"NEXT GENERATION" TECHNOLOGIES FOR
LANDFILL GAS AND "WHAT IS ETV?"
Susan A. Thorneloe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development/National Risk
Management Research Laboratory/Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
RTP, North Carolina 27711; Thomeloe.Susan@epamail.epa.gov
Stephen M. Roe, Joel L Reisman, and Randy P. Strait
E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., 2880 Sunrise Blvd., Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, California
95742; sroe@pechan.com
Presented at:
The Solid Waste Association of North America's
21st Annual Landfill Gas Symposium
Austin, Texas
March 24 - 26,1998
(Published in Conference Proceedings)

-------
"NEXT GENERATION" TECHNOLOGIES FOR
LANDFILL GAS AND "WHAT IS ETV?"
Susan A. Thomeloe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development/National Risk
Management Research Laboratory/Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
RTP, North Carolina 27711; Thomeloe.Susan@eriamail.epa.gov
Stephen M. Roe, Joel 1. Reisman, and Randy P. Strait
E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., 2880 Sunrise Blvd., Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, California 95742;
sroe@pechan.com
Abstract: The United Stated Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development
(ORD) is responsible for evaluating the "next generation" of technologies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. A recently published report gave results of an EPA review of the next generation or emerging
technologies for landfill gas (LFG) control and utilization. This paper provides a summary of the report. The
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program through EPA/ORD has been launched. Through this
program, technology purchasers can have access to an objective source of data to make informed purchasing
decisions. In addition, vendors who want to market their products on a "level playing field" will have objective
credible data through ETV. As part of ETV, the EPA has formed a center for the verification of technologies that
reduce GHG emissions. What is ETV and what does it mean to LFG? This paper provides the answers and points
to further information on the program.
INTRODUCTION
There is a dramatic increase in the number of new and
planned landfill gas to energy (LFG-E) projects in the
U.S. Although we have fairly reliable information on the
number of LFG-E projects, we do not have reliable
information on the number of projects where LFG is
flared. This increase in new projects is attributed to
expiration of the date for obtaining federal tax credits
and the promulgation cm March 12, 1996, of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for new landfills and
Emission Guidelines (EGs) for existing landfills to
reduce LFG emissions (FR Volume 61, Number 49). Of
the landfills expected to be constructed over die next 5
years, the EPA has estimated that about 45 will require
LFG collection and control systems. For existing
landfills with capacities, greater than 2.5 x 106
mcgagrams of waste, approximately 300 will be required
to install collection and control systems.
The regulations do not require the utilization of LFG to
produce energy or other products. Recent information on
the number of LFG-E projects in the U.S. indicates that
the number of projects may increase from 200 to over
400 within the next few years. Although, the EPA does
not require that LFG be utilized, it is interested in
promoting LFG utilization where it is technically and
economically feasible. In 1994, the EPA classified the
control of LFG emissions as a pollution prevention
source. This provides states the opportunity to consider
offsets when permits are being obtained, (pp. K-8 - K-
15 of Doom et al., 1995). A methodology for
quantifying these benefits was published in the EPA
report, Methodologies for Quantifying Pollution
Prevention Benefits from Landfill Gas Control and
Utilization (Roe et al., 1995). Although flaring LFG is
considered a pollution prevention source, additional
environmental benefit is realized for sites where LFG is
being utilized for its energy potential.
Concerns have been raised with the control of LFG due
to the potential for by-product emissions such as carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides (NO*), and sulfur oxides, and
die possible formation of dioxin/furans from the different
combustion devices being used for LFG. Depending
upon the geographical region where the project is located
and if the region is in nonattainment status for any
criteria pollutant, the type of technology selected can be
affected. Current data available through the Agency do
not have data specific to different technologies such as
lean-burn versus rich-bum reciprocating engines (e.g.,
AP42). Even within lean-bum engines, some of the
more recent units have much lower NO* emissions than
previous models. Currently for some pollutants, we do
not have adequate emissions and control data for the next
generation technologies or even conventional
technologies. Consequently, state and local regulatory
agencies can require expensive tests when projects are
2

-------
being permitted to determine the emission reduction and
potential for by-product emissions.
