Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies

Prepared by:

URS Corporation915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700Los Angeles, CA 90017

Prepared for:

City of Los AngelesDepartment of Public Works

Bureau of Sanitation419 S. Spring Street, Suite 900

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Evaluation of AlternativeSolid Waste Processing Technologies

September 2005

To Protect Public Healthand the Environment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies Report

MAYOR Antonio R. Villaraigosa

CITY COUNCILMEMBERS Ed P. Reyes – CD 1 Wendy Greuel – CD 2

Dennis P. Zine – CD 3 Tom LaBonge – CD 4 Jack Weiss – CD 5 Tony Cardenas – CD 6

Alex Padilla – CD 7 Bernard Parks – CD 8 Jan Perry – CD 9 Vacant – CD 10

Bill Rosendahl – CD 11 Greig Smith – CD 12 Eric Garcetti – CD 13 Vacant – CD 14 Janice Hahn – CD 15

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Cynthia M. Ruiz, President

David Sickler, Vice President Paula A. Daniels, President Pro-Tempore

Yolanda Fuentes Valerie Lynne Shaw

BUREAU OF SANITATION Rita L. Robinson, Director Joseph E. Mundine, Executive Officer Enrique C. Zaldivar, P.E. Assistant Director Varouj S. Abkian, P.E. Assistant Director Traci J. Minamide, P.E. Assistant Director

SOLID RESOURCES SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION Alex E. Helou, P.E. Division Manager Miguel A. Zermeno, Project Manager

September 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Ms. Rita L. Robinson and Mr. Enrique C. Zaldivar for their valuable advice. This report could not have been completed without the assistance and collaboration of many dedicated members of the Bureau of Sanitation, Solid Resources Support Services Division, including:

Alex E. Helou Carl L. Haase Richard F.Wozniak Javier L. Polanco Kim Tran Miguel A. Zermeno

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS AND DIVISIONS:

Bureau of Sanitation:

Solid Resources Processing & Construction Division Solid Resources Citywide Recycling Division Solid Resources Valley Collection Division Solid Resources South Collection Division

Department of Water and Power

CONSULTANTS URS Corporation

Alfonso Rodriguez Dan Predpall Shapoor Hamid

JDMT, Inc.

Michael Theroux Sheri Eiker-Wiles & Associates CJSeto Support Services, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................ES-1 1.0 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES ............. 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 BUSINESS OBJECTIVES .................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 1-2 1.4 ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES .............................. 1-4 1.5 LIST OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS............................................................. 1-4 2.0 CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING

TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 THERMAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES ................................................. 2-3 2.2.1 Advanced Thermal Recycling.................................................................. 2-5 2.2.2 Pyrolysis................................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.3 Gasification ............................................................................................ 2-15 2.2.4 Plasma Arc Gasification ........................................................................ 2-21 2.3 PHYSICAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES ............................................... 2-24 2.3.1 Refuse Derived Fuel .............................................................................. 2-24 2.3.2 MSW Handling Processes...................................................................... 2-26 2.4 BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES........... 2-29 2.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 2-29 2.4.2 Anaerobic Digestion .............................................................................. 2-31 2.4.3 Ethanol Production................................................................................. 2-34 2.4.4 Biodiesel ................................................................................................ 2-36 2.4.5 Other Processes...................................................................................... 2-37 3.0 REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING

TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................. 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 REGULATORY HISTORY ................................................................................ 3-2


ii

3.2.1 Toward Standardized Permitting and Enforcement ................................. 3-2 3.2.2 Renewable Energy Generation ................................................................ 3-3 3.2.3 Life Cycle and Market Assessment ......................................................... 3-5 3.2.4 Current Regulatory Concerns .................................................................. 3-8 3.2.5 Current Status of Definitions ................................................................... 3-9 3.3 REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................. 3-11 3.3.1 Local, State, and Federal Interaction ..................................................... 3-11 3.3.2 California Energy Commission Regulations ......................................... 3-15 3.3.3 California Integrated Waste Management Board Regulations .............. 3-15 3.3.4 Summary of Permitting Requirements................................................... 3-15 3.4 REGULATIONS AFFECTING COMPOST MARKETABILITY................... 3-16 3.4.1 MSW Feedstock Variability .................................................................. 3-17 3.4.2 Process Control Challenges ................................................................... 3-18 3.4.3 Voluntary Quality Control for Compost ................................................ 3-19 3.4.4 Regulatory Oversight – Federal ............................................................. 3-20 3.4.5 Regulatory Oversight – State ................................................................. 3-21 3.4.6 Summary................................................................................................ 3-24 4.0 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES .. 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 TECHNOLOGY SCREENING CRITERIA ....................................................... 4-1 4.3 ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY SCREENING.......... 4-2 4.4 WASTE SAMPLING PROGRAM...................................................................... 4-4 4.5 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SCREENING CRITERIA.................................... 4-5 4.6 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SURVEY.............................................................. 4-6 4.7 SCREENED TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS....................................................... 4-7 5.0 DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW

PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS .......................................... 5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................ 5-1 5.3 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCESS..................................................... 5-2


iii

5.3.1 Definitions and Assumptions................................................................... 5-2 5.3.2 Uses for Digestate from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities ......................... 5-3 5.4 SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS...................... 5-5 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 INTRODUCTION TO LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS............................................. 6-1 6.3 THE CIWMB CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY LIFE CYCLE STUDY.......... 6-3 6.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES................................................................. 6-4 6.4.1 Scenario Development ............................................................................. 6-5 6.4.2 Results.................................................................................................... 6-13 6.5 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................ 6-20 7.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING

TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS ....................................... 7-1 7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 7-2 7.2.1 Technical Comparison ............................................................................. 7-3 7.2.2 Environmental Comparison ..................................................................... 7-8 7.2.3 Economic Comparison........................................................................... 7-15 7.3 COMPARISON TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES................................................. 7-17 7.4 RANKING OF ALTERNATIVE WASTE PROCESSING

TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................................. 7-19 7.4.1 Criteria Development............................................................................. 7-20 7.4.2 Establish Performance Levels................................................................ 7-20 7.4.3 Assign Criteria Weights......................................................................... 7-20 7.4.4 Technology Ranking.............................................................................. 7-23 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 8-1


iv

8.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS...................................................................... 8-1 8.2 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. 8-1 8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................... 8-6 8.3.1 Public Outreach........................................................................................ 8-6 8.3.2 Develop a Short List of Suppliers............................................................ 8-8 8.3.3 Initial Siting Study ................................................................................... 8-8 8.3.4 Preparation of Request for Proposal and Select Preferred Supplier ........ 8-8 8.3.5 Conduct Facility Permitting and Conceptual Design............................... 8-8 8.3.6 Detailed Design and Construction ........................................................... 8-8 GLOSSARY List of Tables Page Table ES-1 Key Findings...................................................................................................ES-4 Table ES-2 Recommended Activities for MSW Processing Facility Development

for the City of Los Angeles.............................................................................ES-9 Table 1-1 Classification of MSW Processing Technologies............................................. 1-5 Table 3-1 Summary of Permits Required for a New Solid Waste Processing Facility..... 3-1 Table 4-1 List of Alternative MSW Processing Technologies.......................................... 4-2 Table 4-2 Alternative MSW Processing Technology Evaluation Matrix ......................... 4-3 Table 4-3 Characteristics of Black Bin Contents, City of Los Angeles, 2004.................. 4-8 Table 4-4 Technology Supplier Short List ........................................................................ 4-9 Table 5-1 Thermal Conversion Facilities.......................................................................... 5-7 Table 5-2 Advanced Thermal Conversion Facilities......................................................... 5-9 Table 5-3 Biological Conversion Facilities..................................................................... 5-10 Table 6-1 Los Angeles Waste Composition...................................................................... 6-6 Table 6-2 Key Assumptions Used in Gasification, Advanced Thermal Recycling,

& Landfill Scenarios ....................................................................................... 6-11 Table 6-3 Key Assumptions Used in AD Scenario......................................................... 6-14 Table 6-4 Summary Level Results for the Scenarios Analyzed for Los Angeles (per 1,000,000 Tons of Waste Managed)........................................................ 6-14

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Page

v

Table 7-1 Characteristics of Technology Groups.............................................................. 7-3 Table 7-2 Criteria Performance Levels and Ratings ....................................................... 7-21 Table 7-3 Scores by Supplier by Criterion...................................................................... 7-24 Table 7-4 Supplier Scores by Sub-category.................................................................... 7-25 Table 7-5 Summary of Highest Scores in Each Scoring Category ................................. 7-25 Table 8-1 Key Findings..................................................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-2 Recommended Activities for MSW Processing Facility Development

for the City of Los Angeles............................................................................... 8-7 List of Figures Page Figure 1-1 Business Objectives, City of Los Angeles Alternative MSW Processing Study............................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2-1 Anatomy of a Conversion Facility.................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Advanced Thermal Recycling System.............................................................. 2-6 Figure 2-3 Typical Pyrolysis System for Power Generation or Chemicals........................ 2-9 Figure 2-4 Typical Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming System for Power Generation............... 2-12 Figure 2-5 Typical Gasification System for Power Generation (2 Options) or Chemicals........................................................................................................ 2-16 Figure 2-6 Typical Pyrolysis/Gasification System for Power Generation ....................... 2-19 Figure 2-7 Typical Plasma Gasification System for Power Generation........................... 2-21 Figure 2-8 Typical RDF System....................................................................................... 2-24 Figure 2-9 Typical Steam Processing/Autoclave Process ................................................ 2-28 Figure 2-10 Estimated Bulk Composition of Los Angeles Black Bin

Post-Source Separated MSW.......................................................................... 2-30 Figure 2-11 Simplified Typical MSW Anaerobic Digestion Process Schematic (after Legrand et al. 1989) .............................................................................. 2-32 Figure 2-12 Simplified Ethanol Production Process Schematic......................................... 2-35 Figure 2-13 Simplified BRI Process Schematic ................................................................. 2-37 Figure 4-1 Average Percent Composition of Post-Source Separated MSW ...................... 4-5 Figure 6-1 Life Cycle Inputs and Outputs of a Waste Management Process ..................... 6-2 Figure 6-2 Calculation of Total Life Cycle NOx Emissions for a Landfill-Based Waste Management Scenario............................................................................ 6-2 Figure 6-3 Landfill Scenario Illustration ............................................................................ 6-7 Figure 6-4 Advanced Thermal Recycling Scenario Illustration ......................................... 6-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Page

vi

Figure 6-5 Advanced Thermal Recycling Process Diagram .............................................. 6-8 Figure 6-6 Pyrolysis/Gasification Scenario Illustration ..................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-7 Pyrolysis/Gasification Process Flow Diagram................................................ 6-10 Figure 6-8 Waste Conversion (Anaerobic Digestion) Scenario ....................................... 6-12 Figure 6-9 Anaerobic Digestion Process Flow Diagram.................................................. 6-12 Figure 6-10 Annual Net Energy Consumption by Scenario ............................................... 6-15 Figure 6-11 Annual Net Pounds of Criteria Air Emissions by Scenario............................ 6-17 Figure 6-12 Annual Net Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent by Scenario .......................... 6-19 Figure 7-1 Alternative Technologies for Treating Black Bin Post-Source Separated MSW............................................................................ 7-2 Figure 7-2 Throughput by Supplier (TPY)......................................................................... 7-4 Figure 7-3 Net Electricity Production, MW ....................................................................... 7-6 Figure 7-4 Energy Efficiency, Net kWh/Ton ..................................................................... 7-6 Figure 7-5 Diversion Rate, Percent of Throughput ............................................................ 7-9 Figure 7-6 Capital Cost, $/TPY........................................................................................ 7-15 Figure 7-7 Total Revenue/Ton by Supplier ...................................................................... 7-16 Figure 7-8 Estimated Breakeven Tipping Fee and

Worst Case Breakeven Tipping Fee ............................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-9 Objectives Hierarchy ...................................................................................... 7-19 Figure 7-10 Total Ranking Score by Supplier.................................................................... 7-26 List of Appendices Appendix A Master Supply List of Technologies Appendix B Characterization of Alternative Waste Processing Technologies Appendix C Europe Facilities Field Reports Appendix D Life Cycle Analysis Report Appendix E Supplier Evaluations Appendix F Alternative Technology RFQ

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

vii

AB Assembly Bill AC Alternating Current (Electric) AD Anaerobic Digestion ADC Alternative Daily Cover AQMD Air Quality Management District ATR Advanced Thermal Recycling BACT Best Available Control Technology BETF Break Even Tipping Fee Btu British Thermal Unit CAP Compost Analysis Proficiency CARB California Air Resources Board CCQC California Compost Quality Council CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CNG Compressed Natural Gas CT Conversion Technology DC Direct Current (Electric) EPA Environmental Protection Agency HCl Hydrochloric Acid HHV Higher Heating Valve HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt hour lb Pound LEA Local Enforcement Agencies LHV Lower Heating Valve MBtu Million British Thermal Units MRFs Material Recovery Facilities MSW Municipal Solid Waste MW Megawatt MWe Megawatt Electric MWh Megawatt hour MWth Megawatt Thermal NEPA National Environmental Quality Act NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory O&M Operation and Maintenance

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

viii

OGM Organic Growth Medium PFRP Processed to Further Reduce Pathogens PM Particulate Matter PUC Public Utilities Commission QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control RDF Refuse Derived Fuel RFQ Request For Qualifications RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RSI Report of Site Information RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District scf Standard Cubic Foot SCR Selective catalytic reduction SNCR Selective non-catalytic reduction STA Seal of Testing Assurance SWMP Solid Waste Management Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TMECC Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost TPD Tons Per Day TPY Tons Per Year USCC United States Composting Council USEPA United Stated Environmental Protection Agency VOC Volatile Organic Compound WCTF Worst Case Tipping Fee WDR Water Discharge Requirements

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-1

The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation engaged URS Corporation to conduct an evaluation of alternative municipal solid waste (MSW) processing technologies to process residential refuse, or post-source separated MSW. The City uses three “bins” to collect solid waste from residences: green bin (green waste), blue bin (recyclables), and black bin (refuse). The green and blue bin material is recycled. The black bin refuse, or post-source separated MSW, which is landfilled, is the subject of this study. The study began with development of the City’s overall project objectives. The highest-level objective is:

“Identify alternative MSW processing technologies that will increase landfill diversion in an environmentally sound manner, while emphasizing options

that are energy efficient, socially acceptable, and economical.”

This objective was subdivided into three lower-level objectives:

• Maximize Environmental (Siting) Feasibility (i.e., minimize impacts to the environment and citizens)

• Maximize Technical Feasibility (i.e., search for technologies that are commercially available within the development timeframe of 2005-2010 and will significantly increase diversion from landfills)

• Maximize Economic Feasibility (i.e., provide an overall cost that is competitive with other solid waste processing methods)

These objectives were applied, through the use of screening criteria, to identify potential technologies that could meet the City’s objectives. Technologies initially identified were:

• Thermal Technologies

• Biological/Chemical Technologies

• Physical Technologies

Thermal technologies are those technologies that operate at temperatures greater than 400 degrees F and have higher reaction rates. They typically operate in a temperature range of 700 degrees F to 10,000 degrees F. Most thermal technologies are used to produce electricity as a primary byproduct. Thermal technologies include advanced thermal recycling (a state-of-the-art form of waste-to-energy facilities) and thermal conversion (a process that converts the carbon-based portion of the MSW waste stream into a synthetic gas which is subsequently used to produce products such as electricity, chemicals, or green fuels).

Biological/chemical technologies operate at lower temperatures and lower reaction rates. They can accept feedstock with high moisture levels, but require material that is biodegradable. Some technologies involve the synthesis of products using chemical

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2

processing carried out in multiple stages. Byproducts can vary, which include: electricity, compost and chemicals.

Physical technologies involve altering the physical characteristics of the MSW feedstock. These materials in MSW may be separated, shredded, and/or dried in a processing facility. The resulting material is referred to as refuse-derived fuel (RDF). It may be densified or pelletized into homogeneous fuel pellets and transported and combusted as a supplementary fuel in utility boilers.

All of these technologies are described in Section 2.0. The state and Federal regulations governing the permitting of these technologies is presented in Section 3.0.

Twenty individual alternative MSW processing technologies were included within these major categories. The technologies were screened using a set of basic technology capability and experience criteria. Through this process, ten technologies within the technology groups of thermal and biological technologies were identified that meet the applicable criteria (see Section 4.3).

About 225 suppliers were screened, and twenty-six suppliers were selected to submit their detailed qualifications to the City. These qualifications were to include information about the supplier’s experience, descriptions of several “reference facilities,” and a preliminary description of a proposed facility for the City of Los Angeles (see Section 5.1).

Of the twenty-six suppliers requested to submit qualifications, seventeen provided responses. These suppliers and their technologies were thoroughly evaluated (including several site visits). This evaluation primarily was based upon the information and data contained in the submittals received. These submittals ranged from very responsive to incomplete. Each supplier was requested to provide additional information based on an initial review. Tables 5-1 through 5-3 provide a good summary of the information obtained from each supplier. Additional detail is presented in Appendix E.

