG ranged from 11 to 174
ppmvd at 15% O2. Emissions of CO ranged from 15 to 1.300 ppmvd at 15% O2. and
emissions of SO2 ranged from 2 to 18 ppmvd at 15% O2 (Thomeloe and Evans, 1989;
EPA, 3/91). Emissions of SO2 are not expected to be significant since landfill gas
typically contains relatively low amounts of sulfur compounds as compared to fossil fuels.
The new source performance standard for gas turbines with a power output of 2.93 to
29.3 MW, is 150 ppmvd of NO, at 15% O2 (EPA, 1977). Although the units tested were
below this cutoff, six of the seven turbines did have less than 150 ppmvd of NO* at 15%
O2. Data for four gas turbine facilities were presented by Waste Management at the Air
and Waste Management Association's 82nd Annual Meeting in June 1989 (Maxwell.
1989). The data for NOx emissions from the Solar Centaur T-4500 LFG turbine ranged
from 22 to 37 ppmv at 15% O2, with a median of 30 ppmv.
Steam-fed turbines are in use at three sites to produce 64 MW, of power. The
largest landfill-gas-to-energy plant is the Puente Hills Energy Recovery from Gas facility
(PERG), located at the Puente Hills Landfill in Whittier, California. This site began
recovering LFG for energy utilization in November 1986. It is operated by the Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts. The facility consists of twin Zum Industries. Inc. gas-
fired steam generators. Each of the units fires 420,000 scmd (10.300 scfm) of LFG,
producing 95,340 kg (210,000 lb) of steam per hour at 9.3 MPa (1350 psig), heated to
540°C (1000°F). This steam drives a Fuji Electric Co. Ltd. turbine that generates
approximately 50 MWt net, that is sold to Southern California Edison (Valenti, 1992).
High-Heating Value Gas. Seven sites in the U.S. upgrade LFG to pipeline quality.
This option was considered more attractive in the early 1980s when the price of oil and
natural gas helped make this more economical. The sites that are producing pipeline
quality gas were initiated in the early 1980s when gas prices on a heating-value basis were
comparable with oil. These sites have an average LFG flow rate of 142,000 scmd
(5 million scfd) with the lowest gas flow rate being 31,150 scmd (1.1 million scfd) and
the highest being 269,000 scmd (9.5 million scfd). Stringent cleanup technology is
applied to purify the gas to pipeline quality by removing the trace constituents and CO2
Similar to the medium-heating value applications, a nearby natural gas pipeline is needed.
The largest operator of facilities producing pipeline quality gas from LFG is Air Products
and Chemicals, Inc. Low natural gas prices in the late 1980s forced several previous
projects to shut down, and continue to inhibit the development of new high-heating value
projects in the U.S. However, sites in the Netherlands are finding more favorable
economics (Scheepers, 1991).
A site that began operation last year in Pueblo, Colorado, is producing liquid
diesel fuel from LFG. This site is operated by Fuel Resources Development, Inc. and
began producing commercial product in January. A second site in the U.S. may be used
to produce vehicular fuel from LFG. The South Coast Air Quality Management District
has awarded a contract to demonstrate a process for producing methanol from LFG. The
site selected for this demonstration is the BKK landfill, where there was co-disposal of
hazardous and municipal waste. TeraMeth Industries is responsible for the demonstration
and research is being coordinated with the EPA. The demonstration is anticipated to
begin in 1993.
Other Option*; for Landfill Gas. Fuel cells are a potentially attractive option for
LFG because of higher energy efficiency, availability to smaller as well as larger landfills,
and recognition for minimal byproduct emissions. Other advantages include minimal
labor and maintenance, and (because there are no moving parts) the noise impact is
minimal. Hydrogen from the landfill gas is combined electrochemically with oxygen
12

-------
from the air to produce dc electricity and by-product water. The fuel cell is designed for
automatic, unattended operation, and can be remotely monitored. The EPA's Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory initiated a project in 1991 to demonstrate the
use of fuel cells for LFG application. The type of fuel cell being demonstrated is a
commercially available 200 kWe phosphoric acid fuel cell power plant. The 1-year full-
scale demonstration is scheduled for 1993.