Of the pollutants of concern, dioxin/furan emissions are
frequently mentioned. Several LFG-E projects have
been tested for polychlorinated dibenzo-dioxins
(PCDDs), dibenzo-furans (PCDFs), and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). Test reports exist for two boilers, one
flare, and one gas turbine (Doom et al., 1995). For the
flare, the gas turbine, and one of the boilers, the
emissions results were all less than the detection limits
for all of the above combustion products. The positive
test result showed emission levels generally protective of
public health (i.e., <107 lb/hr), however a laboratory
Wank also tested positive. Current thinking is that the
combustion of LFG will not be a major source of
PCDDs/PCDFs, compared to other processes that favor
dioxin/furan formation. However, data are needed for
the different types of combustion devices in use to be
able to establish the emission level* of by-product
emissions. These tests can be expensive (particularly
measurements of PCDDs/PCDFs). To the extent the
emission levels can be established, then it may reduce
the costs of future projects being permitted.
The EPA/ORD's Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division has conducted several projects to help those
impacted by the Clean Air Act regulations by providing
assistance in resolving technical issues associated with
LFG utilization. A series of reports have been published
by EPA/ORD that help in the evaluation of technologies
and technical issues associated with LFG control and
utilization:
¦	Landfill Gas Energy Utilization: Technology
Options and Case Studies, EPA-600/R-92-116,
(Augenstein etal., 1992);
¦	Landfill Gas Energy Utilization Experience:
Discussion of Technical and Non-Technical Issues,
Solutions, and Trends, EPA-600/R-95-035, (Doom
et al., 1995); and
¦	Methodologies for Quantifying Pollution Prevention
Benefits from Landfill Gas Control and Utilization,
EPA-600/R-95-089, (Roe et al., 1995).
In a recent report (Roe et al., 1998), EPA conducted an
evaluation of the next generation technologies that are
currently ready for commercialization, undergoing
research and development (e.g., field- or bench-scale
demonstrations), or are being considered as potentially
applicable for the control or beneficial use of LFG. This
report has been published and was developed through a
series of site visits and contacts with LFG technology
developers and operators.
CENTER FOR VERIFICATION OF
TECHNOLOGIES 111 AT REDUCE GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS
The Environmental Technology Verification Program
(ETV) was established as a result of the needs expressed
by numerous government and private groups for an
organized and ongoing program to produce independent,
credible performance data. Currently, the lack of this
information is considered a major impediment to the
development and use of innovative environmental
technology. TTie goal of ETV is to verify the
environmental performance characteristics of
commercial-ready technology through the evaluation of
objective and quality-assured data, so that potential
purchasers and permitters are provided with an
independent and credible assessment of what they are
buying and permitting (U.S. EPA, 1997).
As part of ETV, the EPA established a Center in 1997
for verifying the reduction capability of different
technologies that reduce GHG emissions. Funding to
date for the Center is $3 million for fiscal years 1997 and
1998. Landfill methane has been identified as an initial
priority. This provides an opportunity for landfill
owner/operator/developers to have technologies
evaluated for GHG reduction capability, energy
efficiency, and potential for by-product emissions.
The types of technologies that could be considered
include currently commercially available technologies as
well as next generation technologies that are close to
commercial application. Data resulting from this effort
can then be used by manufacturers, vendors, regulators,
permit applicants, and others in establishing the emission
reduction capability of different technologies. Also data
can be collected on all pollutants and are not limited to
GHG emissions. This program has the opportunity of
helping to establish the emission levels for potential by-
product emissions as well as the emission reduction
capability. The EPA is hosting stakeholder meetings to
get input on the prioritization of technologies to evaluate.
If you are interested in knowing more about this program
contact either the web site at http://www.epa.gov/etv/ or
the EPA project officer, David A. Kirchgessner at
DKirchgessner@engineer.aeerl.epa.gov.
LANDFILL GAS TECHNOLOGIES
A database of LFG-E projects is being developed
through the Database Committee of the Solid Waste
Association of North America's Landfill Gas Division
(Thorneloe, 1992). These data were presented at the
20,h Annual Landfill Gas Symposium by Alex Roqueta
3

-------
and arc summarized in Table I (Roqueta, 1997). This
committee will be updating the information and releasing
a report scheduled for completion in 1998. These data
will help to track the trends that are occurring in the LFG
industry.