The supplier data contained in Section 5.0 and Appendix E were used to prepare a life cycle analysis associated with implementation of alternative waste processing technologies in the City’s integrated solid waste management system. This allows the City of Los Angeles to more accurately compare these new technologies to existing solid waste management practices. In a life cycle analysis, the energy and emissions associated with fuels, electrical energy, and material inputs for all stages of the waste management process (e.g., collection, transfer, treatment, disposal) also are captured. Similarly, the potential benefits of the process associated with energy and/or materials recovery displacing (avoiding) energy and/or materials production from virgin resources are captured. The life cycle analysis is described in Section 6.0.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-3

Finally, the supplier data were used to conduct a comparative analysis of the technologies, and rank the suppliers to select technologies for further assessment. The comparative analysis addressed a number of technical, environmental, and cost issues, including:

• Throughput (respondents provided data for different throughput rates)

• Electricity production

• Net efficiency in kWh/ton feedstock

• Diversion rate

• Air emissions

• Solid wastes

• Regulatory issues

• Capital cost

• Revenues

• Estimated tipping fees

A supplier ranking process was employed to help select the most attractive technologies for treating the City’s black bin post-source separated MSW. Evaluation criteria were defined, performance levels established, and scores computed to develop a ranking of suppliers and technologies.

The comparative analysis and ranking is presented in Section 7.0.

FINDINGS

The study evaluated the ability of alternative technologies to process black bin post-source separated MSW from three perspectives: siting (or environmental) feasibility, technical feasibility, and economic feasibility. The results of this evaluation, in part, can be expressed in terms of key findings that impact the overall study conclusions and recommendations that follow.

Table ES-1 provides a summary of these key findings. The table is arranged by objective (siting, technical, and economic), and each key finding is described, and discussed in the context of each technology evaluated. The study began with an evaluation of twenty thermal, biological/chemical, and physical technologies, and these were screened on the basis of ability and experience processing black bin post-source separated MSW on a commercial level to arrive at the following short list of technologies:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-4

TABLE ES-1 KEY FINDINGS

Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion Siting/Environmental Diversion rate, the percentage of black bin post-source separated MSW that is diverted from landfilling, is an important objective for this project. (7.2.1.5)

At least ninety percent diversion expected, with a worst-case rate of 80%.


Eighty percent diversion rate expected with a worst-case rate of 50%.

Air emissions characteristics will differ among the alternative technology groups evaluated. All technology groups will meet regulatory limits. (7.2.2.1)

Air emission control systems are available to limit emissions to well below regulatory limits.

Thermal conversion systems are expected to result in emissions well below regulatory limits.

Emissions from biological systems will be lower than thermal technologies due to lower operating temperatures.

Wastewater will be generated in relatively small quantities. This liquid waste will either be recycled or discharged to a local sewer. (7.2.2.2)

No significant difference among technologies.

Solid residue will be generated from material rejects, process waste, and air emission control systems. (7.2.2.3)

Advanced thermal recycling systems will generate bottom ash, boiler ash, and fabric filter ash. Assuming the bottom ash is recycled, about 5% of the incoming material will be landfilled.

Similar to advanced recycling systems. Biological systems will typically generate unmarketable residuals consisting of 15-40% of the total throughput.

An alternative MSW processing technology can be sited in urban Los Angeles. (7.2.2.4)

No fatal siting constraints were identified. The best sites will be in heavy industrial (M3) areas of the City.

No fatal siting constraints were identified. The best sites will be in heavy industrial (M3) or heavily commercial areas of the City.


The pathway regarding environmental regulations differs by technology in California. (7.2.2.5)

Several waste-to-energy facilities have been permitted in California. Therefore, regulations exist for advanced thermal recycling systems to obtain the required environmental permits to operate.

The legislature and the CIWMB are establishing a regulatory framework for thermal conversion technologies. The lack of such a framework will complicate permitting these facilities.

The technology for biological conversion in this study is anaerobic digestion. Regulations exist in California for this technology, although no systems have been permitted for treatment of MSW.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED) KEY FINDINGS

ES-5

Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion Life Cycle Analysis of energy consumption reveals advantages of employing thermal or biological MSW processing technologies. (6.5)

Thermal technologies and biological conversion technologies will create significant energy savings when compared to landfilling. This energy savings results from a combination of syngas and electrical energy production, as well as from materials recovery and recycling. For example, if a 250,000 TPY per year thermal conversion facility replaced this quantity of black bin post-source separated MSW going to the landfill, the energy savings would be about 2.6 million MBtu, which is equivalent to a 30 MW power plant operating for one year.

Life Cycle Analysis of criteria pollutant emissions reveals advantages of employing thermal or biological MSW processing technologies. (6.5)

For the criteria air emissions, the advanced thermal recycling, gasification and anaerobic digestion scenarios also performed generally better than landfilling. The reduced transportation needed to take waste to the landfill contributed to the air emission reductions offered by advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion. For example, if a 250,000 TPY thermal conversion facility treated this quantity of black bin post-source separated MSW, about 425 tons of NOx emissions per year would be saved (avoided), which is equivalent to the NOx emissions emitted from a 975 MW natural gas-fired power plant operating for a year.

Technical The technical maturity of alternative MSW processing technologies differs.

Combustion of MSW is the most mature of the alternative MSW processing technologies evaluated. Approximately 100 such facilities are operational in the U.S., with many more in Europe and Japan (these facilities are predecessors of the new advanced thermal recycling technology).

Thermal conversion technologies have been in successful, long-term use around the world, although typically using more homogeneous feedstocks such as coal and biomass. While technical challenges are expected, because of their relatively short operating history using MSW as a feedstock, these challenges are judged to be manageable.

Biological conversion facilities processing source separated organics (SSO), and more recently MSW, are operating in Europe and elsewhere overseas.

Facility designs are relatively new; therefore, current facility designs generally have not achieved the desired level of optimization.

There is room for improvement in most designs that would better integrate the three major components of a system (pre-processing, combustion/conversion, and post-processing/byproduct production). This would increase efficiency and reduced cost/ton.

Air emission control systems are commercially available to limit air emissions to below regulatory levels for all technologies. (2.2)

Applies to all technology groups.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


ES-6

Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion Thermal efficiency, the amount of net electricity generation per ton of feedstock processed, varies by technology. Higher efficiencies result in better financial performance. (7.2.1.3)

Thermal technologies that use a steam turbine for electricity production have thermal efficiencies in the range of about 500-600 kWh/ton. If a reciprocating engine is used, the efficiency will increase to about 800-900 kWh/ton.

Thermal efficiency is in the range of 150-200 kWh/ton using reciprocating engines. Thermal processes recover more energy than biological ones because they convert essentially all organics to energy, not just the biodegradable organics.

Solid residuals generated by these technologies differ in composition. (7.2.1.4)

Residuals include boiler and fabric filter fly ash (assumes bottom ash is recyclable). This material, although small in terms of quantity (about 7500 tons/yr for a 400,000 TPY facility), may be classified as hazardous.

Residuals for low temperature gasification and pyrolysis include boiler and fabric filter fly ash, and bottom ash (if not recycled). These materials, although small in quantity (1000-6000 tons/yr for a 100,000 TPY facility), may be classified as hazardous. Residuals (slag) from high temperature gasification will be non-hazardous and inert.

Residuals primarily will consist of unmarketable rejects, which will be landfilled. Quantities will range from 15,000 to 40,000 tons/yr for a 100,000 TPY facility.

Revenue/ton can be viewed as a measure of recycling effectiveness, or the ability of the technology to achieve higher market value for its byproducts. (7.2.3.2)

Suppliers in this category can achieve revenues of about $32-36 per ton.

Suppliers in this category can achieve revenues of up to $40-60 per ton. This higher range is due to greater pre-processing and higher thermal efficiencies.

Suppliers in this category can achieve revenues of about $20-30 per ton. This lower range is due to the production of compost.

The quality of response from the suppliers affected the results of this study with regard to the technical evaluation.

The quality of response from suppliers varied. Some responses were incomplete, and others indicated that some information and data were confidential. This situation affected the presentation of material in this report, particularly with respect to technical issues and economics.

Economics The financial feasibility, as measured by a breakeven tipping fee, varied among technologies and suppliers. (7.2.3.3)

Advanced thermal recycling systems exhibited breakeven tipping fees of $56-$64/ton for 330-380K TPY facilities. The small range is attributed to the extensive experience with this technology (i.e. its predecessor technology) in the U.S.

Thermal conversion breakeven tipping fees exhibited a wide range ($20-$128/ton for 100K TPY, and $20-$40/ton for 360-400K TPY facilities). This is attributed to the lack of experience with these facilities in the U.S.

Biological conversion breakeven tipping fees exhibited a wide range ($19-$97/ton for a 100K TPY facility).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


ES-7

Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion Economy of scale is a term that refers to the variation in project economics with facility throughput. In general, the tipping fee decreased with increasing throughput. (7.2.3.3)

Only one size was proposed (330-380K TPY)

Several responses addressed throughput levels from 100K to 400K TPY. In some cases, significant reductions in tipping fee result with higher throughputs, although insufficient data exists to be specific.


Byproduct marketability is an important issue. Significant uncertainty with regard to some materials may impact economic viability. (7.2.1.5)

Advanced thermal recycling gains most of its revenue from the sale of electricity. This is a well-developed market. Although only small amounts of bottom ash are presently recycled/reused, this is expected to increase as designs isolate the potentially hazardous fly ash from the bottom ash.

Thermal conversion gains most of its revenue from the sale of electricity, a well-developed market. Another significant revenue source for some designs are the recyclables recovered from pre-processing the inlet black bin post-source separated MSW. The market for glass, metals and paper is also well-developed.

Biological conversion facilities produce both electricity and compost. The compost is produced in large quantities (15,000-40,000 tons/yr for a 100K TPY facility). California compost quality regulations are complex. Extensive testing is required to ensure acceptability. In addition, the market for this material is uncertain.

With regard to conversion technologies, the relationship of project economics to supplier experience generally indicates that the more experienced suppliers provide higher project costs.

The lowest breakeven tipping fees (in the neighborhood of $15-$30/ton) were provided by suppliers with the least number of operating units. These results could not be verified in this study; therefore, additional evaluation is needed.

Pre-processing to remove recoverable recyclables increases revenues. The value of uncontaminated recyclables in the black bin post-source separated MSW is higher as a recyclable material than as a feedstock to produce electricity.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-8

• Thermal technologies – Advanced thermal recycling, and thermal conversion (includes pyrolysis, gasification and pyrolysis-gasification)

• Biological/chemical – Anaerobic digestion

• Physical – None (Section 4.3)

As a result, the key findings address advanced thermal recycling, thermal conversion, and biological conversion.

Table ES-1 includes references to report sections where each finding is discussed in more detail.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the key findings from Section 8.1 and the technology ranking presented in Section 7.4, the following conclusions are made:

• An alternative MSW processing facility can be successfully developed in the City of Los Angeles.

• The technologies best suited for processing black bin post-source separated MSW on a commercial level are the thermal technologies. These include advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion (pyrolysis and gasification).

• The biological/chemical conversion technologies and physical technologies present significant technical challenges for treatment of the black bin post-source separated MSW. While biological conversion technologies show the most promise in this group, they also bring significant challenges, as explained below.

The technology ranking in Section 7.4 evaluated the thermal and biological technologies using eight criteria that addressed siting, technical, and economic issues. While the ranking was conducted using supplier data, the results were used to decide which technology groups exhibited the best characteristics with regard to successfully processing of black bin post-source separated MSW.

Based upon the ranking scores in terms of technologies rather than suppliers, the following conclusions are drawn:

• Advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion received the highest total scores.

• Advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion received the highest environmental scores, primarily due to advantages with regard to landfill diversion rate.

• All three technologies were in the top five scores on engineering.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-9

• All three technologies received similar scores on economics, although advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion ranked higher on byproduct marketability.

In summary, the advantages of the thermal technologies over biological conversion are:

• Higher landfill diversion rates, which is a primary objective of the project

• Lower production of solid byproducts and correspondingly greater production of electricity, a higher value product with a more well-developed and stable market

• Less risk with regard to byproduct marketability, particularly in comparison to compost

• Significantly higher thermal efficiencies and, therefore, higher revenue/ton because thermal processes convert essentially all organics (not just biodegradables) to energy

• More operational experience at higher throughputs

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the City of Los Angeles proceed with the activities shown in Table 8-2 for continued development of an alternative MSW processing facility for black bin post-source separated MSW utilizing a thermal technology.

TABLE ES-2 RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES FOR MSW PROCESSING FACILITY

DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Activity Approximate Dates Initiate Public Outreach September 2005, ongoing Develop Short List of Suppliers September-November 2005 Conduct Initial Siting Study September-November 2005 Prepare Request for Proposal (RFP) November-February 2006 Issue RFP March 2006 RFP Responses Due June 2006 Evaluate RFP Responses June-October 2006 Announce Preferred Supplier(s) October 2006 Conduct Facility Permitting/Conceptual Design October 2006-October 2007 Prepare Detailed Facility Design July 2007-December 2007 Facility Construction January 2008-October 2009 Performance Testing and Start-up October 2009-January 2010 Commercial Operation (February 2010)

Each of the activities in Table ES-2 is discussed below.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-10

Initiate Public Outreach

Public acceptability will be one of the most important determinants of this project’s success. Siting, permitting and developing a new alternative MSW processing technology for the City of Los Angeles will lead to many questions from the public with regard to environmental impacts and public health issues. The key is to consider the public as a partner and present the facts and benefits as early as possible while being responsive to their concerns at all times. Developing early relationships with key stakeholder groups is essential.

The public outreach should be conducted in two phases. The first phase begins in 2005, with two purposes: educate the public about the alternative MSW processing technologies, and elicit feedback regarding the public’s attitude toward the technologies under consideration. Education about the characteristics of the technologies, compared to existing disposal methods, their benefits, and their anticipated environmental impacts are critical tasks. Public outreach is also important at this stage to provide counterpoint to opposing groups. A communications strategy in the first phase will access the public in broad terms, to reach large audiences, using techniques such as television spots, radio interviews, press conferences, and editorial pieces. Selected focus groups, as well as meetings with community leaders, agency personnel knowledgeable about emerging MSW processing technologies, and environmental groups also would be helpful.

The second phase of public outreach takes place after the technology supplier is selected and alternative site locations are known. Then the outreach becomes more specific than before, and is focused on the communities, which could be directly affected by the project. The communications strategy in this phase will use techniques that involve the affected communities, such as Citizen’s Advisory Committees and specific neighborhood councils.

Develop a Short List of Suppliers

Prior to issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a supplier for the alternative MSW processing technology, a list of suppliers eligible for receiving this RFP will be developed.

This short list will be compiled using the following input:

• Results of the supplier evaluation conducted during this study

• A review of the key uncertainties remaining after the supplier evaluation carried out in this study. Additional discussion with selected suppliers may be held to address issues such as methods to improve facility reliability and efficiency, ways to reduce design risks (use of standardized equipment where feasible), and further evaluation of costs and revenue projections.

• Feedback from the public outreach program scheduled to be initiated in mid-2005 with regard to technology preferences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-11

Conduct Initial Siting Study

An RFP must be quite specific with regard to site characteristics in order to encourage the most detailed and complete responses. Potential bidders will want to know more information about site environmental constraints and availability of infrastructure. This information must be compiled while the RFP is being prepared.

Prepare a Request for Proposal and Select Preferred Suppliers

A technology supplier must formally be selected for this project. This will be accomplished by issuing an RFP to selected bidders. The RFP will contain a detailed set of instructions about how to reply, and will require the bidder to provide a comprehensive design along with a detailed cost and revenue estimate and information on performance guarantees and financing. The responses to the RFP will be evaluated, and a preferred supplier will be selected.

Conduct Facility Permitting and Conceptual Design

Once a technology supplier has been selected, a conceptual design is prepared to support preparation of required environmental and permit application documents. In parallel, these environmental documents will be prepared, and submitted to the appropriate agencies for processing. A series of public meetings will be held during agency review.

Perform Detailed Design and Construction

Finally, the detailed design is prepared, which will support facility construction, followed by construction, start-up, and initiation of operation. Commercial operation is targeted for 2010.

SECTION 1.0 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation (hereinafter referred to as the “Bureau”) engaged URS Corporation to undertake a study of alternative Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) processing technologies to process residential refuse, or post-source separated MSW. The City uses three “bins” to collect solid waste from residences: green bin (green waste), blue bin (recyclables), and black bin (refuse). The green and blue bin material is recycled. The black bin refuse, or post-source separated MSW, which is landfilled, is the subject of this study.

This report, which provides the results of this study, is organized as follows:

• Section 1.0 – Identify Alternative MSW Processing Technologies

• Section 2.0 – Characterize Alternative MSW Processing Technologies

• Section 3.0 – Regulations Affecting MSW Processing Technology Implementation

• Section 4.0 – Screening Alternative MSW Processing Technologies

• Section 5.0 – Detailed Assessment of Alternative MSW Processing Technologies and Suppliers

• Section 6.0 – Life Cycle Analysis

• Section 7.0 – Comparative Analysis of Alternative MSW Processing Technologies and Suppliers

• Section 8.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

The first step in the study was to identify a set of technologies that potentially could process black bin post-source separated MSW generated by the City of Los Angeles. These technologies are characterized in Section 2.0. The regulatory environment for permitting alternative waste processing technologies is presented in Section 3.0. Then the technologies were screened and potential suppliers identified in Section 4.0. Suppliers were brought into this study to allow more detailed evaluation of technology designs, environmental impacts, and economics. Note that the study concludes by identifying suitable technologies.