Hie major issue associated with this demonstration is designing a LFG cleanup
process that will remove the trace constituents from the LFG and at the same time not be
cost prohibitive. Since the composition of LFG varies over time, designing a process that
can allow for this variability is difficult A cleanup process has been proposed and is to be
evaluated later this year. The fuel pretreatment system incorporates two stages of
refrigeration combined with three regenerable adsorbent steps (Sandelli, 1992). It is
hoped that, if the EPA demonstration of the use of fuel cells is successful, more landfill
owner/operators will consider fuel cells as an option for LFG utilization. Given the higher
energy efficiency and potential for minimal byproduct emissions, fuel cells may be the
most attractive option for areas where there are stringent requirements for NO, and CO
emissions.
Economics
A major factor in helping to encourage LFG energy projects is the Public Utility
Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). It guarantees that utilities purchase power that was
generated from landfills at a price related to the costs that utility would experience to
produce the same amount of power. Although this guarantees a purchaser for the power,
the power sale revenues may be low if the utilities' own generating costs are low. In
addition, tax credits have been available that also help to encourage renewable energy
projects, such as LFG utilization.
The major capital costs of a LFG energy recovery project are identified in Table 2
as estimated in a recent paper by George Jansen of Laidlaw Technologies, Inc. Laidlaw's
experience suggests that LFG projects need to be over 1 MW, and have an electrical price
of at least $0.06-0.07/kWh including any capacity payments. Royalties should not exceed
12.5% at this energy pricing (Jansen, 1992). Laidlaw suggests that, if higher royalties are
offered, the percentage should be a function of energy pricing over and above the base
energy rate as inflation occurs. A range in the variability of the cost for each major
component is also provided in Table 2,
The major cost and revenue components include (1) administration and
development costs, (2) capital costs, (3) operating and maintenance costs,
(4) royalty payments, (5) tax credits, and (6) energy-related revenues. A brief description
is provided of each of these components.
•	Administrative costs include legal fees, permit applications, and contract
negotiations including gas lease agreements and power purchase agreements.
These costs may vary widely depending upon the environmental issues,
development considerations, and regulatory requirements.
•	Capital costs include the cost of gas extraction and cleanup, energy conversion
equipment, building, flares, and site modifications for construction.
•	Operating and maintenance costs include the costs associated with the
operation and maintenance of the energy project, labor, utilities, taxes, and
insurance.
13

-------
TABLE 2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
Estimate of Capital Costs for a 1 MWe Landfill Gas Energy Utilization Project
Item
Cost'
rS!Q3)
Percent1
Range of
Value
(Slff/kWW
Collection System2
200
13
200-1000
Fees-Planning/Environmeni/Legal3
30
2
30-1000
Interconnect Cost
76
5
20-500
Generating Equipment
970
65
500-2000
Contingency
225
11

Total
1500
100
850-4500
JThese costs were provided by Laidlaw Technologies, Inc. (Jansen, 1992)
2The range in cost of gas cleanup systems is $10,000-$500,000 (SlOVkWh)
'Legal fees are approximately 50% of the total (i.e., ~$15,000-$500,000)
•	Royalty payments are proportional to energy output (or net or gross revenue)
and are defined by the contract Royalties are negotiated and may be paid to
the landfill owner, owner of the gas extraction or delivery rights, or initial
project developer. Royalties can range from 5 to 20% of gross energy sales.
•	Tax credits are benefits proportional to gas energy delivery which were
legislated by Congress (Section 20 of the IRS Code). These credits are a direct
offset to taxes and can only be used to offset a profit. Hie tax credits will
extend through the year 2002 and are allowable for extraction systems
installed prior to the end of the year 1992. However, the most recent version
of the tax bill being considered by Congress does not include a tax credit for
non-fossil fuel projects.
•	Revenues for energy sales are usually based on prices of the "competition" of
equivalent energy sources (i.e., petroleum products). Since the value of the
energy base commodity can fluctuate, this can impact profit. The early LFG
projects were based on an established firm price for net energy which provided
a substantial degree of security to developers.