Table 1. Operational or Planned LFG -E Projects
Technology
Operating
Facilities
Construc-
tion./
Advanced
Planning
Capacity Range
of Installed
Facilities (kW)
or Equivalent
Reciprocating
Engines
89
>3U
8U - 12.3UO
Gas Turbines
22
4
740-16,500
Combined
Cycle
2
1
13,600 - 20,500
Boiler/Steam
Turbine
5
1
7,000 - 50,000
Medium
Heating Value
Fuel
27
11
300-17,000
High Heating
Value/Vehicle
Fuel
5
5
800 - 19,000
NOTE: kW = kilowatt, Adapted from Roqueta, 1997.
As a result of the increase in new projects, innovations in
existing and next generation technologies are being
considered for LFG applications. EPA/ORD has
conducted a review of the potential technologies for
managing and utilizing LFG. The purpose of this report
is to present information cm emerging technologies for
managing or utilizing methane and carbon dioxide from
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. Essentially,
these are technologies other than those that have been in
commercial use for at least several years. Examples of
conventional LFG-E technologies are shown in Table 1
and include electricity generation with reciprocating
internal combustion (RIC) engines and gas or steam
turbines, and production of medium heating value fuel
for input to boilers (for process or space heating).
OVERVIEW OF THE EPA REPORT ON
EMERGING LFG TECHNOLOGIES
The technologies that are presented in the recently
published EPA report are divided into three tiers. Tier 1
technologies are considered to be commercially available
in the U.S. Tier 2 technologies are currently undergoing
additional R&D or have been tested at the bench- or
field-scale and may be ready for commercial application.
Finally, Tier 3 technologies may have applicability to
LFG utilization or management based on applications
with similar fuel types (e.g., natural gas).
For technologies that are considered to be technically
feasible at a commercial scale (Tier 1), the report
provides an .introduction and general overview of the
demonstration project, a project history (of known
projects), a process description, information on
performance, a discussion of air emissions and secondary
environmental impacts, and available information on
project economics. For Tier 2 technologies, a process
description and information on air emissions and costs
follow an introduction and general overview of the
technology. For the Tier 3 technologies, the report
provides information on the process, current usage,
potential for use on LFG, and potential air emissions and
costs.
The development of LFG management and utilization
technologies is ongoing, and we will continue tracking
these technologies as new developments are made.
Copies of the report can be obtained through the National
Technical Information Service or through the EPA's
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/direct.html. The report is located
under the Clean Air Technology Center, formerly known
as the Control Technology Center.
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE (TIER 1)
TECHNOLOGIES FOR LANDFILL GAS
Tier 1 technologies have been demonstrated at a
commercial level and show promise for economic
viability at various scales of application, including:
•	Use of phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFCs) for
generating electricity and waste heat;
•	Conversion of methane from LFG to
compressed landfill gas (CLG) for vehicle fuel;
and
•	Utilization of methane from LFG to evaporate
landfill leachate and LFG condensate.
Fuel cells may be compared to large electrical batteries
(with ancillary equipment, such as catalysts) which
provide a means to convert the chemical bonding energy
of a chemical substance directly into electricity. The
major difference between a battery and a fuel cell is that
in a battery the reactants are being slowly depleted
during utilization. In a fuel cell, fresh reactants (fuel) are
continuously supplied to the cell. Many consider fuel
cells as a preferred technology due to their energy
4

-------
efficiency (>40%), minimal by-product emissions and
noise impact, modular design, and ability to operate in
remote locations (Arthur D. Little, 1993). Although fuel
cell technology has been well established on natural gas,
it is only within the last decade that its application to
LFG has been investigated.
In 1992, the International Fuel Cells Corporation was
awarded a contract by EPA to conduct a 1-year
demonstration of the application of a commercially
available fuel cell (i.e., phosphoric acid) to LFG. Initial
stages of this research focused on gas cleanup issues.