A Request for Qualifications was sent to the potential suppliers, and the evaluation of responses is contained in Section 5.0. A life cycle inventory, discussed in Section 6.0, was prepared to contrast the life cycle of existing waste management processes with alternative processes evaluated in this study. Then a comparative analysis was completed (Section 7.0) to identify the most suitable technology or technologies. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section 8.0.


1-2

1.2 BUSINESS OBJECTIVES

The Bureau’s overall objective is to “identify alternative MSW waste processing technologies that will increase landfill diversion in an environmentally sound manner, while emphasizing options that are energy efficient, socially acceptable, and economical.” All of the evaluation criteria used in this study were derived in part from the project objectives. These criteria were used to select, screen, and rank the technologies and suppliers.

1.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The method selected to identify screening and ranking criteria is termed “top-down,” and starts with defining the Bureau’s project objectives that must be satisfied. These broad objectives are subdivided to define lower-level objectives. Each level of subdivision results in further definition. This process ceases when the lowest level entries, or “criteria,” are defined.

Criteria, in order to be effective, must be complete, so that all issues are considered; measurable, so that the criteria can be used in the analysis; and non-redundant, so that double counting of issues is avoided.

One way to conduct the top-down process to define criteria is to use a device called an “objectives hierarchy.” This diagram displays the top-level and lower-level project objectives, and, if drawn to completion, the criteria. Figure 1-1 shows the business objectives hierarchy developed for this task.

The top-level objective, as mentioned above, is “identify alternative MSW waste processing technologies that will increase landfill diversion in an environmentally sound manner, while emphasizing options that are energy efficient, socially acceptable, and economical” or, in short, “Identify a Suitable Alternative MSW Processing Technology.” This is the overarching objective.

The second level in the figure shows three “sub-objectives:” Maximize Siting Feasibility; Maximize Economic Feasibility; and Maximize Technical Feasibility. If these objectives are satisfied, the overarching objective will be satisfied. The Bureau specified siting, economics, and technical issues as key project objectives for deciding upon acceptable technologies for treating post-source separated MSW.

Figure 1-1 includes a third level of sub-objectives. For example, Maximize Siting Feasibility has been broken down into two parts: Minimize Environmental Impacts and Minimize Social Impacts, with the idea that meeting these sub-objectives will result in satisfying the siting objective. Minimize Environmental Impacts can be subdivided into land, water, and air impacts, and social impacts which would include impacts on people.


1-3

The Maximize Economic Feasibility objective is broken down to minimizing cost and maximizing revenues, and the ability to generate marketable byproducts.

The Maximize Technical Feasibility is separated into Minimize Development Risk and Minimize Landfill Residuals. These sub-objectives are further divided into maximizing the use of commercial and late-emerging technologies, maximizing the treatment efficiency of black bin post-source separated MSW, and the ability to process at least 200 tons per day (TPD) of feed at a rate approximately equal to one-third (1/3) of one of the six Los Angeles waste sheds.

At this point, six sub-objectives have been identified, as shown at the lowest level in Figure 1-1. These definitions are still too general for use as screening or ranking criteria. However, they can be helpful for defining suitable technologies and, subsequently, technology suppliers.

FIGURE 1-1 BUSINESS OBJECTIVES

CITY OF LOS ANGELES ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING STUDY

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��

��"��

��#��

��$��%�� &"��

��"��'

!��'�&�(�

��

%��)��

��%��*+��

��%�� ,�� +��

��-��%��

The result of this task is the definition of lower-level sub-objectives from which screening and ranking criteria can be defined. Since these lower-level objectives and the associated criteria are linked to the overarching objective, the overall objective will be met if all of the criteria are met.

This objectives hierarchy will be used and expanded in subsequent sections of this report.


1-4

1.4 ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

For purposes of this study, alternative waste processing technologies can be separated into three groups or categories:

• Thermal Technologies

• Biological/Chemical Technologies

• Physical Technologies

Thermal technologies operate at temperatures greater than 400°F and have higher reaction rates. They typically operate in a temperature range of 700°F to 10,000°F. Most thermal technologies are used to produce electricity as a primary byproduct. Thermal technologies include advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion.

Biological/chemical technologies operate at lower temperatures and lower reaction rates. They can accept feedstock with high moisture levels, but require material that is biodegradable. Some technologies involve the synthesis of products using physical chemistry and chemical processing carried out in multiple stages. Byproducts can vary, which include: electricity, compost, and chemicals.

Physical technologies involve altering the physical characteristics of the organic portion of the MSW feedstock. These materials in MSW may be separated, shredded, and/or dried in a processing facility. The resulting material is referred to as refuse-derived fuel (RDF). It may be densified or pelletized into homogeneous fuel pellets and transported and combusted as a supplementary fuel in utility boilers.

Table 1-1 shows the technologies expressed in terms of the three major groups (thermal, biological/chemical, and physical). These technology groups are then subdivided, into about twenty technologies.

1.5 LIST OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

A list of suppliers was compiled of the alternative waste processing technologies listed in Table 1-1. This list is reproduced as Tables A-1 through A-4 in Appendix A. The table has three sections corresponding to the three waste processing technology groups. The criteria for inclusion were the ability to find current contact information and availability of general information about their technology/design.


1-5

TABLE 1-1 CLASSIFICATION OF MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

Technology Group Technology Advanced Thermal Recycling Pyrolysis Pyrolysis/Gasification Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming Conventional Gasification – Fluid Bed Conventional Gasification – Fixed Bed

Thermal Technologies

Plasma Arc Gasification Anaerobic Digestion Aerobic Digestion/Composting Ethanol Fermentation Syngas-Ethanol Biodiesel Thermal Depolymerization

Biological/Chemical

Catalytic Cracking Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Densification/Pelletization Drying Mechanical Separation Size Reduction

Physical

Steam Processing/Autoclaving

This list was developed from a number of sources, including the following:

• California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) list included in their report on conversion technologies

• Santa Barbara County list

• Riverside County list

• City of Alameda list

• City of Honolulu list

• Collier County, Florida list

• City of Toronto, Canada list

• City of York, Canada list

• Juniper Consultants list

• URS database (from recent conversion technology studies and evaluations)


1-6

• Southern California Association of Governments list

• City of Los Angeles list

In addition, a web search was performed of alternative MSW processing technologies, concentrating on thermal, biological/chemical, and physical technologies. These results were added to the list.

Descriptions of the technologies are provided in Section 2.0.

CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The alternative MSW processing technologies identified in Section 1.0 are characterized in terms of their process description, throughput, feedstock composition, byproducts generated, and environmental issues. This description is general and only key technology groups are addressed.

These technologies represent the vast majority of the alternative solid waste processing technology suppliers. The technologies addressed in this section are:

• Thermal

��Advanced Thermal Recycling

��Pyrolysis

��Pyrolysis/Gasification

��Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming

��Conventional Gasification – Fluid Bed

��Conventional Gasification – Fixed Bed

��Plasma Arc Gasification

• Biological/Chemical

��Anaerobic Digestion

��Aerobic Digestion/Composting

��Ethanol Fermentation

��Syngas-Ethanol

��Biodiesel

��Thermal Depolymerization

��Catalytic Cracking

• Physical

��Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

��Densification/Pelletization

��Drying

��Mechanical Separation


2-2

��Size Reduction

��Steam Processing/Autoclaving

The solid waste processing technologies evaluated in this study include advanced thermal recycling and a group of technologies commonly referred to as “conversion facilities.” Advanced thermal recycling is a second-generation advancement of technology that utilizes complete combustion of organic, carbon-based materials in an oxygen-rich environment, as described in Section 2.2.

A conversion facility typically consists of the four components shown in the rectangles of Figure 2-1.

FIGURE 2-1 ANATOMY OF A CONVERSION FACILITY

ProductionConversionPre-Processing

PostConversionClean-up &Processing

MSWInput

ByproductsRecyclables

AirEmissions

Solid/LiquidResiduals

Solid/LiquidResiduals

Electricity/Chemicals

The first component involves pre-processing of the feedstock. The purpose of the pre-processing step is two-fold: to remove any remaining recyclable materials (e.g., glass, metal), and to prepare feedstock for treatment in the conversion unit. All conversion units have specific requirements regarding the composition of the feedstock, such as moisture content, size limitations, and content (e.g., biodegradables versus all other carbon-based material, such as rubber tires or plastics). The pre-processing system must be designed to create an acceptable feedstock for the conversion unit. Pre-processing can be very simple (e.g., primarily sizing) or quite extensive, depending upon the needs of the conversion unit.


2-3

The second component is the conversion unit. This unit will process the prepared feedstock and generate certain byproducts, which can usually be marketed. In addition, the conversion unit may produce a small quantity of solid or liquid residuals that could be disposed in a landfill.

Some conversion units will produce an output that requires another processing step before use. For example, if a synthetic fuel gas or biogas is generated, the gas will undergo cleaning and further processing before being used to produce energy in the fourth component. A small quantity of solid or liquid residuals may be created in this step as well. Other conversion systems move from the conversion step directly to the production step.

The final output from the conversion unit is used in a production process. In many cases, a synthetic gas or biogas is input to a power facility that produces electricity for sale into the power grid. This production unit does produce air emissions and sometimes a small quantity of solid residual.

Each of these components is described in more detail in the following sections.

2.2 THERMAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

The thermal processing technologies being considered for this evaluation are technologies that thermally process MSW.

These technologies include:

• Advanced thermal recycling

• Pyrolysis

• Pyrolysis/gasification

• Pyrolysis/steam reforming

• Conventional gasification (fixed bed and fluid bed)

• Plasma arc gasification

These technologies are briefly described below:

Advanced Thermal Recycling – A second generation advancement of technology that utilizes complete combustion of organic carbon-based materials in an oxygen-rich environment, typically at temperatures of 1,300°F to 2,500°F, producing an exhaust gas composed primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) with inorganic materials converted to bottom ash and fly ash. The hot exhaust gases flow through a boiler, where steam is produced for driving a steam turbine-generator, producing electricity. The cooled


2-4

waste gases flow through an advanced emission control system designed to capture and recover components in the flue gas, converting them to marketable by-products such as gypsum (e.g., for wallboard manufacture) and hydrochloric acid (used for water treatment). The bottom ash and fly ash are segregated, allowing for recovery/recycling of metals from the bottom ash, and use of the bottom ash as a road base and construction material. The advanced recycling and emission control systems with recovery/recycling go beyond the technology utilized at conventional resource recovery plants such as the Commerce Refuse-to-Energy facility and the Southeast Resource Recovery facility.

Pyrolysis – The thermal degradation of organic carbon-based materials through the use of an indirect, external source of heat, typically at temperatures of 750°F to 1,650°F, in the absence or almost complete absence of free oxygen. This thermally decomposes and drives off the volatile portions of the organic materials, resulting in a syngas composed primarily of hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). Some of the volatile components form tar and oil, which can be removed and reused as a fuel. Most pyrolysis systems are closed systems and there are no waste gases or air emission sources (if the syngas is combusted to produce electricity, the power system will have air emissions through a stack and air emission control system). After cooling and cleaning in emission control systems, the syngas can be utilized in boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion engines to generate electricity or used to make chemicals. The balance of the organic materials that are not volatile, or liquid that is left as a char material, can be further processed or used for its adsorption properties (activated carbon). Inorganic materials form a bottom ash that requires disposal, although some pyrolysis ash can be used for manufacturing brick materials.

Gasification – The thermal conversion of organic carbon-based materials in the presence of internally produced heat, typically at temperatures of 1,400°F to 2,500°F, and in a limited supply of air/oxygen (less than stoichiometric, or less than is needed for complete combustion) to produce a syngas composed primarily of H2 and CO. Inorganic materials are converted either to bottom ash (low-temperature gasification) or to a solid, vitreous slag (high temperature gasification that operates above the melting temperature of inorganic components). Some of the oxygen injected into the system is used in reactions that produce heat, so that pyrolysis (endothermic) gasification reactions can initiate; after which, the exothermic reactions control and cause the gasification process to be self-sustaining. Most gasification systems, like pyrolysis, are closed systems and do not generate waste gases or air emission sources during the gasification phase. After cooling and cleaning in emission control systems, the syngas can be utilized in boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion engines to generate electricity, or to make chemicals.

Plasma Arc Gasification – The use of alternating current (AC) and/or direct current (DC) electricity passed through graphite or carbon electrodes, with steam and/or oxygen/air


2-5

injection (less than stoichiometric), to produce an electrically conducting gas (a plasma) typically at temperatures greater than 7,000°F. This system converts organic carbon-based materials, including tar, oil, and char, to a syngas composed primarily of H2 and CO with inorganic materials converted to a solid, vitreous slag. Like pyrolysis and conventional gasification, plasma arc gasification is a closed system; therefore there are no waste gases and no emission sources in the plasma gasification conversion process. After cooling and cleaning in emission control systems, the syngas produced by plasma arc gasification can be utilized in boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion engines to generate electricity or to make chemicals.

The quality of the syngas produced from thermal conversion technologies varies based on the pre-treatment technology utilized as well as the characteristics of the conversion process. Natural gas, which is primarily methane, has a heating value of about 1,000 British thermal units (Btu)/cubic foot. Syngas from these thermal conversion technologies are composed primarily of CO and H2, which have a heating value of 100-700 Btu/cubic foot. If used for power generation, the quality of the syngas generally determines what kind of power generation equipment can be utilized. For example, low heating value syngas is easily combusted in a boiler, but may not be usable in a commercially available reciprocating engine due to ignitability issues and flame characteristics. Some manufacturers of reciprocating engines and gas turbines do produce equipment with modified combustion chambers to deal with lower heating value syngas.

2.2.1 Advanced Thermal Recycling

2.2.1.1 Process Description

Figure 2-2 presents a basic process description for an advanced thermal recycling system. These systems are designed for feedstock flexibility, and will accept either raw MSW that is pre-processed or source separated to remove recyclables or a refuse-derived fuel (RDF).

MSW delivered to an advanced thermal recycling facility may be subjected to some pre-processing to recover recyclables or prepare the feedstock for processing. In most cases, however, the waste is dumped into a tipping hall, where some additional processing may be done before the material is conveyed to the furnace. The furnaces typically operate at temperatures of 1300°F to 2500°F with residence times of a few seconds. Steam, flue gas, and bottom ash leave the furnace. The steam is routed to a steam generator to produce electricity, the flue gases are directed to the emission control system, and the bottom ash is collected for reuse.


2-6

FIGURE 2-2 ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING SYSTEM

Advanced thermal recycling facilities incorporate significant enhancements in material handling and emission controls:

• Materials handling involves extensive recycling and reuse of solid and liquid residues, which can include various byproducts, such as hydrochloric acid, gypsum, metal scrap, and road base. In addition, some facilities will extract recyclables out of the feedstock before processing. These innovations result in disposal of typically less than five percent of the residuals, which will be inert.

• Emission controls placed in the combustion process and for flue gas cleaning are designed to reduce the concentrations of conventional air pollutants, particulate matter, acid gases, and trace constituents to well below allowable limits, as described in Section 2.2.1.5.

2.2.1.2 Throughput

Advanced thermal recycling facilities are capable of treating a few hundred tons of MSW per day, up to about 4,000 tpd.


2-7

2.2.1.3 Feedstock Characteristics

The feedstock for advanced thermal recycling systems can be unprocessed MSW or RDF. Using lower moisture content, RDF improves the heating value of the feedstock, resulting in higher efficiency and lower throughput per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated. In order to improve economics and efficiency, facilities can incorporate pre-processing to remove marketable recyclables, such as paper, plastics, metals, and glass. Pre-processing of black bin contents (recyclables already being removed) may not yield the benefits seen with mixed MSW.

2.2.1.4 Solid Byproducts

In order to improve the operating performance and efficiency, significant effort is made to recover recyclables in the pre-processing step, as well as recovering, processing, cleaning, and recycling bottom ash and slag. Most advanced thermal recycling systems produce a powdery to granular bottom ash. If the grate/furnace system is designed to produce a sintered ash, it may be more like slag, which is glassy and non-hazardous, and may be able to be used for making construction materials. Since some hydrochloric acid (HCl) is formed during combustion (from combustion of chlorine-containing plastics and salt), this can be removed, cleaned, concentrated, and sold. Sulfur compounds in the MSW are converted to sulfur dioxide (SO2), which can be separately removed with a lime or limestone scrubber, where the sulfur dioxide is converted to calcium sulfate (CaSO4), or gypsum. Chemically produced gypsum is currently sold around the world for use in manufacturing wallboard and cement. Depending on the local market, the gypsum may be saleable.

2.2.1.5 Environmental Issues

Air emissions are likely to be a key environmental issue for advanced thermal recycling facilities. In thermal recycling, combustion of MSW is achieved in the presence of a direct flame and an over-abundance of combustion air to promote the complete oxidation of the incoming waste to form primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor that are emitted along with the excess combustion air (the portion of the incoming air that is not required for oxidation). The combustion process can be expected to cause emissions of gas-phase air pollutants and particulate matter (for which California and National ambient air quality standards have been adopted based on health effects criteria), acid gases, organic compounds and trace constituents (originating from the incoming waste or formed during combustion). These constituents are removed in emission control systems to levels well below permit limits.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) would be likely to require a number of emission control and processing systems that would include some or all of the following:


2-8

• Automated combustion controls and furnace geometry designed to optimize residence time, temperature, and turbulence to ensure complete combustion.

• Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system in the boiler for reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR), which is more efficient than SNCR, would be evaluated for potential feasibility.

• Baghouse (fabric filter) with activated carbon injection for removal of trace metals and trace organics concentrated on the particulate matter.

• Scrubber for chlorides/HCl (may produce saleable HCl – a commonly used commercial and laboratory chemical).

• Scrubber for SO2 (may produce saleable gypsum – a material routinely used in the cement industry).

• Secondary activated carbon for trace organic and metals.

• Final baghouse for removal of fine particulate after scrubbers.

All of these emission control systems are well-demonstrated technologies that would be able to control emissions to levels well below regulatory limits in California.

In addition to air emissions, the key environmental issues relating to constructing and operating an advanced thermal recycling facility include:

• Traffic – Facilities must be sized to be economic, which likely will require 100+ trucks per day to deliver feedstock. Thus, traffic impacts may be significant.

• Ash Disposal – Advanced thermal recycling systems create about 30% residuals. About 5% of this material will be disposed in a landfill.

• Aesthetics and View Corridor – These facilities have relatively tall stacks, which may create visual impacts due to the structure, or plume visibility issues under certain operating and weather conditions.

• To a lesser degree, there will be concerns about noise, dust, and odors.

2.2.2 Pyrolysis


Figure 2-3 presents a basic process description for a pyrolysis system. Process components are discussed in the following section.


2-9

FIGURE 2-3 TYPICAL PYROLYSIS SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION OR CHEMICALS

2.2.2.1.1 Conventional Pyrolysis. Pyrolysis has a long history of industrial use. Pyrolysis systems utilize a wide range of designs, temperatures, and pressures to initiate pyrolysis reactions. Typically, pyrolysis systems use a drum, kiln-shaped structure, or pyrolysis tube, which is externally heated using either recycled syngas or another fuel or heat source, to heat the pyrolysis tube/chamber. Basically, the organic materials are “cooked” in an oven with no air or oxygen present. No burning takes place.

Most organic compounds are thermally unstable. At high temperatures, the organic compounds volatilize and bonds thermally crack, breaking larger molecules into gases and liquids composed of smaller molecules, including hydrocarbon gases and hydrogen gas. The temperature, pressure, reaction rates, and internal heat transfer rates are used to control specific pyrolytic reactions in order to produce specific products. At lower temperatures, liquid pyrolysis oils dominate. At higher temperatures, gaseous byproducts dominate.

Typical reactions that show the thermal degradation of long chain radicals to light hydrocarbons and eventually basic methane are:

C10H22 � C8H17 + C2H5

C6H13 � C5H10 + CH3


2-10

CH3 + H � CH4

Pyrolysis reactions are endothermic, meaning they require externally supplied heat to occur. Natural gas, propane, or syngas produced by pyrolysis can be used as a source of external heat. If the feedstock has a large higher heating value (HHV) measured in Btu/lb, the pyrolytic process becomes more self-sufficient, and once the process starts, it uses an extremely small amount of fossil fuel. Also, some partial oxidation (from trapped air as well as oxygen in the organic compounds, especially when biomass is used) of the methane gas occurs to form CO, with some CO2 formed as the carbon reacts:

2CH4 + O2 � 2CO + 4H2

CH4 + 1½O2 � CO + 2H2O

C + ½O2 � CO

C + O2 � CO2

These reactions are exothermic (producing heat), helping to maintain the internal temperatures required for pyrolysis. Another reaction that occurs is reformation, where the products of the reactions noted above begin to combine with each other, forming other reaction byproducts. Two of the common reactions are: 1) where carbon reacts with water to form carbon monoxide and hydrogen, the main components of syngas,

C + H2O � CO + H2 (water-gas reaction)

and 2) where carbon reacts with carbon dioxide to form two molecules of carbon monoxide:

C + CO2 � 2CO (Boudouard reaction)

These reactions are key to pyrolysis. They produce the constituents of syngas, CO and H2, which are combustible gases. They also consume oxidized compounds (CO2 and H2O), which have no heating value in syngas and dilute it. The reactions are endothermic, using the heat produced in the exothermic reactions noted above, helping to maintain and control the overall reactor temperature.

The volume of the MSW feedstock entering the pyrolysis reactor can be reduced by as much as 90%. Pyrolysis produces gases and liquids, as well as residual solids, including ash and carbon char. Some common commercial products made through pyrolysis are charcoal (for barbecuing) and activated carbon (for adsorption of liquid and gaseous emissions), depending on the nature of the feedstock.


2-11

Since inorganic materials do not enter the thermal conversion reactions, energy, which could be used to produce pyrolysis reactions, is expended in heating up the inorganic materials to the pyrolysis reactor temperature. The inorganic materials are cooled in cleanup processes, and heat is lost. Pre-processing is required to remove inorganic materials such as grit, glass, and metal, and to enhance the homogeneity of the feedstock. Depending on the specific pyrolysis process, pre-processing may include several of the physical processes described in Section 2.3.

Since pyrolysis occurs in the absence of oxygen, the feed system and pyrolysis chamber are sealed and isolated from outside air during the processing. This is accomplished through the use of inlet and outlet knife-gates, with ram feeders to feed individual “plugs” of feedstock into the reactor as the next plug is being fed into the sealed environment.

In the reactor, pyrolysis may occur over a period of time (as much as an hour in a pyrolysis or “degassing” chamber) or very quickly, as in the case of “flash” pyrolysis, where the feedstock encounters an extremely hot internal surface and volatilizes in less than a second. Slow pyrolysis is used to maximize the production of char, as in the case of producing charcoal or activated carbon. In those cases, the volatile fraction may be vented or used elsewhere. Slow pyrolysis is used to convert low volatile coal to metallurgical grade coke for steel making. Coke is a very pure carbon product, which is then used to initiate a reducing atmosphere for converting iron ore to molten iron.

Following the pyrolysis reactor, the syngas may be:

• Burned directly in a thermal oxidizer or boiler, and its heat recovered for making steam for power generation. The exhaust gases then pass through emission control systems that may include fabric filters, wet and dry scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and/or activated carbon beds.

• Quench cooled, cleaned in emission control systems, and then burned in a boiler, reciprocating engine, or gas turbine for power generation.

• Quench cooled, cleaned in emission control systems, and then utilized for producing organic chemicals.

Char can be used to make commercial products, such as charcoal or coke, manufactured into graphite rods for carbon arc steel making, or further processed in gasification reactions (see below).

Inorganic materials in the feedstock are removed as bottom ash. They are usually combined with char, and can be separated out for disposal (if char is to be utilized as noted above) or used in making block materials.


2-12

2.2.2.1.2 Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming. Figure 2-4 presents a typical process description for a pyrolysis/steam reforming facility.

FIGURE 2-4 TYPICAL PYROLYSIS/STEAM REFORMING SYSTEM

FOR POWER GENERATION

Since the pyrolysis reactions result in the formation of char, liquids, and/or gases, additional reactions can be initiated to further the thermal breakdown of these organic compounds. One of the common reactions to follow pyrolysis is steam reforming. As noted below, the water-gas reaction is used to promote the reaction of carbon and water to form syngas. In this manner, the char produced in pyrolysis is reacted with steam that is injected into the process so that:


This reaction is endothermic, using the heat provided by the steam (and from the external source used for pyrolysis) to further this reaction. In addition, steam reforming of the methane in the syngas stream can occur, resulting in additional production of hydrogen, a high-quality fuel:

CH4 + H2O � CO + 3H2


2-13

The syngas stream is then cooled, cleaned, and used for power generation or chemical production.

2.2.2.2 Throughput

Existing pyrolysis systems treat up to 300 tpd with pyrolysis/steam reforming systems operating at 165 tpd. Systems are modular and can be installed in parallel to increase throughput.


Pyrolysis systems can process a wide range of carbon-based materials. Any organic or thermally degradable material can be processed by pyrolysis. Historically, pyrolysis was used to make charcoal from wood. Pyrolysis also is used to process used tires and produce carbon black, steel, and fuel to generate power. Currently, some manufacturers are using pyrolysis to make activated carbon using coconut shells or wood as feedstock. If a homogeneous feedstock is processed by pyrolysis, a high quality byproduct is produced.

MSW is not a homogenous waste stream. In order to make the pyrolysis process more efficient, pre-processing of MSW is required. The pre-processing includes the separation of thermally non-degradable material such as metal, glass, and concrete debris. Also, for some pyrolytic processes, size reduction and/or densification of the feedstock may be required. If MSW has a high moisture content, a dryer may be added to the pre-processing stage to lower the moisture content of the MSW to 25% or lower, because lower moisture content of the feedstock increases its heating value and the system becomes more efficient. The waste heat or fuel produced by the system can be used to dry the MSW.


The solid byproducts from pyrolysis are mainly carbon char, silica, metal, and non-thermally degradable material such as glass. In the case of low temperature pyrolysis, where liquid fuel is the byproduct, a tar or viscous material is also produced. The carbon char from processing MSW can be used as fuel, additives to construction materials, or for other industrial purposes. The carbon char produced by pyrolysis can be activated using the steam generated by the pyrolysis system. The activated carbon can be used in wastewater treatment facilities or other manufacturing plants for water or air treatment and emission control. Metals can be separated and sold. The ash can be disposed of in a regular non-hazardous landfill.


The same air emission constituents noted above for advanced thermal recycling facilities must also be addressed for thermal conversion technologies. However, due to the nature of


2-14

thermal conversion technologies, they may have inherently lower air emissions and thus offer environmental benefits when compared to advanced thermal recycling facilities. These design and operation characteristics include:

• Since pyrolysis and gasification processes occur in a reducing environment, typically using indirect heat, and without free air or oxygen, or with a limited amount of air or oxygen, the formation of unwanted organic compounds or trace constituents is minimized.

• Pyrolysis and gasification reactors are typically closed, pressurized systems, so that there are no direct air emission points. Contaminants are removed from the syngas and/or from the flue gases prior to being exhausted from a stack.

• Thermal conversion technologies often incorporate pre-processing subsystems in order to produce a more homogeneous feedstock; this provides the opportunity to remove chlorine-containing plastics (as recyclables), which could otherwise contribute to the formation of organic compounds or trace constituents.

• The volume of syngas produced in the conversion of the feedstock is considerably lower than the volume of flue gases formed in the combustion of MSW in advanced thermal recycling facilities. Smaller gas volumes are easier and less costly to treat, and allow for the use of a wider variety of control technologies.

• Pre-cleaning of the syngas is possible prior to combustion in a boiler, and is required when producing chemicals or prior to combustion in a reciprocating engine or gas turbine in order to reduce the potential for corrosion in this sensitive equipment. Syngas pre-cleaning serves to reduce overall air emissions.

• Syngas produced by thermal conversion technologies is much more homogeneous and cleaner-burning fuel than MSW.

Air emission control and processing systems that are likely to be required by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) include some or all of the following:

• When the syngas is combusted in a boiler, reciprocating engine, or gas turbine, automated combustion controls and furnace geometry (for boilers) designed to optimize residence time, temperature, and turbulence to ensure complete combustion.

• For combustion of syngas in a boiler, low-NOx burners and/or a Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system for reduction of NOx emissions. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is typical for exhaust gases from reciprocating engines and gas turbines.

• Baghouse (fabric filter) for removal of particulate matter from flue gases.


2-15

• Activated carbon injection (followed by a baghouse) for removal of trace metals (such as mercury).

• Wet scrubber for removal of chlorides/HCl (may produce saleable HCl).

• Wet, dry, or semi-dry scrubber for SO2 (may produce saleable gypsum).

• Final baghouse for removal of fine particulate matter after dry or semi-dry scrubbers.

Air emission control equipment to accomplish this syngas and/or flue gas cleanup is commercially available, and is able to reduce air emissions to levels well below regulatory limits in California.

In addition to air emissions, the key environmental issues relating to constructing and operating a pyrolysis facility include:

• Traffic – If the facility is not located at an existing waste management facility (e.g., transfer station), some traffic impacts will occur due to delivery of feedstock.

• Solid residue management – Inorganic constituents may be produced as bottom ash or slag, depending on the temperature in the reactor. Bottom ash, if not sold, can be disposed in a landfill. Slag, which is glassy and non-hazardous, is typically sold for the uses noted above. If markets are not available, it can be safely landfilled.

• Visual and Land Use – There may be impacts relating to the visual character of the facility or issues relating to compatibility of the facility with surrounding land uses.

• As with other facilities handling MSW, there will be concerns about odors, litter, noise, and dust.

2.2.3 Gasification


Figure 2-5 presents a process description for a typical gasification system. Individual process components are discussed below.

2.2.3.1.1 Conventional Gasification. Conventional gasification involves the partial oxidation of carbon-based feedstock to generate a syngas, which can be used as a fuel or for the production of chemicals. It starts with pyrolysis and goes several more steps to further gasify the pyrolysis liquids and tars, as well as the carbon char left over from pyrolysis.

Gasification has been used worldwide for making “town gas” for street lighting and cooking for over 150 years. It played a major role in the industrial development of Europe. Since then, many gasification technologies and designs have been developed, primarily in Europe.


2-16

FIGURE 2-5 TYPICAL GASIFICATION SYSTEM FOR

POWER GENERATION (2 OPTIONS) OR CHEMICALS

The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed to take syngas from gasification of coal and convert it to a wide range of hydrocarbon liquids, including diesel. After WWII, the use of gasification declined as oil and gasoline became cheaper and more available.

The use of gasification for MSW began in the 1980s in Europe and Japan. In these initial units, the use of unprocessed MSW resulted in many technical problems, primarily due to the heterogeneous nature of MSW. This caused handling and feeding problems, as well as issues with temperature and process control, ash removal, and overall cost. Many of these facilities were shut down. With the worldwide success in coal and petroleum coke gasification, and regulatory requirements in Europe and Japan for increased diversion of MSW from landfills, gasification became an alternative treatment technology for MSW. Most of the development has occurred in Japan and Europe, at first utilizing MSW combined with other feedstocks, such as sewage sludge and industrial wastes. In order to feed the MSW by itself, development and use of pre-processing technologies became critical.

Prior to entering the gasifier, some pre-processing will likely be required, as described above in the section on pyrolysis. Some gasification technologies (primarily fixed-bed designs) may accept a minimum amount of pre-processing, such as removal of large appliances, followed


2-17

by shredding and sorting. Others may require a significant amount of removal of recyclables, sorting, shredding, and drying, in order to provide a more homogeneous feedstock.

In the gasifier, the addition of air or oxygen for gasification of the MSW leads to a small amount of combustion, forming some CO2 and releasing heat, which is used in progressing the pyrolytic reactions:

C + O2 � CO2

A significant amount of the heating value of the feedstock is used in this reaction. Utilizing heat, the organic compounds in the feedstock begin to thermally degrade, forming the pyrolysis gases, oils, liquids and char. As these products move through the bed or downstream through the gasifier, they encounter air, oxygen, and/or steam, which are injected to further the gasification reactions. Endothermic water-gas and Boudouard reactions occur:


Some of the carbon may react with the hydrogen, forming additional methane gas.

C + 2H2 � CH4 (methanation reaction)

C + CO2 � 2CO (Boudouard reaction)

The Boudouard reaction is important in converting the CO2 from the partial combustion, which has no heating value and dilutes the syngas, into CO, which is a primary component of the syngas.

If air is used instead of oxygen, the syngas will include the nitrogen gas that enters with the air, diluting the syngas and lowering its overall heating value. Gasifier designs are optimized to feedstock and to specific reaction products. Additional water or steam can be injected to initiate the water-gas shift reaction, which converts the CO formed in the water-gas and Boudouard reactions to CO2, and then results in the production of a syngas stream higher in hydrogen concentration:

CO + H2O � CO2 + H2

The higher hydrogen concentration is important when the syngas will be used for chemical production. In that scenario, CO2 can be separated and removed through commercially available physical, chemical, membrane, or cryogenic processes.

Gasifiers are typically characterized as being horizontal or vertical, and utilize one of three specific reactor designs: 1) fixed-bed, 2) fluid bed, or 3) entrained flow.


2-18

In fixed-bed gasifiers, the feedstock is usually fed through the system on a stationary or moving grate. The air or oxygen is injected either up, down, or in a cross flow. In an updraft gasifier, the air or oxygen is injected from the bottom and the syngas exits at the top. In a downdraft design, the air enters at or near the top of the gasifier, and the syngas exits the side or bottom.

In a fluid bed design, the gasifier is filled with inert particles (usually sand or alumina). The feedstock is fed either directly into or above the bed. A high velocity gas, usually oxygen or air, is injected below the bed, causing the feedstock and inert particles to be suspended in the bed. The feedstock and bed materials are continuously stirred, resulting in uniform temperatures and reactions, and improved heat transfer. Bubbling bed and circulating fluid bed designs are commonly used to enhance fluidization and turbulence.

Entrained flow gasifiers use large quantities of oxygen injected from the top or side of the reaction chamber to create higher operating temperatures. This process is capable of producing a cleaner, tar-free syngas while keeping the gasified byproducts in a molten state, allowing for easier disposal. This slag is both inert and virtually carbon free.

Following the gasifier, the syngas may be:

• Burned directly in a thermal oxidizer or boiler, and its heat recovered for making steam for power generation. The exhaust gases then pass through emission control systems that may include fabric filters, wet and dry scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and/or activated carbon beds.

• Quench cooled, cleaned in emission control systems, and then burned in a boiler reciprocating engine or gas turbine for power generation.