Case Studies
The EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory initiated a project in
1991 to document the options for LFG utilization. This work included gathering data on
the operating and maintenance requirements, the financing and contractual arrangements,
14

-------
and "lessons learned" from the six sites included in the case studies. This paper provides
a brief summary of the case studies with emphasis on identifying the different utilization
options in use. The final report will contain more detailed information for these sites
including capital and operating costs, process flow diagrams, and data regarding the
environmental benefits of LFG utilization.
Sites were selected to provide insight on the kinds of issues associated with LFG
utilization and actions taken by operators and equipment manufacturers to ensure
successful projects. Many companies have been successful in finding innovative solutions
to difficulties arising from LFG utilization. Several firms have found that gas cleanup is
critical to the performance of both engines and turbines. The design of the gas cleanup
must be specific to the composition of the gas being recovered and allow for the
variability which occurs over time. The EPA has initiated a follow-up project which will
focus on the issues of gas cleanup, equipment design, and operational modifications. The
focus of this initial project is to identify the different approaches for LFG utilization using
six case studies to illustrate the different options. Provided below is a brief summary of
the information gathered at the six LFG energy projects.
Site 1. Brown Station Landfill. Prince George's County. Maryland. LFG is used
to supply both the electrical and heating needs of a county building in addition to
producing electricity for sale to the local utility. The energy equipment includes a gas
cleanup and pumping station, a 3,230 m (2-mile) pipeline transmission system, three
engine generators, and a boiler which supports the heating and hot water system of the
21,800 m2 (235,000 sq ft) county correctional facility. The three engines are lean-bum
turbocharged. Approximately 28,320 semd (1 million scfd) of gas is recovered from 3.6
million tonnes (4 million tons) of landfilled waste. This site began operation in June 1987
and produces about 2.6 MW, of power.
This site experienced atypical difficulties during start-up, resulting in one of the
three engines seizing after less than 500 hours of operation. Modifications have been
made to the engine to make it "corrosive resistant" including hardened valve guides,
chrome valve stems, modified piston rings, and elevated coolant temperatures. Operations
were also modified including more frequent oil checks and changes. Since this
occurrence, the site has had successful operation. Speculation about what contributed to
the engine seizing suggests that higher levels of chlorinated organics (than is typical for
landfills) may have caused the corrosion. Inspection of the engine showed evidence of
extensive corrosion including deposit buildups which reduced piston clearances.
Site 2. Central Landfill. Yolo County. California. Gas from this landfill is used to
fuel three 1C engines to generate 1.5 MWe. The generated power is delivered via an
interconnect 1,200 m (0.75 mile) to nearby PG&E high voltage power lines. Yolo
County, the owner of the landfill, receives royalties based on net power and capacity sales.
This energy recovery project began operation in November 1989. Approximately 36,800
semd (1.3 million scfd) of LFG is recovered from 2.8 million tonnes (3.1 million tons) of
refuse. This project has experienced a number of difficulties including equipment
problems. The types of engines were of an earlier design lacking newer adaptations to
lean-bum operation on LFG. Modifications to the engines are being considered to make
them more corrosive resistant for LFG applications. Because of the difficulties
experienced at this site, the revenue from the royalties has dropped.
Site 3 Otav Landfill. San Diego County. California. This site is recovering
53,800 semd (1.9 million scfd) of LFG to generate 3.4 MWe using a lean-bum
engine/generator set. The electricity is sold to the local utility. The Otay landfill contains
approximately 5 million tonnes (-6.1 million tons) of refuse. The energy recovery
project began operating in December 1986. The facility exports a net output of about
3400 kW at an average sale price of -$0.09 kWh, and typically obtains more than $2
15

-------
million per year in gross power sale revenue. The LFG energy recovery project is
operated by Pacific Energy who are responsible for the operation of 10 LFG energy
projects, nine in California and one in Maryland.
Site 4. Monterey Landfill. Marina. California. This site produces 1.2 MW, from
23,300 scmd (0.9 million scfd) of LFG. This project is one of the first in the U.S.,
beginning operation in December 1983. The installation is the result of persistence by
participants who were aware of the potential benefits of energy recovery from LFG.