Hie field-demonstration phase of the project was
initiated in the fall of 1994. The major technical issue
with its application to LFG is gas cleanup. The system
that was developed for the full-scale demonstration uses
an adsorber for hydrogen sulfide, dehydration (to
condense water and hydrocarbons), desiccant (to adsorb
any remaining water), low-temperature condenser (to
remove any remaining halogenated compounds), and
activated carbon. As of May 1997, the gas cleanup
system had been operated 5,411 hours on landfill gas.
The amount of time that the gas cleanup system and fuel
cell have been operated on a full-scale basis is in excess
of 4,000 hours. The demonstration was initially located
in California and then moved to a site in New England.
The final report for the California demonstration project
is available (Demonstration of Fuel Cells to Recover
Energy From Landfill Gas, Trociolla and Preston, 1998)
along with a number of other publications (Sandelli,
1992; Sandelli and Spiegel, 1992; Sandelli et al„ 1994).
Efforts are underway to make the fuel cell technology
economically feasible before the turn of the century.
Federal programs through the U.S. Department of
Energy and other efforts are directed to help make fuel
cells economical due to their environmental advantages.
Fuel cells are currently widely used for natural gas
applications. Their use for landfill gas and other waste
methane sources such as anaerobic digesters at
wastewater treatment facilities is a new application of
this technology. Several sites around the U.S. are in
various stages of planning to begin projects using
PAFCs. Other types of fuel cells (e.g., molten carbonate)
are also being investigated for fuel cell applications, but
currently the only commercially available fuel cell is the
PAFC. We will continue to track their performance and
penetration into the market place.
Another emerging technology for landfill gas
applications is the conversion of landfill gas to vehicle
fuel. A major advantage with converting LFG to vehicle
fuel is that it produces significantly lower emissions
relative to gasoline and diesel fuels. Although several
projects have been proposed and operated temporarily in
the U.S., the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
(Districts) have been the most successful in operating a
CLG plant. This plant, located at the Puente Hills
landfill, has been in operation since 1993 (Wheless et al.,
1996). This project uses a membrane technology to
convert LFG to vehicle fuel. The station has a design
capacity equivalent to 3,800 liters of gasoline (1,000
gallons) per day. The Districts utilize the CLG to run a
fleet of 13 vehicles, ranging from vans to large on-road
tractors. The Districts think that low CNG prices and
design problems with early models of CNG truck
engines have slowed the adoption of this technology, and
newer CNG engine designs, including dual fuel models,
may provide the fuel demand.
Another successful application of converting LFG to
vehicle fuel is by the SITA Group (Paris, France), an
international waste management company. As reported
by M. Balbo, 1997, this pilot program has a number of
advantages including its relatively simple design which
reduces the cost. The project is located in Sonzay,
France, and has been operating since 1994. The LFG is
compressed to 14 bars pressure by a two-stage
compressor and then cooled by a heat exchanger. The
LFG is then injected into a scrubbing tower where the
countercurrent water flow scrubs the gases (removing
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide) and the methane
gas is then dried using an adsorbent. The clean and dry
gas is then compressed to 250 bars (200 pounds/square
inch) pressure and then stored. The city of Tours
converted a fleet of 30 small cars with the capacity to
operate cm either the CLG produced by the landfill or
diesel fuel. This pilot project has been so successful that
SITA plans to scale it up to supply fuel to 60 city buses.
Leachate and LFG condensate collection and treatment
can be expensive depending upon regulatory
requirements. LFG can be used to evaporate liquids and
combust the organics. The principle of leachate
evaporation systems (LESs) is simple and direct: use
LFG collected at the site as an energy source to
evaporate water and combust the organic compounds in
the leachate. Depending on local requirements, the
highly concentrated (hence reduced volume) effluent is
returned to the landfill or shipped off-site for disposal.
The process concentrates and precipitates metals,
primarily as salts, while stripping organics to a thermal
oxidizer (e.g., flare) or RIC engine for destruction.
There are several variations of leachate evaporator
systems. They differ only in the methods used to transfer
heat to leachate and treatment of the exhaust vapor. One
commercial design theme simply destroys the leachate
vapors and LFG not consumed in the evaporation
process in a slightly modified enclosed flare [Organic
Waste Technologies, Inc. (OWT)]. Another variation
combusts the evaporated vapors and LFG in an RIC
5

-------
engine to produce electricity. Here, the waste heat from
the engine aids in evaporating the leachate (Power
Strategies L.L.C.).