• Quench cooled, cleaned in emission control systems, and then utilized for producing organic chemicals.

If low temperature gasification is used, the inorganic materials in the feedstock will be recovered as a powdery to clinker-like bottom ash. This can be disposed of or used for the manufacture of block materials. If high-temperature gasification is used (typically above about 2,000°F), the inorganic materials will be subjected to temperatures above their melting points, forming a molten slag. The slag flows out a tap hole in the bottom of the gasifier, into a water bath. There, the slag is quench cooled, forming a glassy, non-hazardous slag material. This can be disposed of safely or used for the production of roofing tiles, sandblasting grit, or asphalt filler.

2.2.3.1.2 Pyrolysis/Gasification. Some technologies employ a pyrolysis system close-coupled to a follow-on gasification step or separate reactor. The carbon char produced in the


2-19

pyrolysis or “degassing” chamber is pushed into the gasification chamber where the char and any pyrolysis liquids are gasified. While the pyrolysis reactor operates without free oxygen, the gasification reactor may use air, oxygen, and/or steam to provide the oxygen needed for gasification reactions. Gasification reactions are mostly exothermic, so that once the reactions initiate, the process is self-sustaining.

Figure 2-6 presents a typical process description for a pyrolysis/gasification system.

FIGURE 2-6 TYPICAL PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION

2.2.3.2 Throughput

Existing gasification systems operate at throughputs up to 1,000 tpd, with pyrolysis/ gasification systems operating at 800 tpd. Gasifiers and the pre-processing, emission control, and power generation systems can be installed in parallel to increase throughput and power generation.


Gasification systems utilize a wide range of feedstocks. As noted above, gasification has a long history with coal and petroleum coke. Gasification has also been commercially applied to biomass, such as rice hulls, wood waste, olive processing solids, and other agricultural wastes. They have the ability to tolerate very low quality feedstocks. Gasifiers are usually


2-20

designed for a homogeneous feedstock, although they can tolerate some variability. This can be an issue with gasifiers that use a slurry feed, since significant changes in the feedstock result in different slurry characteristics, potentially leading to inefficient gasification and poor carbon conversion. When changes in the feedstock are anticipated, bench-scale or short-term testing can be used to optimize gasifier operation.

Due to the heterogeneous nature of MSW, significant pre-processing is often required. While some systems state that they can operate with little or no pre-processing, most include manual picking for large appliances, followed by primary and secondary rotary/stationary trommel screens, primary and secondary shredders, air classifiers, and magnetic and eddy-current separators to remove glass and metals and reduce the feedstock size. Sizing/shredding varies, with feedstocks ranging from 2 to 12 inches. Many systems incorporate an auger or ram feeder that compacts the processed MSW feed to as little as 1/10th of the original volume. In order to increase efficiency, some systems incorporate drying to 10-20% moisture content, using steam or engine exhaust. Depending on the supplier, as much as 2/3 of raw MSW may be removed prior to being fed into the gasifier.


In low temperature gasification (below the melting point of most inorganic constituents), a powdery to clinker-type of bottom ash is formed. In high temperature gasification, the inorganic ash materials exit the bottom of the gasifier in a molten state, where the slag falls into a water bath, and is cooled and crystallized into a glassy, non-hazardous slag. The slag is crushed to form grit that can be easily handled. Slag can be used in the manufacture of roofing tiles, sandblasting grit, and as asphalt filler. Bottom ash may require landfilling, although some suppliers have been able to manufacture ceramic-like bricks or paving stones. One system that utilizes oxygen injection creates extremely hot temperatures in the bottom of the gasifier, reaching the melting temperature of some metals. In that process, metals can be recovered in “ingot” form.


With regard to air emissions, the most important environmental issue for gasification, the discussion in Section 2.2.2.5 applies here as well.

Other environmental issues pertaining to gasification include:

• Traffic – If the facility is not located at an existing waste management facility (e.g., transfer station), some traffic impacts will occur due to delivery of feedstock.

• Solid residue management – As noted above, the inorganic constituents may be produced as bottom ash or slag, depending on the temperature in the reactor. Bottom ash, if not


2-21

sold, can be disposed in a landfill. Slag, which is glassy and non-hazardous, is typically sold for the uses noted above. If markets are not available, it can be safely landfilled.

• Visual and Land Use – There may be impacts relating to the visual character of the facility or issues relating to compatibility of the facility with surrounding land uses.

• As with other facilities handling MSW, there will be concerns about odors, litter, noise, and dust.

2.2.4 Plasma Arc Gasification


Figure 2-7 presents a typical process description for a plasma arc gasification system.

FIGURE 2-7 TYPICAL PLASMA GASIFICATION SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION

Plasma is a hot ionized gas resulting from an electrical discharge. Plasma technology uses an electrical discharge (some use AC, some DC, and some a combination) to heat gas, typically air, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, or argon, or combinations of these gases, to temperatures above 7,000°F. The heated gas, or plasma, can then be used for welding, cutting, melting, or treating waste materials.

Most of the use of plasma arc technology has been for melting incinerator ash or for thermally decomposing hazardous or medical wastes. Only very recently has development


2-22

occurred for using plasma technology integrated with gasification technologies to process MSW. This has great potential to convert MSW to electricity more efficiently than conventional pyrolysis and gasification systems, due to its high heat flux, high temperature, almost complete conversion of carbon-based materials to syngas, and conversion of inorganic materials to a glassy, non-hazardous slag.

There are two types of plasma torches, the transferred torch and the non-transferred torch. The transferred torch creates an electric arc between the tip of the torch and either a metal bath or the conductive lining of the reactor vessel wall. In a non-transferred torch, the arc is produced within the torch itself. Plasma gas is fed into the torch, heated, and then exits through the tip of the torch.

There are several approaches to the design of plasma gasification reactors. In one approach, developed by Westinghouse Plasma Corporation (plasma torch manufacturer) and Hitachi Metals (plasma gasification system developer and user), a medium pressure gas (usually air or oxygen) flows through a water-cooled, non-transferred torch, outside of the reactor. The hot plasma gas then flows into the reactor to gasify the MSW and melt the inorganic materials.

Another design is an in-situ torch, where the plasma torch is placed inside the reactor. This torch can either be a transferred or non-transferred torch. When using a transferred torch, the electrode extends into the gasification reactor and the arc is generated between the tip of the torch and the molten metal and slag in the reactor bottom or a conducting wall. The low-pressure gas is heated in the external arc. Alternatively, a non-transferred torch can be used for creating plasma gas within the torch, which is injected into the reactor.

Several suppliers utilize a completely different approach. In these designs, the reactor is heated by electric induction coils or an electric arc produced by graphite rods, forming a molten metal and slag bath. The MSW enters the reactor, where it is subjected to high temperatures, resulting in partial gasification of the feedstock. From there, the syngas exits the reactor. The plasma torch is situated either in a secondary reactor or in a recycle line, which goes back to the first reactor, assuring complete gasification of the feedstock.

Proponents of the in-situ torch claim its advantages include better heat transfer to MSW and a hotter reactor temperature, resulting in more complete conversion to syngas. The main disadvantage is the potential corrosion of the torch from hot MSW and gases. An external torch is more protected from the corrosive effects, which can prolong the mechanical integrity. A disadvantage of an external torch is the possibility of a somewhat lower reactor temperature, resulting in lower conversion of the MSW. Electrodes in all designs experience some corrosion and must be replaced.


2-23

The first two approaches have been applied to small-scale commercial waste and medical waste processing units. The throughput of the largest external system is approximately four tons/hour and the throughput of the largest internal system is approximately ten tpd. The Westinghouse/Hitachi design has been scaled up to 83 tpd per reactor at Utashinai, Japan, which treats a combination of MSW and auto shredder residue.

Plasma arc gasification typically occurs in a closed, pressurized reactor. The feedstock enters the reactor, where it comes into contact with the hot plasma gas. In some designs, several torches arranged circumferentially in the lower portion of the reactor help to provide a more homogeneous heat flux. When used for gasification, the amount of air or oxygen used in the torch is controlled to promote gasification reactions.

Syngas can either be burned immediately in a close-coupled combustion chamber or boiler, or cleaned of contaminants and used in a reciprocating engine or gas turbine. In the first approach, the exhaust gases are cleaned after combustion, in an emission control system. Hot gases flow through the boiler, creating steam used for power generation in a conventional steam turbine. In the second approach, the syngas is cleaned before it enters the engine or gas turbine.

As noted above, the primary solid output from plasma facilities is a glassy slag, the result of melting the inorganic fraction of the waste. Any waste processing facility generating an ash or slag is required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to subject it to a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. The TCLP test is designed to measure the amount of eight elements that leach from the material being tested. Data from existing facilities, even those processing highly hazardous materials or medical waste, show results that are well below regulatory limits.

While there are only a few plasma torch manufacturers, there are over a dozen companies that have taken the plasma technology and are developing it for use in MSW gasification. This has led to several suppliers claiming the same operational experience; i.e., several suppliers that incorporate Westinghouse plasma torches claim the experience in the Hitachi Metals plants as being their own or representative of how their system would perform.

2.2.4.2 Throughput

Existing systems operate at throughputs of up to 83 tpd on MSW/auto shredder residue combination, using two operating and one spare torch per reactor. Plasma torches can be added to the reactors, along with multiple reactors added to increase total capacity.


Feedstock preparation is similar to that described above under conventional gasification.


2-24

2.2.4.4 Byproducts

Byproducts of plasma gasification are similar to those produced in high-temperature gasification, as noted above. Due to the very high temperatures produced in plasma gasification, carbon conversion nears 100%.


With regard to air emissions and other environmental issues, the most important environmental issue for gasification, the discussion in Section 2.2.2.5 applies here as well.

2.3 PHYSICAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2.3.1 Refuse Derived Fuel


Figure 2-8 presents a typical process description for a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) system.

FIGURE 2-8 TYPICAL RDF SYSTEM

Dryer

Raw MSW

MetalsGlassPaper

Plastics

Separation of Recyclables

Moisture

SizingShredding

Densification

PelletizedRDF

RDF

RDF is produced from MSW in a number of commercial-scale facilities. The MSW is subjected to various physical processes that reduce the quantity of total feedstock, increase its heating value, and provide a feedstock that can be easily handled and fed into on-site and off-site facilities. This results in improved efficiency and reduced ash production in WTE plants. RDF is often used in WTE plants as the primary or supplemental feedstock, or co-fired with coal or other fuels in power plants, in kilns of cement plants, in paper mill boilers, and with other fuels for industrial steam production.


2-25

The RDF process typically includes thorough pre-separation of recyclables, shredding, drying, and densification to make a product that is easily handled. Initial processing includes field-based manual picking and removal of white goods and other large ferrous materials. Glass and plastics are removed through manual picking and by commercially available separation devices commonly found in Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). This is followed by shredding to reduce the size of the remaining feedstock to about eight inches or less, for further processing and handling. Magnetic separators are used to remove ferrous metals. Eddy-current separators are used for aluminum and other non-ferrous metals. The resulting material contains mostly food wastes, non-separated paper, some plastics (recyclable and non-recyclable), green wastes, wood, and other materials. Reduction of about 50% of the inlet MSW feed can be accomplished through initial RDF processes.

Drying to less than 12% moisture is typically accomplished through the use of forced-draft air. Steam from an adjacent boiler can be utilized if RDF is being combusted on-site in a waste-to-energy facility. Additional sieving and classification equipment may be utilized to increase the removal of contaminants. After drying, the material often undergoes densification processing such as pelletizing or cubing to produce a pellet or cube that can be handled with typical conveying equipment and fed through bunkers and feeders.

The RDF can be immediately combusted on-site or transported to another facility for burning alone, or with other fuels. The densification is even more important when RDF is transported off-site to another facility, in order to reduce volumes being transported.

2.3.1.2 Throughput

Existing systems operate at an extremely high throughput, typically with several lines each can be rated at 1,000 tpd.


Raw MSW is used as the feedstock to RDF plants. Removal of large appliances, batteries, and other items is required so that downstream equipment as described below can be operated efficiently.


Most RDF systems recover glass, metal, plastic (if desired), and inerts. The primary product is a refuse-derived fuel.


From an air quality standpoint, the production of RDF is largely a mechanical process. The processing facility itself would not be a source of combustion emissions. The major issues of


2-26

concern would be the control of fugitive dust (PM10) generated from the mechanical equipment during the materials separation process and the generation of potential odors. Because of the fugitive nature of these emissions, the most effective emissions controls are minimization of mechanical drop distances, adequate ventilation, and capture of emissions from handling points and effective emissions controls, using baghouse filtration systems and, if necessary, activated carbon systems for organic and odor emissions abatement.

RDF systems are typically quite large in throughput. Therefore, an important environmental issue is traffic impact due to the number of trucks delivering MSW. Other environmental issues associated with RDF systems typically involve nuisance issues such as noise and litter.

2.3.2 MSW Handling Processes

There are many processes for handling MSW. These processes are common in transfer facilities and MRFs. Similar processes are employed for preparing conversion facility feedstock for treatment.

2.3.2.1 Drying

A wide range of drying technologies is commercially available, including:

• Rotary dryers

• Rotary kilns

• Fluid bed dryers

Dryers can use steam or a combustion source such as firing diesel oil or natural gas for direct contact drying. Indirect contact drying, using a heat exchanger, allows for a wide range of heat sources that do not come into contact with the MSW, although the result tends to be less efficient than direct contact drying. Dryers are commercially available and single dryers can be installed in parallel to process several thousand tpd.

2.3.2.2 Mechanical Separation

Mechanical separation is utilized for removing specific materials or contaminants from the inlet MSW stream. These processes are well established in RDF production facilities, as well as in MRFs. Contaminants may include construction and demolition debris, tires, dirt, wet organics, wet paper, coarse materials, and fine materials. Mechanical separation is utilized for the removal of textiles, glass, paper, grit, plastic bags, recyclables and large items, including appliances. These devices include:


2-27

• Trommel screens

• Sieves

• Grizzlies

• Vibrating screens

• Centrifuges

• Air classifiers

• Magnetic separators (for ferrous materials)

• Eddy-current separators (for non-ferrous materials)

2.3.2.3 Size Reduction

Size reduction is often required to allow for more efficient and easier handling of materials, particularly when the feed stream is to be used in follow-on processes. These processes help to isolate contaminants and specific materials, particularly large appliances and tires. Sizing processes include passive, moving, and vibrating screens, trommels, and grizzlies. In order to reduce the size of the entire stream, or portions of it, mechanical equipment, such as shredders, is utilized. This allows for other physical processes, such as dryers, magnetic and eddy current separators, and densification equipment to work more efficiently. Magnetic and eddy current separators may be installed both up- and down-stream of shredders to increase the recovery of metals.

2.3.2.4 Densification

A wide range of commercially processes and equipment are available for densification. These processes can be part of an RDF facility, as described above, or used separately for the preparation of MSW into a more easily handled feedstock. Densification processes include:

• Pelletization

• Cubing

• Extrusion

• Compaction

• Briquetting

• Granulating

• Baling

• Disc agglomeration


2-28

All of these processes are well proven in other industries for metallurgical, animal and medical wastes, agricultural products, biomass, and minerals, as well as RDF production. These densification processes can easily be used with MSW. As long as the MSW undergoes some type of pre-processing to remove metal and glass, some plastics can be handled. Product sizing and form are dependent on the technology chosen. For example, pelletization may result in short, long, small, or large pellets. Disc agglomerator’s form round to oval “pellets,” with size dependent on feed characteristics and moisture content.

2.3.2.5 Steam Processing/Autoclaving

Several technologies are available for steam processing and autoclaving MSW. A typical process is shown in Figure 2-9. Steam Processing takes raw MSW (or MSW with minimal processing) and subjects it to low or medium pressure steam in a closed, rotating pressure vessel. The high-temperature steam breaks down cellulosic materials and sterilizes the entire feed stream. The product material exits the steam pressure vessel or autoclave as a recyclable or usable fiber, which can be used for:

• Fiber board

• Door and wall paneling

• Insulation

• Roofing tiles and shingles

FIGURE 2-9 TYPICAL STEAM PROCESSING/AUTOCLAVE PROCESS

Physical SeparationProcesses

Raw MSW

MetalsGlassPaper

Plastics

Steam

AutoclaveSterilized Cellulosic FiberDe-Labeled Cans and BottlesVolume Reduction ~ 1/3


2-29

Cans and bottles are de-labeled. Plastics typically are slightly melted, resulting in significant volume reduction.

The MSW stream is reduced in volume by about one third. From there, the sterilized product can be further processed using one or more of the physical processes described above. Some processes take the autoclaved product to pyrolysis or gasification.

Existing systems typically load 25-30 tons at a time, and process it for 30-45 minutes. With loading and unloading time, an autoclave can process about 150 tpd, and can be operated in parallel to increase total throughput as needed.


From an air quality standpoint, the processing of MSW is also largely a mechanical process. The processing facility may be a source of combustion emissions if steam is utilized for process or if fuel-fired process dryers are required. Combustion equipment would be a source of emissions of the major criteria pollutants, including NOx, CO, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. Any combustion equipment would need to meet stringent SCAQMD Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements. Assuming natural gas were the fuel, these emissions would be controlled through commonly used combustion and post-combustion control process previously described.