Approximately 3.4 million tonnes (3.7 million tons) of refuse is buried at this site as of
1992. The Monterey Regional Waste Management District owns and operates the engines,
receiving the profit from engine operation. This site uses naturally aspirated engines and
catalysts for the outlet exhaust to reduce NO, and CO. This site has demonstrated exhaust
catalyst use and has found that the oil type and alkalinity are critical to the engines'
performance. Technical success is good despite that gas cleanup is less stringent than is
typical for other sites. This site can be considered one of the pioneers in energy recovery
from LFG.
Site 5. Sycamore Canvon Landfill. San Diego. California. This site is producing
1.7 MW, from 34,000 scmd (1.2 million scfd) of LFG. This project began operating in
December 1988 using two gas-fed turbines fueled with LFG to generate electricity which
is sold to the San Diego Gas and Electric grid. This energy project was owned by Solar
prior to being sold to Laidlaw Technologies, Inc. Solar reported that efficiency is reduced
by 13% from the efficiency that would be obtained with the same turbine on more
conventional pipeline gas or distillate fuels, due to the greater parasitic compression load.
The equipment is occasionally limited due to inadequate quantities of LFG. This
difficulty has occurred at other sites and gas projections for newer projects tend to be
more conservative.
Site 6. Wilder's Grove Landfill. Raleigh. North Carolina. This site is an excellent
example of how LFG can be used directly by an industrial client as medium-heating value
fuel. The gas from the Raleigh landfill is piped 1,600 meters (1 mile)to a pharmaceutical
facility for use as boiler fuel to produce 11,000 kg (24,000 lb) of steam per hour. This
project began operating in December 1989 and is expanding. A second boiler is being
added this year. Approximately 42,500 scmd (1.5 million scfd) of gas is recovered from
approximately 3.2 million tonnes (3.5 million tons) of refuse. Natural Power initiated this
project and is responsible for its operation.
Natural Power pays royalties to the Gty of Raleigh based on a percentage of steam
sales. This project also receives tax credits on the extracted gas. All participants in this
project appear satisfied with the performance of this project to date. However, Natural
Power, who was the prime motivator in getting this project initiated, provided many years
of work on the project during which there was no financial return.
This site was prone to off-site gas migration prior to the installation of the gas
collection and recovery project. Since the installation of the energy project, gas migration
off-site has not been detected. In addition, other environmental benefits are realized
including the reduction from emissions of NMOCs, toxics, and methane, which is a
contributor to global climate change.
Natural Power, the developer for this project, is presently negotiating a contract
with a landfill in Kiev, in the Ukraine. This site has over 9 million tonnes (10 million tons)
of waste. "Hie gas is to be used to generate electricity for the Ukrainian capital.
16

-------
CONCLUSIONS
The utilization of LFG is sensible in terms of economics, the environment, and
energy usage. The utilization of alternative energy sources such as LFG extends our
global fossil fuel resources. Not only are emissions directly reduced when LFG is
collected and recovered for utilization, but emissions are also indirectly reduced when
secondary air/emission impacts associated with fossil fuel use are considered. U.S.
landfills are currently recovering -1.2 million tonnes of methane and producing 344 MWe
of power. The proposed Clean Air Act regulations for MSW landfill air emissions are
expected to result in additional emission reductions ranging from 5 to 7 million tonnes of
methane. Hopefully, utilization of LFG will be considered and encouraged for those sites
affected by the proposed Clean Air Act regulations. This would result in increased
benefits to our economy, energy resources, and global environment.
REFERENCES
1. Berenyi, Eileen, and Robert Gould, 1991-92 Methane Recovery from Landfill
Yearbook, Governmental Advisory Associates, 1991.
2 . Chadwick, Curt. Market Development Department, Caterpillar Inc., Letter to Susan
Wyatt, EPA/OAQPS. February 21, 1989. Response to request for information on
IC engines used to bum LFG.
3.	Federal Register. Vol 56. No. 104. May 30, 1991, pp. 24468 - 24528.
4.	GRCDA/SWANA, "Engine and Turbine Panel Presentations." Proceedings from
the GRCDA 9th International Landfill Gas Symposium, 1989.
5.	Jansen. G.R. "The Economics of LFG Projects in the United States." Presented
at the Symposium on LFG/Applications and Opportunities in Melbourne,
Australia, February 27, 1992.