These LF.S technologies are expected to be relatively
commonplace in the future, as leachate treatment on site
is required or found to be more cost-effective. The first
known demonstration of this technology is by Omni-Gen
in conjunction with Balkema Bros, at the Orchard Hill
Landfill in Michigan in 1992. Several commercial
leachate evaporators are on order. Developers of this
technology are very optimistic and anticipate 10 or more
of these projects in full-scale operation by the end of
1998.
TECHNOLOGIES FOR LANDFILL GAS UNDER
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (TIER 2)
Tier 2 technologies are currently undergoing research
and development and have been demonstrated either at
the bench- or field-scale. Included in this group are:
•	Operation of landfills as either anaerobic or
aerobic bioreactors;
•	Production of methanol from LFG;
•	Production of commercial carbon dioxide (COi)
from LFG; and
•	Use of LFG for heating and CO? enhancement
in greenhouses.
Operating landfills as either anaerobic or aerobic
bioreactors are similar in that the objectives are to
increase the rate of waste biodegradation by enhancing
the environmental conditions conducive to microbial
activity (e.g., moisture, pH). The primary difference of
the two technologies is that, in anaerobic bioreactors, the
objective is to enhance the generation of methane;
whereas, in aerobic reactors, the objective is to minimize
methane generation. Both methods utilize leachate
recirculation as a means to control and enhance moisture
levels within the landfill. Leachate recirculation has
been performed for a number or years primarily as a
means to economically manage the leachate. However,
it is not usually allowed unless die composite liner,
required by Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, is in place. Although, this is an option for
new sites, it may not be an option for older sites.
Although the operation of landfills under enhanced
anaerobic conditions has been under investigation for
several decades, there are only a few pilot studies.
California's Yolo County project is considered probably
the best demonstration of this technology conducted to
date in terms of the data and information being collected.
Detailed information on this project is provided along
with information on some recent studies looking at the
operation of landfills under, aerobic conditions. (Roe et
al, 1998).
Conversion of LFG to methanol for use as a vehicle fuel
or as a chemical feedstock has been investigated in the
U.S. since the early 1980s. To date, there has not been a
field demonstration of this technology. Early
investigations of this technology concluded that it was
technically feasible; however, only marginal economic
returns were expected with the pricing of methanol
during that time (International Harvester Company,
1982; Science Applications, Inc., 1983). However,
during the early 1990s, the price of methanol increased
substantially (2 to 3 times) due to reformulated gasoline
(RFG) requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990. Methanol and its derivative, methyl butyl ether
(MTBE), are prime candidates for use as oxygenates in
RFG. MTBE is currently being used in many RFG
formulations in U.S. ozone nonattainment areas.
Consequently, the interest in converting landfill gas to
methanol resurfaced in this past decade.
The production of commercial-grade C02 from LFG is
also under research and development. Most LFG
utilization technologies do not attempt to capture the
CO2 component of LFG for commercial use. Hence, the
commercial value and associated environmental benefits
are not realized from these projects. The feasibility of
producing commercial-grade CO2 was studied by Acrion
Technologies, Inc. This study, funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy, indicated an increasing demand
for high purity (food grade) liquid CO2 (Acrion, 1992).
In 1992, domestic sales were estimated to be -11,000
tons per day, and the historical growth rate was cited as
8%. Retail prices for high purity liquid C02 were stated
to be between $50 and $200 per ton depending on the
volume and delivery point (transportation is the key
driver of cost for CO?). U.S. landfills were estimated to
be able to supply twice the current CO2 demand.
Current utilization technologies do not attempt to recover
LFG CO2 because: (1) recovery would require
recompression of the CO2 which can be expensive; (2)
trace contaminant removal to the purity requirements for
food grade CO2, cannot be performed by a single
commercial process (Acrion, 1992); and (3) non-
technical hurdles, such as the public's perception of a
food product developed from LFG.