The major issues of concern would be the control of fugitive dust (PM10) generated from the mechanical equipment during the materials separation process, and the generation of potential odors. Because of the fugitive nature of these emissions, the most effective emissions controls are minimization of mechanical drop distances, adequate ventilation, capture of emissions from handling points, and effective emissions controls, such as baghouse filtration systems and, if necessary, activated carbon systems for organic and odor emissions abatement.

MSW processing systems may be large in throughput. Therefore, an important environmental issue could be traffic impact due to the number of trucks delivering MSW. Other environmental issues associated with RDF systems typically involve nuisance issues such as noise and litter.

2.4 BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2.4.1 Introduction

Biological and chemical conversion technologies are focused on the conversion of organics in MSW. MSW consists of dry matter and moisture. The dry matter further consists of organics (i.e., whose molecules are carbon-based), and minerals, also referred to as the ash


2-30

fraction. The organics can be further subdivided into biodegradables or refractory organics, such as food waste, and non-biodegradables, such as plastic. A preliminary estimate of the amount of each of these fractions for the City of Los Angeles’ post-source separated MSW is provided in Figure 2-10.

FIGURE 2-10 ESTIMATED BULK COMPOSITION OF LOS ANGELES

BLACK BIN POST-SOURCE SEPARATED MSW

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mas

s %

Moisture

Biodegradables

Refractory organics

Mineral

Biological technologies can only convert biodegradables, while chemical processes can potentially convert any organics. The Los Angeles post-source separated MSW contains approximately 45% biodegradable matter and 15% plastics, on a dry basis. So, there is much potential for a combination of biological and chemical technologies to reduce the amount of MSW going to the landfill.

Biological and chemical conversion technologies are treated together in this section because they are often intimately intertwined. Note that thermal and physical processes can be involved in biological and chemical process trains as well.

In this section, we will discuss anaerobic digestion, ethanol production, and biodiesel in some detail because there are a number of vendors offering these technologies and a number of commercial scale facilities in operation, at least for anaerobic digestion and biodiesel. We will also touch on some other processes, but in less detail because each of these processes is quite unique and offered by only one vendor. These additional processes include syngas-ethanol, thermal depolymerization, catalytic cracking of plastic, and aerobic digestion.


2-31

2.4.2 Anaerobic Digestion


In anaerobic digestion (AD), biodegradable material is converted by a series of bacteria groups into methane and CO2. A first group breaks down large organic molecules into small units like sugar. This step is referred to as hydrolysis. Another group of bacteria converts the resulting smaller molecules into volatile fatty acids, mainly acetate, but also hydrogen (H2) and CO2. This process is called acidification. The last group of bacteria, the methane producers or methanogens, produce biogas (methane and CO2) from the acetate and hydrogen and CO2. This biogas is a medium-Btu gas containing 50 to 70% methane. It can be used to fuel boilers or reciprocating engines with minimal pretreatment. It can also be upgraded to pipeline quality and used as compressed natural gas (CNG), a vehicular fuel.

Anaerobic digestion has been used for over a century to process sewage biosolids. If the MSW feed is processed in the solid phase, AD is often referred to as anaerobic composting. To distinguish AD from thermal gasification, as described earlier, it is also referred to as biogasification. In addition to biogas, anaerobic bioconversion generates a residue consisting of inorganics, non-degradable organics, non-degraded biodegradables, and bacterial biomass. If the feedstock entering the process is sufficiently free of objectionable materials like colorful plastic, this residue can have market value as compost.

The contents of the anaerobic digestor can be at different solids concentrations, ranging from liquid slurry to a solid material. The material leaving the reactor can be dewatered in a press and the recovered filtrate liquid recirculated. In this manner, the moisture content of the feed material and that of the reactor contents are decoupled. A fairly dry feed can be digested as liquid slurry without any significant net addition of water to the system. The dewatered material emerging from the press is referred to as filter cake or cake.

Some AD processes rely on a two-stage approach (e.g., BTA process), in which the hydrolysis and acidification reactions are conducted in a first reactor and the methane fermentation itself in a second reactor. Most digesters are continuous feed and completely mixed types (as opposed to batch or plug flow reactors). Mixing techniques include: large impellers; recirculation of effluent (e.g., Dranco process); or injection of pressurized biogas (e.g., Valorga process). The latter two approaches have the advantage that no moving parts are present inside the reactor.

Biogas produced can be used on site to generate electricity and heat with a generator (reciprocating engine, microturbine, conventional turbine, etc.). If a nearby industrial user exists, the biogas can be conveyed over short distances for such uses as boiler fuel. The biogas can also be purified extensively (dehydrating, H2S removal, CO2 removal) to pipeline


2-32

a quality and pressurized product, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), a safe and clean vehicular fuel. Biogas can also be converted into methanol and/or used in fuel cells.

Figure 2-11 shows a summary anaerobic digestion process diagram, with MSW-derived feed.

FIGURE 2-11 SIMPLIFIED TYPICAL MSW ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

PROCESS SCHEMATIC (AFTER LEGRAND ET AL. 1989)��

MSW100.0 tpd

RDF88.6 tpd

Metals 4.5Plastics 4.3Residue 12.7

Biogas34.2 tpd + 3.5 tpd H2O872,000 scf/d (@ 55% CH4)

Excess filtrate 10.2 tpd

Cake40.8

CompostLandfillGasificationCombustion

AnaerobicDigestion

Preprocessing

2.4.2.2 Throughput

AD facilities processing agricultural and solid industrial waste range up to 1,300 tpd in capacity, while facilities processing MSW or MSW-derived streams range up to 800 tpd.


Microorganisms convert biodegradable matter. They do not convert minerals or non-biodegradables like plastic. From the standpoint of the microorganisms that perform the conversion, it does not matter if non-degradable materials are present in the fermenting mix. The presence of non-biodegradables do matter from a materials handling perspective, as some extraneous materials like metal debris, plastic stringers, etc. can wreak havoc on the fermentation equipment. Additionally, if the resulting compost has to be marketable, it is important that as much as possible of these extraneous materials be removed before entering the process. The ideal feedstock is nearly pure biodegradable material, with as few inorganics or plastics as possible.

Control Volume


2-33


Provided the feed material is sufficiently clean, the main byproduct is an effluent or filter-cake consisting of undegraded organics and microbial biomass. If the material entering the AD process is sufficiently devoid of objectionable items like colorful plastic, the effluent can be formulated into compost; the compost preparation may include an aeration and curing step. This compost is equally beneficial as a soil amendment as the compost produced in conventional aerobic facilities (windrow, static pile, etc.). Compared to these processes, AD has the advantage of requiring only a small footprint, and of being completely enclosed, which minimizes odor nuisances.

Impurities like colorful pieces of plastic can render the effluent unmarketable as compost, even with post-processing. In that case, it can still be burned or gasified in an appropriate facility; it can also be used as landfill cover, since it will not appreciably generate landfill gas.


As with other MSW processing facilities, AD will have environmental issues, such as noise, dust, odor, and litter nuisances at the receiving end of the plant. It may also produce some wastewater, which would need treatment and disposal. Proper process design and moisture management can minimize this stream to negligible levels or eliminate it altogether.

As with other MSW processes, there may be potential emissions of fugitive dust (PM10) or odors associated with the materials handling components of the process. Depending on the extent of potential fugitive dust, proper industrial ventilation design and control with a baghouse may be required. Organic emissions and odors in material handling areas may also require local ventilation and control with activated carbon systems.

Assuming that the process vents are completely leak-free, there would be no air emissions or odor nuisances from the AD process, since it is necessarily fully enclosed. Combustion and flaring of the biogas would result in emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. Typical combustion and post-combustion process controls (such as SNCR or SCR) may be required. It is likely that flaring would only be allowed on an emergency upset basis and that adequate process provisions would need to be in place to ensure distribution of the gas to conventional combustion equipment that can be adequately controlled.

Depending upon the size of the facility, traffic, and visual impacts may be an issue as well.


2-34

2.4.3 Ethanol Production


Sugar and starch can be fermented to ethanol. This process lies at the basis of the production of alcoholic beverages, but also of corn ethanol production. The latter process is used on a large scale in the US to produce fuel ethanol. Cellulose, the main constituent of most plants, is actually a polymer of glucose molecules. If the cellulose can be broken down into glucose, it can be fermented to create ethanol. However, the bonds between glucose molecules in cellulose are difficult to break. The process of breaking those bonds is known as hydrolysis. Additionally, cellulose can be encased in hard-to-degrade lignin, as in wood, making it less accessible for hydrolysis. Considerable effort has been devoted to cost-effectively hydrolyze fibrous vegetable matter, referred to as “lignocellulosics.”

Various hydrolysis processes have been developed (concentrated acid, dilute acid, enzymatic) and demonstrated at pilot scale, some of them at a demonstration scale. They could be applied to paper and vegetable matter, including wood, in the MSW stream. A simplified process diagram is provided in Figure 2-12. A purified lignocellulosic material is chopped up and introduced into a hydrolysis reactor. The effluent of this reactor is mostly a sugar solution. It is prepared for fermentation, often by neutralizing the pH if strong acid hydrolysis was used. This detoxified solution is introduced into the fermenter where microorganisms convert the sugar to ethanol and CO2. The ethanol concentration in the fermenter must remain below 5% otherwise the microorganisms become inhibited. This dilute fermenting liquid is referred to as a “beer.” It is next introduced into a combined distillation and dehydration process to bring the ethanol concentration up to fuel grade (99% ethanol). The distillation process is particularly energy intensive. A solid residue of unfermented solids and microbial biomass is recovered (distiller’s grain) and can be used as animal feed.

2.4.3.2 Throughput

Currently, corn ethanol facilities process thousands of tpd of corn. However, currently there is at no full-scale facility producing ethanol from lignocellulosics, although one facility is in the startup phase in Canada.


Ideal feedstock for ethanol production from MSW would be a stream containing only paper, wood, yard waste, and other purely vegetal biomass. Impurities, like inert materials, are a concern for two reasons. First, they could complicate materials handling by jamming pumps, clogging pipes, wrapping around mixers, etc. The second concern is that they could essentially render the solid residue worthless due to contamination.


2-35

FIGURE 2-12 SIMPLIFIED ETHANOL PRODUCTION PROCESS SCHEMATIC��

Sorted paper,other lignocellulosics

Lignin,other residue

CompostingGasificationCombustionLandfilling

Diluteethanol

Fuelethanol

Hydrolysis(dilute acid,

concentrated acid,enzymatic)

Neutralizationdetoxification

Ethanolfermentation

Distillationdehydration

Sugarsolution


Corn ethanol production yields CO2 and a variety of other products such as distiller’s grains, gluten, etc. If MSW is the source of the ethanol, the byproducts are not acceptable for human consumption, including using CO2 for beverage carbonation. The marketability of solid byproducts as animal feed should be investigated, as it is unclear if the animal industry would be willing to use an MSW-derived material as feed. The marketability of the solid residue as compost depends on the purity of the feed stream and the resulting appearance of the compost. Of course, the solid residue could be burned or gasified. The CO2 stream produced is relatively pure, and could have industrial applications.


An ethanol plant is a chemical processing plant. By chemical processing standards, it is fairly benign from an environmental perspective. However, there will be air emissions, especially in the production of heat for the distillation step. There will be some handling of hazardous chemicals in the hydrolysis process. The potential nuisances associated with the delivery of MSW streams (litter, odor, vermin, etc.) can be minimized via proper design and operation.


2-36

Air emissions from an ethanol plant would include combustion emissions (NOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2) associated with the fuel combustion for the generation of process heat or steam to support the distillation process. In addition to process vents, storage of intermediate products, raw ethanol and gasoline (required to denature the ethanol), and ethanol loading for shipment would be sources of VOC emissions. Process vents, storage, and loading equipment would require vapor recovery equipment with subsequent control, using combustion in onsite heaters or boilers, a thermal oxidizer, or an activated carbon adsorption system.

2.4.4 Biodiesel


Fatty or oily wastes, for example waste vegetable oil, are converted to glycerin and diesel fuel via a process called transesterification. The most common version of this process is base-catalyzed transesterification, which operates at a temperature of 150°F and 300 pounds per square inch (psi). This is a purely chemical process. It is proven and used on a commercial scale. It is a viable alternative for separately collected greasy and fatty waste, which is only a small fraction of the overall MSW stream.

2.4.4.2 Throughput

The U.S. biodiesel industry uses approximately 250,000 tons/year of waste oil and grease, and is expanding its capacity rapidly.


The feedstock used is fatty waste like used cooking oil, grease trap restaurant waste, and waste streams from the oleo-chemical industry. Alcohol must be added at a typical ratio of one part alcohol to seven parts oily waste.


Along with the biodiesel, glycerin is the main byproduct. Glycerin represents about 10% of the tonnage of biodiesel produced and has industrial applications. Some alcohol and fertilizer is also produced.


Biodiesel process equipment may be a source of VOC emissions. Process vents would need to be fully closed, or, if vented, gases would need to be directed to a vapor collection and pollution control system using combustion, thermal oxidation, adsorption, or other common VOC control technique.


2-37

2.4.5 Other Processes

2.4.5.1 Syngas-Ethanol

The syngas-ethanol process is sketched out in Figure 2-13. Organics in MSW are converted to syngas via thermal gasification (See Section 2.2.3). Hot syngas flows through a waste heat boiler, cooling it and generating steam. It is then introduced into a fermenter containing a specialized microbial population that converts the syngas into ethanol and CO2. The resulting dilute ethanol is distilled and dehydrated to fuel grade ethanol. Unconverted syngas from the fermenter is used to generate electricity via a steam turbine. If desired, some syngas can bypass the fermenter and go directly to generation.

FIGURE 2-13 SIMPLIFIED BRI PROCESS SCHEMATIC��

MSW

Syngas

Excesssyngas

Ethanolfermentation

Diluteethanol

Fuelethanol

Distillation,dehydration

Thermalgasification

Byproductrecovery,residue

Electricitygeneration

The main advantage of this process is that it makes all of the organics in MSW accessible to ethanol production, including plastics and hard-to-degrade woody materials. Therefore, the ethanol yield per ton of MSW feed is significantly greater than it would be using the chemical or biochemical hydrolysis route to ethanol. There would be no need for MSW sorting into a hydrolyzable feed. Finally, this technology would minimize the landfilled residue to the same extent as gasification. Note also that there would be some flexibility in the quantity of electricity generated versus ethanol produced, so the facility could adapt to changing market conditions.

The syngas-ethanol process has been developed to the pilot stage as of this writing.


2-38

2.4.5.2 Thermal Depolymerization

In this process, organics are subjected to two stages of high pressure-high temperature treatment. The large molecules in the feed are broken down into smaller ones (cracking), and the waste stream is converted into various products including a liquid fuel. The process has been proven at pilot scale and a full-scale facility has been built in Carthage, MO (this facility is undergoing commissioning).

2.4.5.3 Catalytic Cracking

In this process, plastics are cracked into smaller molecules, and eventually converted to a diesel fuel. This is a purely chemical process. A facility using this process has been operating in Poland at commercial scale (260 tpd) for a number of years. This process can complement conventional plastic recycling, especially for low quality commingled plastic streams that often end up in the landfill.

2.4.5.4 Aerobic Digestion

This process applies mainly to food waste, agricultural waste, and sewage biosolids. Feedstock material is homogenized into slurry, which is mixed with air in a bioreactor. Aerobic microorganisms in this reactor oxidize the easily biodegradable material, just like in an aerobic compost pile, producing substantial heat. The heat and retention time are enough to pasteurize the material, which is processed into several liquid and solid fertilizers. This process differs from AD in that no fuel is produced.

REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The regulatory framework for advanced thermal recycling facilities, as well as other existing types of solid waste facilities, is well established in California. However, the regulatory framework for conversion facilities is emerging. This section provides a brief summary of environmental regulations pertaining to the construction and operation of an alternative solid waste processing facility as well as some background and current status of regulations pertaining to conversion facilities in California. In addition, regulatory issues surrounding the production and sale of compost generated by biological conversion technologies are discussed.

The development of any solid waste processing facility will require a variety of permits from Federal, state, and local agencies. The specific permits required will depend upon the nature of the technology selected and the location; however, Table 3-1 presents a list of key permits likely to be needed.

TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF PERMITS REQUIRED FOR A NEW

SOLID WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY

Subject/Media Regulation Permit Solid Waste CCR Title 27, Section 21440 Solid Waste Facility Permit PRC 5001(a) (2) Facility Siting Element Air Quality SCAQMD Rule 201 Permit to Construct/Operate SCAQMD Rule 1401 New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants (Public Health

Risk Assessment) SCAQMD Regulation X NESHAPS – Hazardous Air Pollutants SCAQMD Regulation XIII New Source Review SCAQMD Regulation XVII Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review SCAQMD Regulation XX RECLAIM SCAQMD Regulation XXX Title V Operating Permit 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Eb NSPS – Large Municipal Waste Combustors for which

construction is commenced after September 20, 1994 or for which modification or reconstruction is commenced after June 19, 1996

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAAA NSPS – Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units for which construction is commenced after August 30, 1999 or for which modification or reconstruction is commenced after June 6, 2001

Water CCR Title 27, Section 21710 Water Discharge Requirements Cal Water Code Chapter 5.9 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Corps of Engineers Section 404 Waters of the U.S. Cultural Resources 36 CFR Part 800 Section 106 Consultation for cultural resources Other CEQA, PRC Section 2100 California Environmental Quality Act Local permit Conditional Use permit


3-2

The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) began evaluating a new group of technologies with promise of increasing waste recovery and less landfilling in California. These “conversion” technologies have been the subject of legislative actions with the goal of establishing a permit process in California for these facilities. However, early attempts resulted in inaccurate and incomplete statutory definitions of these technologies. The CIWMB’s recently published document, Conversion Technologies – Report to the Legislature, offers revised definitions of conversion technologies. Other parties are also suggesting new regulations, such as AB 177 introduced by Assembly Member Bogh. This section provides some background on this subject.