6.	Khalil. M.A.K., and R.A. Rasmussen. "Constraints on the Global Sources of
Methane and an Analysis of Recent Budgets." Tellus, 42B, 229-236, 1990.
7.	Maxwell, Greg. "Reduced NO* Emissions from Waste Management's LFG Solar
Centaur Turbines." Proceedings of Air & Waste Management Association's 82nd
Annual Meeting in Anaheim, California, June 1989.
8.	McGee, R.W. and D.W. Esbeck. "Development, Application, and Experience of
Industrial Gas Turbine Systems for LFG to Energy Projects." Published in the
Proceedings of GRCDA's 11th Annual International LFG Symposium. March
1988.
9.	Sandelli, G J. "Demonstration of Fuel Cells to Recover Energy from LFG." EPA-
600-R-92-007 (NTIS PB92-137520), January 1992.
10.	Scheepers, M.J.J. "Landfill Gas in the Dutch Perspective." Published in
Proceedings of the Third International Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, October
1991.
11.	Schlotthauer, M. "Gas Conditioning Key to Success in Turbine Combustion
Systems Using Landfill Gas Fuels." GRCDA/SWANA's 14th Annual Landfill Gas
17

-------
Symposium in San Diego, California. Published in the Symposium Proceedings.
March 1991.
12.	Stachowicz, R.W. Waukesha Engine Division. Letter to S.R. Wyatt, EPA/OAQPS.
March 31. 1989. Response to request for information on 1C engines used to bum
LFG.
13.	Thomeloe, S.A. and L.B. Evans. The Use of IC Engines of Gas Turbines as
Controls for Air Emissions From Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Memorandum
to S.R. Wyatt. EPA/OAQPS, May 31. 1989. Docket A-88-09.
14.	Thomeloe. S.A. "U.S. EPA's Global Climate Change Program - Landfill
Emissions and Mitigation Research." Published in Proceedings of the Third
International Landfill Symposium, Sardinia. October 1991.
15.	United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Air Emissions from Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills - Background Information for Proposed Standards and
Guidelines." EPA-450/3-90-011a (NTIS PB91-197061), March 1991.
16.	United States Environmental Protection Agency. Standards Support and
Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1: Proposed Standards of Performance
for Stationary Gas Turbines. EPA-450/2-77-017a. (NTIS PB 272422). September
1977.
17.	United States Environmental Protection Agency. Stationary IC Engines -
Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1: Proposed
Standards of Performance. EPA-450/2-78-I25a (NTIS PB83-113563), January
1979.
18.	Valenti, Michael. "Tapping Landfills for Energy." Mechanical Engineering,
Vol. 114, No. 1. Januaiy 1992.
19.	Waste Age. "Landfill Gas Survey Update." March 1990, pp. 97-102.
18

-------
ATT rot D nno TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
£\tL Jr~ yUZ (Please read Instructions an the reverse before comp/el'
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/600/A-92/170
3.
4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Landfill Gas Recovery/Utilization - Options and
Economics
5, REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORISI
Susan A. Thorneloe
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
See Block 12
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
NA (Inhouse)
12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREO
Published paper; 3/91-3/92
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.supplementary notes project 0ffj[cer j.s Susan A. Thorneloe, Mail Drop 62, 919;
541-2709. Presented at IGT's 16th Conference on Energy from Biomass and Waste,
Orlando. FL. 3/2-6/92.
16. ABSTRACT
The paper describes the options and economics for landfill gas utilization. (NOTE:
The decomposition of landfilled waste results in a gas that can be either a source of
pollution or a resource. Of the more than 6000 active municipal solid waste land-
fills in the U.S., there are 114 landfill gas energy projects.) The health and envi-
ronmental concerns are described, as well as the economic, environmental, and
energy benefits associated with landfill gas utilization. In addition, the results of a
recent EPA survey of U. S. landfill gas utilization are provided.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. descriptors
b,identifiers/open ended terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Climate Changes
Gases
Earth Fills
Economics
Wastes
Energy
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Landfill Gas
Global Climate
13B 04 B
07D
13	M
05C
14	G
te. distribution statement
Release to Public
10. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
18
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------