Acrion has been developing a LFG cleaning technology
to produce high-purity liquid CO? and fuel-grade
methane from raw LFG. The purification system
underwent bench-scale testing in 1994, and a full-scale
field demonstration is planned for the fall of 1998. This
technology offers a unique opportunity for controlling
6

-------
both methane and CO> from LFG to produce commercial
products. However, information on the capital and
operating costs for this process was not available.
Hie process developed by Acrion simultaneously
recovers fuel grade methane and CO2 from raw LFG.
Acrion estimated that over 98% of the methane in the
LFG is recovered by the process. Approximately 15% of
the recovered methane is consumed by engines to
generate on-site power. About 70% of the LFG C02 is
recovered as product. Most of the balance is lost in the
fuel to the engines and as contaminated liquid absorbent
that is incinerated in the on-site flare. The C02 product
is estimated to contain approximately 1.5 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) of total impurities (Acrion,
1992).
Acrion is also investigating a process that uses cold
liquid C02 from the LFG to purify both the CH4 and CO2
product streams (Brown, 1997). Contaminants are
concentrated in a separate stream of CO2 that is fed to an
on-site flare. According to Acrion, negotiations are
nearing completion for a demonstration project at a site
in the State of New York.
POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES
(TIER 3)
Tier 3 technologies may have applicability to LFG
utilization or management based on applications with
similar fuel types (e.g., natural gas). Technologies that
are considered as potentially applicable for LFG-E
conversion include the Stirling engine, Organic Rankine
cycle (ORC), and molten carbonate ftiel cells. The first
two technologies potentially could use waste heat from
flares used to control LFG to generate mechanical
energy. However, on each of these technologies, there is
limited data and information on which to evaluate their
potential technical and economical feasibility to LFG
applications.
In the Stirling engine, power is generated by
compressing cool gas (working fuel) and expanding it
when hot, a process common to most heat engines.
Extensive research has been devoted to the development
of Stirling engines for space power systems (using solar
energy) and for use in automobiles. Currently, Stirling
engines are not commercially available but several
manufacturers hope to develop commercial units for
industrial and automobile use. However, most research
is focused on small-sized engines, from less than 2.5 kW
to about lOOkW; therefore, it may be cost prohibitive to
employ for a typical LFG-E project.
The ORC is a process that uses an organic fluid (rather
than steam) in a closed cycle to convert thermal energy
into mechanical energy. The advantages of an ORC over
a steam Rankine cycle include: (1) Depending on the
type and boiling point of the organic fluid chosen, the
organic fluid will completely vaporize at a much lower
temperature and pressure than steam, thus eliminating
steam system problems (like turbine blade erosion
caused by entrapment) and the need for an economizer,
superheater, or boiler drum; (2) organic working fluid is
non-corrosive; and (3) the ORC is a closed system which
eliminates the need to continuously add fluid or pre-treat
the fluid.
Perennial Energy, Inc. (PEI) of West Plains, Missouri,
has developed a commercially available ORC that uses
waste heat from a flare, thermal oxidizer, or other
combustor as a heat source (PEI, 1993). The ORC is
currently being used to generate electricity using
geothermal power at a plant site operated by Pacific
Energy in Mammoth, California. However, no current
usage of an ORC in a LFG application has been
identified.
Molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs) use an electrolyte
of lithium and potassium carbonate and operate at
temperatures of approximately 650 °C (1200 UF)
compared to PAFCs which operate at about 200 °C (390
°F) (DOE, 1997). The higher operating temperature of
MCFCs creates a potential for higher system efficiencies
(around 70%), if this heat can be utilized (e.g., in a
cogeneration system). Application of this technology is
in the very early stages.
DOE and EPRI are sponsoring a project to demonstrate
use of an MCFC on LFG. An LFG cleanup system was
successfully demonstrated at the Anoka Landfill in
Minnesota (Roe et al., 1998). A laboratory
demonstration (using synthetic LFG) was recently
completed; however, data are not yet available. Project
proponents state that MCFCs look particularly promising
for LFG application due to their good tolerance of CO3.
While some landfills can generate large quantities of
gaseous pollutants, most generate only small amounts
sufficient to support comparatively small power
generation projects (300 to 1,000 kW). Traditional
energy utilization technologies may not be cost-effective
alternatives for conversion of LFG into useable energy at
these small landfills, or may be difficult to permit due to
their significant NOx, carbon monoxide, and other
combustion byproduct emissions (e.g., RIC engines).