In addition, California rules on the use or sale of compost are complex. These rules were not written for the type of compost generated by conversion technologies. This section presents background on this topic as well.

3.2 REGULATORY HISTORY

3.2.1 Toward Standardized Permitting and Enforcement

In the fall of 2000, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB, or “the Board”) began serious consideration of alternative conversion technologies (CTs) as a mechanism to turn waste disposal toward waste recovery. Waste management options have not been able to keep pace with waste generation, and market draw for the products of composting and biomass to energy conversion could at best account for only a third of the total volume of organic waste collected.1 Resources were allocated initiating intensive staff assessment including public forums,2 and the CT dialogue began in earnest.

By November 2001, sufficient information had been gathered for Board staff to offer the first key Issue Paper3 reviewing standing regulations and providing a rough template for regulating CTs. Concepts were vetted to the public in January 2002, showing a need to standardize permitting and enforcement for CT methods and scales of operation. From the report:

PRC (Public Resources Code) 44001 requires an operator of a solid waste facility to obtain a solid waste facilities permit prior to commencing operations; regulations adopted in 1994 implemented a tiered regulatory structure for all solid waste facilities and operations. The regulations established four tiers in addition to the then existing full solid waste facilities permit. From highest level of regulation to the

1 CIWMB Agenda Item 5 (Res. 2000-435); October 17 & 18, 2000. 2 CIWMB Staff background paper, “Conversion technologies for Municipal Residues,” in preparation for

May 3-4, 2001, public forum. 3 CIWMB Issue Paper, “Regulation of Conversion Technologies.” November 27, 2001.


3-3

lowest, the tiers are: full, standardized, registration, enforcement agency notification, and excluded. The Board adopts regulations to set minimum standards and place different types of operations and facilities in the tiers. …Conversion technologies have not been explicitly placed into the permitting tiers. Their inclusion in the definition of transformation, though, currently makes most of them subject to the transfer/processing regulations, even though these regulations do not explicitly state that this is so.

The Board directed staff, at its February 19, 2002 meeting, to initiate a rulemaking to revise the transfer station/processing operations and facilities regulatory requirements. Revisions were to regulate CT handling solid waste residuals as feedstock, whether or not the technologies are specifically included in the statutory definition of transformation.4 The Board also directed staff to convene a small working group to further discuss the definition and diversion credit issues and to return to the Board in April 2002, with recommendations on these issues.

With much effort and public input, staff prepared a lengthy report considering diversion credit issues for Board Agenda Item 34 heard during the April 16-17, 2002 meeting. The Board resolved to follow staff recommendations involving the definition of conversion and the availability of diversion credits for CTs under certain conditions. The staff defined conversion as:

“Conversion” means the processing, through non-combustion thermal means, chemical means, or biological means, other than composting, of residual solid waste from which recyclable materials have been substantially diverted and/or removed to produce electricity, alternative fuels, chemicals, or other products that meet quality standards for use in the marketplace, with a minimum amount of residuals remaining after processing.

With this issue resolved, the Board then felt secure in pressing for legislative change.

3.2.2 Renewable Energy Generation

Concurrent with regulatory revision to provide CT implementation with an “environmental safety net” of permitting and enforcement, the CIWMB sought legislative change as well. CTs can turn a liability into an economic plus. Many methods process wastes into fuel for renewable energy generation. One well-developed method, termed “gasification,” thermally converts waste into a synthetic gaseous fuel or “syngas.” Syngas production from waste for energy generation was already accepted as “renewable,” when the source was collection of syngas from sewage treatment or landfill off-gassing. Conversion of municipal solid waste 4 CIWMB Resolution 2002-80, February 19, 2002.


3-4

by gasification required incorporation of thermal conversion as another accepted renewable energy generation practice. Waste conversion via gasification thus became the focus of CIWMB’s initial legislative effort.

Governor Davis signed Senate Bill (SB) 1078, California’s new “Renewable Portfolio Standard” (RPS) into law on September 12, 2002.5 The same day, passage of SB 1038, the “Renewable Energy Program,”6 provided the California Energy Commission (CEC) purview to implement and enforce the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Eight days later, on September 20, 2002, Assembly Bill (AB) 2770, Solid Waste: Conversion Technologies”7 was enacted.

Senator Barbara Matthews’ acceptance of compromise language ensured the bill’s passage, while seriously undermining the Board’s supportive policy. Further, the “performance criteria” now encoded in the PRC § 40117 had not undergone due diligence for regulatory appropriateness or technical accuracy.

A facility that manages solid waste in California is called a “Solid Waste Facility,” under the jurisdiction of the CIWMB. In compliance with AB 2770, the list of “Solid Waste Facility” types now includes a facility employing “gasification” for conversion of solid waste to fuel pursuant to PRC § 40194 as amended.

If the conversion product is a “clean burning fuel” used for generation of electricity, and the conversion facility is in compliance with solid waste management regulations according to Public Resources Code as amended by AB 2770, that facility may then be certified as an eligible generator of “renewable energy” for sale under the provisions of California’s RPS, as authorized by the Renewable Energy Program overseen by the CEC.

“Conversion” of waste into energy is a varied and multi-stage path. Regulatory oversight of this synthesis of advanced technologic processes includes the mutual purview of CIWMB and CEC: criteria for eligibility as a generator of renewable energy via “solid waste conversion” technology per the amended Public Utilities Code (PUC) § 383.5 (b)(1)(C) is essentially duplicated for this new category of Solid Waste Facility pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC § 40117). Together, the newly enacted laws have been crafted to ensure that application of important new technology can be made compatible with Legislative intent “to increase the amount of renewable electricity generation … for consumption in California.”8

5 SB 1078, Sher. Renewable Portfolio Standard. Enacted September 12, 2002. Amending the Public Utilities

Code, relating to renewable energy. 6 SB 1038, Sher. Renewable Energy Program. Amending the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy. 7 AB 2770, Matthews. Solid Waste: Conversion Technologies. Amending the Public Resources Code, relating

to solid waste. 8 Public Utilities Code (PUC) § 383.5 as amended by SB 1038, the Renewable Energy Program.


3-5

SB 1038 amendments to the PUC now recognize “solid waste conversion” as occurring through application of a strictly defined noncombustion thermal technology process. The product is a clean burning combustible gaseous fuel, commonly referred to as “syngas,” with sufficient heat value for economical renewable energy generation. “Gasification” per AB 2770 language is defined by minimum standards identical to the “Solid Waste Conversion” wording in SB 1038 under CIWMB purview. “Gasification,” as a technology by which facilities convert solid waste to electricity, is legally the equivalent to the term “Solid Waste Conversion” in the CEC’s purview.

3.2.3 Life Cycle and Market Assessment

The CIWMB’s seminal role in advancing CT’s has created a new and untested role of technical oversight. Certainly, the complement of legislation places primary regulatory responsibility upon the CIWMB and requires that a regulatory path be defined.

In January 2003, the Board released a request for proposals for “Conversion Technology Life Cycle & Market Impact Assessment,” later awarded to RTI International. The stated purpose:

To advance the understanding of conversion technologies, Assembly Bill 2770 … requires the CIWMB to prepare a report on new and emerging conversion technologies that might be able to use these currently disposed materials as feedstock. This Request for Proposals (RFP) is designed to assist the CIWMB in addressing two key provisions of AB 2770. Specifically, the CIWMB must describe and evaluate the lifecycle environmental and public health impacts of conversion technologies and compare them with impacts from existing solid waste management. AB 2770 also requires the CIWMB to describe and evaluate the impacts of conversion technologies on recycling and composting markets.9

Board staff worked to bring a draft regulatory revision forward, succeeding in release for limited “working group” and later broad public review of the first draft in March, 2003.10 At its November 3, 2003 meeting, the Permitting and Enforcement Committee approved the draft regulations, with minor changes, for a 45-day public comment period. Incorporating comments and additional research, Board staff issued the current draft CT Regulations package as Attachment 1 to the Board Agenda for the November 19-20, 2003 meeting.11

9 See www.ciwmb.ca.gov/contracts, and specify Contract #IWMB-C2030. 10 CIWMB staff first working draft, Conversion Technology Regulations. March 18, 2003. Primary CIWMB

staff contact: Brian Larimore. 11 CIWMB Board Meeting, November 19-20, 2003. Agenda Item 8: “Discussion and Request for Rulemaking

Direction to Formally Notice Proposed Amendments to the Transfer/Processing Operations and Facilities Regulatory Requirements Regulations to Address Conversion technology Operations and Facilities.”


3-6

Terms and definitions were vague and inconsistent, and in some cases patently in error. Impacts of CT implementation were largely unknown, given the few actual applications available for review globally and the diversity of systems under consideration. Voiced concerns included: (1) What were the long-term, life-cycle impacts of CTs? (2) How would competition for acquisition of waste derived feedstock impact the struggling recycling and resource recovery markets? (3) How do we define each technology, given the inherent diversity and complexity? (4) How will the Board determine whether a particular technology constitutes a “conversion technology” subject to CIWMB oversight, or is simply another form of manufacturing, outside of this purview?12

Finalization of the draft regulatory package awaited completion of the contracted “Conversion Technology Life Cycle & Market Impact Assessment,” submitted to the agency for review and comment. Once Board staff completed this step and passed formal Board review, the 45-day public comment period would be noticed.13

The Office of Administrative Law publicly noticed the proposed regulations on October 22, 2004, initiating the 45-day public comment period. The comment period closed December 6, 2004. The Permitting and Enforcement Committee prepared the item for the full Board meting on December 14 and 15, and the Board heard public comment on the proposed regulatory package as Agenda Item #22. The proposed revision of Article 6, the Transfer/ Processing regulations, contained revisions reflecting staff research and public comment on prior revisions.14 The Board declined to approve the package as revised.

AB 2770 requires development and submission of Report on conversion technologies to the Legislature. CIWMB staff discussed a draft of the Conversion Technology Report to the Legislature at the January Sustainability and Market Development Committee and presented the matter as Item 11 at the January 18, 2005 Board meeting. Written comments were accepted until February 15, 2005.15

On March 15, 2005 the CIWMB passed resolution 2005-78. This resolution included the following statement:

Conversion technologies are distinct from landfills and incineration, and can result in substantial environmental benefits for California, including the production of renewable energy, reduced dependency on fossil fuels, and reduction of greenhouse gases.

12 CIWMB Conversion Technology public workshop, August 1, 2003: “Summary & Analysis of Conversion

Technology Regulations Workshop and Subsequent Comments.” 13 Personal communications, CIWMB staff Brian Larimore, 7-20-03. 14 Available on-line at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/agendas/mtgdocs/2004/12/00017383.doc. 15 Conversion Technologies Report to the Legislature – DRAFT – March 2005. Available on-line at

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Organics/Conversion/Events/CTWorkshop/DraftReport.pdf.


3-7

Conversion technologies can enhance landfill diversion efforts and can be complementary to the existing recycling infrastructure. The Board requirements for diversion eligibility for such facilities require that conversion technology facilities complement the local infrastructure and that they maintain or enhance the environmental benefits and economic sustainability of the integrated waste management system.

Conversion technologies would be expected to meet federal, state and local air emissions requirements. Local air districts in California are best equipped to review and condition conversion technology facilities.

Definitions of conversion technologies in current statute are scientifically inaccurate, and should be amended.

Furthermore, Resolution 2005-78 contained the following policy recommendations:

The definition of “conversion technology” approved by the Board in Resolution Number 2002-177 be promulgated in law, and that more specific definitions of various conversion technologies be developed during a regulatory process. The existing definition of “gasification” is scientifically inaccurate and should be deleted.

The “transformation” definition be amended to mean the combustion or incineration of solid waste.

Conversion technologies divert materials from landfills and are distinct from landfills and incineration.

The Legislature should consider some level of diversion credit for conversion technology facilities in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Board Resolution 2002-177.

At the April 19-20th CIWMB meeting, the Waste Board adopted Resolution 2005-114 to rescind Resolution Number 2005-78. The adoption of Resolution 2005-114 allowed CIWMB staff to further discuss and consider the Conversion Technology Report due to additional input from interested parties. No date for release of this report is available.

Legislative actions sponsored by CIWMB are already underway, in recognition of timelines faced by Legislators this session. On 1/24/2005, Assembly member Bogh introduced AB 177, Solid Waste: Biomass Conversion, as a “spot” bill to be amended to incorporate appropriate comments from state and public stakeholders.


3-8

3.2.4 Current Regulatory Concerns

Concurrent development of AB 2770 with renewable energy regulations was a purposeful attempt by the Board to ensure that the carefully controlled conversion of waste into energy and energy products would have a firm legal standing, with access to state oversight and support.

From the Legislative Counsel’s Digest for AB 2770 [in part]:

Comments: The CIWMB sponsors this bill for two purposes. First, it creates a new definition for “gasification” technologies and separates such technologies from the umbrella definition contained under the term “transformation,” thereby removing such technologies from the apparent stigma of being considered transformation. The second purpose is to require the CIWMB to evaluate and report to the Governor and Legislature on so-called “conversion” technologies for the purpose of determining whether the state should sanction their use.

This bill defines “gasification” technology and specifies that such technology must remove recyclable materials from the feedstock and have minimal environmental impact. It also removes gasification from the definition of “transformation” and adds it to the definition of a “solid waste facility”. This bill places these facilities under the regulatory authority of the CIWMB. Finally, this bill requires CIWMB to study and prepare a report for the legislature on these new and emerging conversion technologies.16

Although language in SB 1038 and AB 2770 were essentially identical, certain critical differences made their way into law. In approaching the CEC to establish and clarify purview over waste conversion facilities, the Board addressed the language in formal written comment provided to the Docket of the RPS [in part]:

The term “solid waste conversion” defined in SB 1038 and the term “gasification” defined in AB 2770 are, with a few minor exceptions, identical to each other. Thus, it is our best interpretation that “solid waste conversion” in SB 1038 specifically refers to “gasification” as narrowly defined in AB 2770. Any “solid waste conversion” facility complying with SB 1038’s definition should be considered an “in-state renewable electricity generation technology” and in compliance with the SB 1078 definition of “eligible renewable energy resource.” … One major question concerns the provision in the SB 1038 “solid waste conversion” definition regarding no discharges of air contaminants or emissions. We interpret this provision as referring

16 Op. cit footnote 8, AB 2770. Legislative Digest “Comments:” pre-chaptered bill Concurrence discussion

accompanying proposed bill text As Amended, August 28, 2002.


3-9

to the actual conversion process itself, in which feedstock is converted into gas, but not as referring to subsequent stages in which gas is run through a turbine to produce electricity.17

AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, established a “Waste Management Hierarchy,” as the order of preference of waste management: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Dispose.18 PRC § 40194 consigned CTs to the Solid Waste Facility Type of “Disposal Facilities”, the least preferred type of management option. This probably is the most difficult, and least warranted, impact of this new law upon advancement of the technology. The paradox is startling: organics may be used as “alternative daily cover” (ADC) on a landfill,19 garnering Diversion Credit for the municipality, yet if those same organics are processed via a conversion technology facility into syngas and other beneficial uses, this is deemed the legal equivalent of “Disposal.” This anomaly was considered by the Board during January 18, 2005 Hearing, recognizing that CTs may indeed need to be “slotted” elsewhere in the Waste Management Hierarch on a par with other forms of beneficial reuse and recycling.

“Noncombustion thermal conversion,” as required by AB 2770,20 is technically a difficult requirement with which to comply. In gasification, as described previously in this report, a minimal amount of combustion occurs. Although there is no real burning or direct combustion, the pure legislative definition was an issue. To list gasification as a CT, then to disqualify it by technical definition, was counterproductive. One could argue that pyrolysis in itself could meet the definition. In essence, the language described pyrolysis, but called it gasification. Unfortunately, true gasification would not comply with the definition.

At first glance, many have found the implementing language, subsequent performance criteria, and proposed regulation to be unrealistic. The bills are now law however, and this is the starting place from which we now must proceed, beginning with the Board’s Conversion Technology Report to the Legislature, and with introduction and subsequent modification of the spot bill AB 177 (as previously referenced).

3.2.5 Current Status of Definitions

In the current draft revisions to the Transfer/Processing Station regulations,21 classes of CTs are defined and placement within the permitting and enforcement “tiers” are assigned. This 17 RPS Implementation (Docket No. 03-RPS-1078). Board comments, to the CEC dated March 26, 2003. 18 Waste Management Hierarchy – The order of preference of waste management techniques, reduce, reuse,

recycle, dispose, as specified in §40051 of the California Public Resources Code. 19 Alternative Daily Cover regulations, 14 CCR Section 18810. 20 Op. cit, footnote 8. AB 2770 Section 1. 21 Op. cit footnote 13; Proposal to amend Public Resources Code, Chapter 3. Minimum Standards for Solid

Waste Handling and Disposal. Article 6.0. Transfer/Processing Operations and Facilities Regulatory Requirements. Section 17402. Definitions.