For landfills already using (permitted) flares for
controlling LFG emissions, it may not be desirable to
eliminate this type of control, but rather retrofit
utilization equipment in order to take advantage of waste
7

-------
heat. In both of these situations, the Stirling engine
and/or ORC may have potential applicability.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The information provided in the EPA report (Roe et al.,
1998) was prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.,
Rancho Cordova, CA. A number of people contributed
data and information including:
William Beale, Sunpower, Inc., Athens, OH
William Brown, Acrion Technologies, Inc., Cleveland,
OH
John Comas, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston,
MA
Alex Cross, Organic Waste Technologies, Inc., San
Mateo, CA
Richard Echols, Power Strategies, Houston, TX
William Ernst, Mechanical Technology, Inc.,
Latham, NY
Lewis Goodroad, Waste Management Inc., Geneva, IL
Elson Hanson, E.H. Hanson Group Ltd., Delta, BC
Mark Hudgins, American Technologies, Inc., Aiken, SC
John Pacey, EMCON, San Mateo, CA
Phillip Tracy, Gas Resources Corporation,
Englewood, CO
John Trocciola, International Fuel Cells, South Windsor,
cr
Mike Walker and Larry Connor, Pacific Energy, West
Plains, MO
Ed Wheless, Steve Maguin, and Monet Wong, Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts,
Whittier, CA
Ramin Yazdani, Yolo County Department of Public
Works and Transportation, Davis, C A
The authors greatly appreciate the time and effort
provided by the above persons and others who have
contributed in this effort. We plan to continue to track
and update information on improvements being made to
conventional technologies and the next generation of
LFG technologies. Also, as the ETV develops data on
LFG technologies, we will provide access to this
information through several sources including the ETV
website, AP-42 emission factors, and EPA/ORD reports
and other publications. EPA welcomes feedback on the
information presented in this paper and the recently
published report (Roe et al., 1998) and plans to provide
updated information as it becomes available.
REFERENCES
61 FR 49, 1996. Federal Register, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, "Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Controls of
Existing Sources, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,"
Final Rule and Guidelines, pp. 9905-9944, March 12,
1996.
Acrion, 1992. Landfill Gas Recovery for Compressed
Natural Gas Vehicles and Food Grade Carbon Dioxide.
SBIR Phase I Final Report, prepared for U.S.
Department of Energy. Morgantown Energy Technical
Center, Contract No. DE-FG02-91ER81223. May 20,
1992.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. The Role of Fuel Cell Technology
in the International Power Equipment Market -
Policy/Strategy Issues. Prepared for the World Fuel Cell
Council, Frankfurt, Germany. Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
1993.
Augenstein, D. and Pacey, J., 1992. Landfill Gas Energy
Utilization: Technology Options and Case Studies.
EPA-600/R-92-116 (NT1S PB92-203116), June 1992.
Balbo, M., Appointment in Sonzay: Landfill Gas Fueled
Vehicles, Waste Age, May 1997.
Brown, W., Acrion Technologies, Inc., personal
communication with S. Roe, E. H. Pechan & Associates,
Inc., September 1997.
DOE, 1997. U.S. Department of Energy, Information on
fuel cell technology down-loaded from the Federal
Energy Technology Center Web Site
(www.metc.doe.gov/research.power/fc.html), May 5,
1997.
Doom, M., Pacey, J., and Augenstein, D. 1995, Landfill
Gas Energy Utilization Experience: Discussion of
Technical and Non-Technical Issues, Solutions, and
Trends. EPA-600/R-95-035 (NTIS PB95-188108).
IHC (International Harvester Co.). 1982. Methanol from
Landfill Gas Technology and Economics. Prepared for
the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, Albany, NY. PB83-169144, December 1982.
PEI (Perennial Energy, Inc.). 1993. Organic Rankine
Cycle System. West Plains, MO.
Roe, S., Reisman, J., Strait, R„ and Doom, M. Emerging
Technologies for the Management and Utilization of
Landfill Gas. EPA-60Q/R-98-021, February 1998.
Roe, S., Fields, P.G., and Coad, R.E., 1995.
Methodologies for Quantifying Pollution Prevention
Benefits from Landfill Gas Control and Utilization.
EPA-600/R-95-089 (NTIS PB95-243176).
8

-------
Roqucta, A. Presentation at the 20th Annual Landfill Gas
Symposium, Monterey 25 - 27, 1997. Published in the
Proceedings of the SWANA's 20th Annual Landfill Gas
Symposium.
Sandelli, G.J. 1992. Demonstration of Fuel Cells to Recover
Energy from Landfill Gas: Phase 1 Final Report: Conceptual
Study. EPA-600/R-92-007 (NTIS PB92-137520).
Sandelli, G.J. and Spiegel, R.J. 1992. Fuel Cell Energy
Recovery from Landfill Gas. Journal of Power Sources,
37, (1992) 255-264.
Sandelli, G.J., Tirocciola, J.C., and Spiegel, R.G. 1994.
Landfill Gas Pretreatment for Fuel Cell Applications.
Journal of Power Sources, 49, (1994) 143-149.
Science Applications, Inc. 1983. Methanol Production
from Indigenous Resources in New York State. Volume
1. Executive Summary. Prepared for the New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority,
Albany, NY. PB87-110540, May 1983.
Thorneloc, S.A. 1992. Landfill Gas Recovery/Utilization-
Options and Economics. Presented at the Institute of
Gas Technology's Sixteenth Annual Conference on Energy
from Biomass and Wastes. Orlando, FL. March 5, 1992.
Trociolla, J.C. and Preston, J.L.1998. Demonstration of
Fuel Cells to Recover Energy From Landfill Gas, Phase
M. Demonstration Tests, and Phase IV. Guidelines and
Recommendations. Vol. 1. Technical Report, EPA-
600/R-98-002a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emissions Factors, AP-42, Volume 1, 5th
Edition, GPO 055-000-005-001, January 1995.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of
Research and Development, Environmental Technology
Verification Program - Verification Strategy,
EPA/600/K-96/003 (NTIS PB97-1600061, February
1997.
Wheless, E., Cosulich, J., and Wang, A. 1996.
Converting Landfill Gas to Vehicle Fuel: The Results of
Over 30 Months of Operation, Published in Proceedings
of the 19th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium, March
1996, Raleigh, NC.
9

-------
mda/tdt dtt> td oaq TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
NRMRL-RTP-P-3UO (Please 	 vmpteting)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
600/A-98/058
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
"Next Generation" Technologies for Landfill Gas and
"What is ETV?"
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7.AUTHOR(s!SiA Xhorneloe (EPA); and S.Roe, J.Reis-
man, and R. Strait
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
E. H. Pechan and Associates, Inc.
Rancho Cordova, California 95742
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D3-0035.WA 3-109
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Published paper; 10/95-9/97
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.supplementary notes ^ppcD project officer is Susan A. Thorn^loe. MMlDrop 63,
919/541-2709. For presentation at SWANA LFG Conference, o/23-2T/9o7 .Austin,
TX. (Solid Waste Association of North America.)
i6. abstract paper summarizes an EPA report describing the "next generation" of
technologies for landfill gas (LFG) control and utilization. (NOTE: EPA's Office of
Research and Development is responsible for evaluating the next generation of tech-
nologies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The recently published re-
port gave results of a review of the next generation or emerging technologies for
LFG control and utilization.) EPA's Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
program has been launched. Through this program, technology purchasers can
access an objective source of data to make informed purchasing decisions. In addi-
tion, vendors who want to market their products on a "level playing field" will have
objective credible data through ETV. As part of ETV, EPA has formed a center for
the verification of technologies that reduce GHG emissions. What is ETV and what
does it mean to LFG? The paper provides the answers and points to further infor-
mation on the program.
17. KEY words and document analysis
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos ATI Fkld/Gioup
Pollution
Verifying
Earth Fills
Gases
Emission
Greenhouse Effect
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Landfill Gas
Environmental Technol-
ogy Verification (ETV)
13	B
14	B
13	C
07D
14G
14	A
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
9
2a SECURITY CLASS (This page}
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------