3-10

set of definitions essentially documents the Board’s understanding of conversion processes. These definitions have been subsequently addressed in detail, with many conflicts identified and providing suggested modifications, within the current draft of the Conversion Technology Report to the Legislature.22 The Report now provides the forum for further discussion.

The Board staff proposed definition presented in the proposed Transfer/Processing regulatory package defined what “Conversion Technologies” are:

“Conversion Technology” means the processing, through non-combustion thermal, chemical, or biological processes, other than composting, of solid waste, including, but not limited to organic materials such as paper, yard trimmings, wood wastes, agricultural wastes, and plastics, from which, to the maximum extent possible, all recyclable materials and marketable green waste compostable materials have been removed prior to the conversion process and the owner or operator of the facility certifies that those materials will be recycled or composted. A conversion technology facility produces products, including, but not limited to, electricity, alternative fuels, chemicals, or other products that meet quality standards for use in the marketplace. “Conversion Technology” includes, but is not limited to, catalytic cracking, distillation, gasification, hydrolysis, and pyrolysis. “Conversion Technology” does not include anaerobic digestion, biomass conversion, composting (aerobic or anaerobic) or incineration.

In the Board’s comments to the RPS Docket (as referenced above), the issue of maximum extent was also addressed:

We believe that the term “maximum extent feasible” should refer to both technical and economic feasibility, i.e. that materials can be recycled cost-effectively within the relevant regional, national, or global marketplace. We also believe that a proponent moving forward with a solid waste conversion facility will have made its own determination that removing all recyclable materials and green waste materials is both technically and economically feasible, otherwise it would not pursue the project.23

The next definition needing further assessment is for “Gasification.” As encoded in Public Resources Code Section 40117:

“Gasification” means a non-combustion thermal process used by a conversion technology facility to convert solid waste to a clean burning gas or fuel for purposes

22 Op. cit, footnote 17 draft Conversion Technology Report to the Legislature. 23 Op.cit, footnote 18. RPS Docket, CIWMB comments.


3-11

of generating electricity or producing chemicals or fuels, and that meets the definition of gasification in PRC section 40117.24

In the current draft Report to the Legislature, the following recommendation is made to revise the definition presently encoded, as:

“Gasification” means the conversion of solid or liquid carbon-based materials by direct or indirect heating. For direct heating, partial oxidation occurs where the gasification medium is steam and air or oxygen. Indirect heating uses an external heat source such as a hot circulating medium and steam as the gasification medium. Gasification produces a fuel gas (synthesis gas, producer gas), which is principally carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, and lighter hydrocarbons in association with carbon dioxide and nitrogen depending on the process used.

In the amended PRC 40117, Section 1 (a) through (g), a suite of “performance criteria” are encoded that must be strictly complied with in order to be recognized (or certified) by the state agencies as true “gasification” for purposes of energy generation. Again, while pyrolysis may be able to meet these criteria, true gasification would not. The Board’s proposed regulations would extend this implied certification requirement stipulating point-for-point compliance beyond the legislated intent of use for renewable energy generation, to include gasification for production of chemicals or fuels.

Many terms related to conversion of waste to products have been addressed in the draft Report to the Legislature; “gasification” is the only term suggested as a specific revision of the encoded language. Status of conversion facility permitting and enforcement regulations remains deferred until after Legislative review of the report; therefore, definitions in the proposed regulatory package are also open to later revision.

3.3 REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

This section provides a general overview of the environmental regulations for permitting an alternative MSW processing facility.

3.3.1 Local, State, and Federal Interaction

Siting, permitting and operating any industrial facility in California entails a very significant commitment of time and financial resources. California is indeed moving toward

24 In compliance with AB 2770, Section 40117 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 40117.

“Gasification means a technology that uses a noncombustion thermal process to convert sold waste to a clean burning fuel for the purpose of generating electricity…” identifying seven mandatory performance criteria.


3-12

standardized permitting and enforcement of industrial projects addressing the alternative processing of MSW and production of useful products. That goal has yet to be accomplished.

Board staff provided25 a summary of major CT permitting and enforcement actions that a developer could expect. Given that this represents the Board’s understanding, it is also a good place to begin a more detailed assessment.

The local governing body controls siting of operations using alternative disposal technologies. These operations are subject to local siting requirements, including planning and zoning. There are many additional factors in siting an operation, including access to transportation, utilities, water, sewage, proximity to feedstock materials, and environmental justice considerations. Local siting requirements vary widely throughout the State and are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Local governing body control of land use practices may begin with municipal Master Plan amendment.

General & Specific Plans:26 In most cases, a project must fit the pattern of the community land use values and visions surrounding the proposed site. Municipalities must compile and maintain a General Plan with a series of defined “Elements,” and must develop Specific Plans delineating finer gradations of land use. Compliance with local planning and zoning ordinances are mandatory for obtaining all subsequent state and federal permits. In turn, these planning statements are local tools that themselves must comply first with state and federal law; careful attention to receipt of local land use approval greatly reduces the risk of later state/federal permit rejection.

Disposal Facility Siting Element (DFSE): The DFSE may be considered a subset of the municipal General Plan (GP). In compliance with AB 939, the municipality’s GP must include an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) with a “Countywide Siting Element.”27 The PRC 40117 identification of Gasification as the newest type of “Disposal Facility” subject to Board permit and enforcement provisions thus requires amendment to the local DFSE, usually administered by the local Public Works Department. This step may well be the first time a specific project proposal is subjected to both agency and public scrutiny.

CEQA & NEPA: Whichever local agency that first must make a binding determination approving some aspect of a project in their jurisdiction is designated, in general, as the “Lead Agency,” and acts as the coordinating entity ensuring compliance with land use and siting

25 Op. cit. footnote 3, Board staff, ”Issue Paper,” November 2001. 26 Government Code Section 65302 et. al. 27 AB 939, Integrated Waste Management Act, 1989. PRC 50001(a) (1), SWMP and (2), Chapter 4. County-

wide Siting Elements.


3-13

controls. Among the first overarching actions of the Lead Agency is determination regarding whether the proposed action is a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)28 of 1970. Should the project engage federal land, money, or people, a determination must further be made regarding compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA),29 enacted in 1969, one year prior to CEQA. CEQA and NEPA both require proof of compliance with all local, state, and federal agencies with purview over aspects of the environmental that potentially might be impacted by a project.

Permit to Construct (Rule 201); Permit to Operate (Rule 203):30 For conversion facilities not located on permitted Sanitary Landfills, the local Air Quality Management District (AQMD) may become the Lead Agency with regard to CEQA. Application forms, regulations, guides and discussions are available on-line. First contacts with the South Coast AQMD should start with the SCAQMD Business Assistance Office.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): There are two NSPS (40 CFR 60 Subpart Eb and Subpart AAAA) that could potentially apply to a proposed waste conversion facility depending on whether it is considered a large (>250 ton/day) or small (>35 ton/day – 250 ton/day) municipal waste combustor unit. Either NSPS, if applicable based on throughput, would apply to both conventional municipal waste combustion or gasification/pyrolysis conversion technologies. The NSPSs regulate emissions of oxides of sulfur (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl), dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, fugitive ash and opacity. In addition, the NSPS specify pre-construction notification, planning, analysis and reporting requirements as well as operating practices, monitoring, record-keeping and reporting requirements. The emission limits are anticipated to be achievable by either incineration or gasification/pyrolysis conversion technologies with the latter anticipated to do so with wider compliance margins.

New Source Review (NSR): The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) will require that any proposed facility complete NSR pursuant to either Regulation XIII (NSR) or Regulation XXX (RECLAIM). Basic requirements of the NSR process include:

• Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis demonstrating that the proposed facility conforms to SCAQMD BACT Guidelines

• Demonstration of compliance with all applicable State and Federal ambient air quality standards by performing air dispersion modeling of the proposed facility impacts using SCAQMD-approved modeling procedures

28 CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act, PRC Section 2100 et seq., 1970. 29 NEPA: National Environmental Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq., 1969. 30 SCAQMD, Rules, Adopted February 1977. See www.aqmd.gov/rules.


3-14

• Provide offsetting emission reductions for proposed emission increases by surrendering previously banked emission reduction credit (ERC) certificates

There are established BACT guidelines for municipal waste combustion. No BACT guidelines have been established for pyrolysis/gasification technologies. The extent of the air quality impacts and ERC requirements for individual facilities will vary depending on the type and size of technology.

Toxics: The SCAQMD will complete NSR for air toxics pursuant to Rule 1401. Under this regulation a proposed facility with potential emissions of air toxics above screening thresholds would be required to complete a screening level health risk assessment using SCAQMD-specified procedures. If necessary, a proposed facility may also be required to complete a refined health risk assessment. In order to be approvable by SCAQMD, a facility with a maximum cancer risk greater than 1 in a million must demonstrate that it will use BACT for toxics (T-BACT). SCAQMD will not approve a facility with a maximum cancer risk greater than 10 in a million.

Water Quality Controls, Local, State and Federal: “Regions” have been established statewide to monitor and protect water quality. Each Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) maintains purview over specific watershed “basins,” with individual “Basin Plans” quantifying pollutant levels. In the case of cross-jurisdictional oversight: If programs and/or projects cross regional boundaries, potentially impacting water quality of more than one basin, purview falls to the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB).31

Two programs administered by SWRCB interact in local RWQCB permitting and enforcement for Groundwater and Surface water protection. The California Water Code established provisions for issuance and enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs),32 and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).33

General Permits qualitatively define statewide actions, while site specific Industrial Permits quantitatively define local stormwater surface and subsurface water quality actions through Construction, Industrial/Commercial, and Municipal permitting programs, subject to Basin Plans. Subsequent amendments in 1998 created the Stormwater Enforcement program, requiring separate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)34 development.

31 Porte-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code, Division 7, Water Quality), see http://leginfo.

ca.gov/calaw. 32 Waste Discharge Requirements: 33 NPDES: US Code Title 33, Chapter 26, Subchapter 4, Section 1342. 34 Cal Water Code Chapter 5.9, Storm Water Enforcement Act of 1998, Section 13399.5 et. Seq.


3-15

3.3.2 California Energy Commission Regulations

Alternative processing facilities intending to generate energy for sale to the regional Utility grid during this interim period prior to full regulatory implementation must seek multiple agency concurrence according to California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Energy Plan (per SB 1038) and the facility oversight (per AB 2770). A case-by-case approach is necessary.

3.3.3 California Integrated Waste Management Board Regulations

The Integrated Waste Management Act (as referenced) authorized local control for state waste management permitting and enforcement, establishing a network of “Local Enforcement Agencies” (LEA) at the municipal level. The Board’s Permitting and Inspection Branch, in conjunction with the LEA, administer Solid Waste Facilities permitting and enforcement programs. In regions not prepared to carry out LEA functions, the Board either can authorize entry into Joint Powers Agreements by which smaller communities share cost burdens of single LEA contract services, or (as occurs under enforcement proceedings against the local jurisdiction) the Board can assume the LEA responsibilities. Whoever performs this function becomes the primary contact for CT project proponents.

The Board regulates solid waste handling, processing, and disposal activities. These include the operation of landfills, transfer-processing stations, material recovery facilities, compost facilities, and waste to energy facilities. Until recently, virtually all solid waste handling activities were subject to the requirement of first obtaining a “full” solid waste facility permit or an exemption from the requirement of obtaining this permit from the LEA with jurisdiction over the proposed site. The CIWMB must concur in the issuance of the full permit before it is issued.

Some types of solid waste management now require less than a full solid waste facilities permit, according to placement in the Permit Tiering structure, as has been discussed and referenced previously in this section. CT project proponent responsibilities regarding proper notice of intent will be dictated by which “tier” applies, in terms of detail, timing, fees, and subsequent process. There are now five Tier levels: (1) Excluded Activities, (2) LEA Notification, (3) Registration Permit, (4) Standardized Permit, and (5) Full Permit. As with CT projects selling electricity, a case-by-case assessment by the LEA is mandatory.

3.3.4 Summary of Permitting Requirements

3.3.4.1 State Permits and Regulations

• CEQA requirement

• CalTrans, if encroaching on state transit routes


3-16

• Air Quality: AQMD Notice to Construct, Notice to Operate, Title V Operating Permit, New Source Review, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit, Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)

• Water Quality: Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs)

• Energy: Power plant licensing permits; certification as “Eligible Renewable Generator” if appropriate

• Waste Management: LEA Notification, Registration, or Full Solid Waste Facility Permit

3.3.4.2 Federal Permits & Requirements

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement, including Endangered Species Act compliance (if applicable)

• Air Quality: NSPS

• Waste Management: Subtitle D compliance

3.4 REGULATIONS AFFECTING COMPOST MARKETABILITY

Biological technologies (anaerobic and aerobic digestion or composting in this case) generates large quantities of solid byproducts that suppliers plan on converting to marketable commodities. These byproducts introduce quality control and regulatory issues.

Both aerobic and anaerobic biological processes creates a fibrous residue that can be used as a soil amendment. If this residue has achieved sufficient organic stabilization, it is referred to as compost. The primary purpose of compost is to improve the physical quality of the soil. In sandy soils compost increases the water holding capacity, while in heavy soils it improves soil structure and porosity. In both cases it improves soil quality. Organic stability, i.e., the absence of any rapidly biodegradable compound, is an essential quality of compost. Organically unstable soil amendments can lead to nutrient deficiencies as biodegrading microorganisms out compete plants for nutrients. They can also lead to oxygen deficiency or acidic conditions and phytotoxicity as organic acids are released.

Automated, highly-controlled in-vessel digestion of wastes can effectively kill plant and animal pathogens, control odors, and greatly reduce the labor of waste management, in particular the volume of waste requiring post-treatment management, turning liabilities into valuable products.


3-17

According to the US Compost Council’s “Field Guide to Compost Use,”35

Compost is the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic material that has been sanitized through the generation of heat and “processed to further reduce pathogens” (PFRP), as defined by the U.S. EPA (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 503, Appendix B, Section B), and stabilized to the point that it is beneficial to plant growth. Compost bears little physical resemblance to the raw material from which it originated. Compost is an organic matter source that has the unique ability to improve the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of soils or growing media. It contains plant nutrients but is typically not characterized as a fertilizer.

Control of pathogenic organisms pursuant to the 40CFR Part 503 regulations noted above, constitutes one of the overarching federal concerns when converting organic debris such as human sewage, manure, and other wastes into environmentally benign products. “Processes to Reduce Pathogens,” and “Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens” are two carefully defined methods acceptable under the federal standards. Compost production methods strive to qualify under the latter guidelines.36 The other concern is limiting the application of heavy metals to the soil, as indicated in the 40 CFR, Part 503 regulations.

3.4.1 MSW Feedstock Variability

In-vessel biological process of mixed MSW is an outgrowth of earlier highly controlled and accelerated digestion of consistent, strictly organic feedstock, typically agricultural wastes and manures. The AD research of Saint-Joly et. al.37 noted that, “… the performance of the anaerobic digestion process depends deeply on the quality of the waste to be treated;” which could be restated as the common axiom, “garbage in, garbage out.”

Any conversion to product must be concerned with the consistency of the feedstock. For MSW, the inherent variability can pose a significant challenge. Waste stream characterizations38 confirm that local waste composition changes significantly between seasons in the profile of organic to inorganic fractions and in the nature and amount of contaminants. Similarly, different locales even within a city may generate quite different waste profiles.

35 See: www.compostingcouncil.org. 36 See: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/40cfr503_02.html. 37 C. Saint-Joly*, S. Desbois** and J-P. Lotti***. Water Science and Technology Vol 41 No 3 pp 291–297 ©

IWA Publishing 2000. Determinant impact of waste collection and composition on anaerobic digestion performance: industrial results.

38 See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/.


3-18

3.4.2 Process Control Challenges

Even the most thorough pre-processing of MSW must be expected to pass a certain amount of “undesirable fractions” through to the digestive process. System efficacy before, during, and after digestion for management of contaminants requires assessment and monitoring. Although automation reduces labor costs per ton processed, statistical sampling and laboratory analyses required for adequate quality assurance and control could counterbalance operations and maintenance savings.

For production of compost, specific problems could arise from use of MSW as feedstock:

• Physical contaminants in the fibrous product may certainly be analyzed, but an inconsistent feedstock profile may require unacceptably expensive sampling frequency to approach statistical accuracy. For this reason, standard sampling protocols intended to insure quality of compost produced from agricultural wastes and manures may be insufficient.

• Raw anaerobic effluent usually needs maturation or “finishing.” Indeed, aerobic composting also requires maturation prior to use or else microbial activity may rob soils of existing macro- and micronutrients.

• Minute quantities of antibiotics, growth hormones, and/or long-term residual pesticides could adversely impact biological activity and compromise compost utility.39 This is a concern with any compost and is more likely to be a problem with yard waste and biosolids composts than with MSW-derived compost.

• Finely fractured shards of glass can remain entrained in the fibrous “compost” end product.40 However, below a size of a few millimeters these are generally not considered to be a problem.

• Heavy metals may increase in solubility through processing, potentially leading to adverse soil loading and bioaccumulation where used as a soil additive over time. This would be captured in standard quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) leaching tests used to verify compliance of the final compost with EPA 503 regulations.

• The main issue impacting marketability of an MSW-derived compost is its visual appearance. Small amounts of colorful plastics or extraneous objects (bottle caps, syringes, etc.) can render an entire batch of compost unmarketable.

39 See, for example: http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Pesticides/Clopyralid.htm; www.puyallup.wsu.edu/soilmgmt/

Clopyralid.htm. 40 See: http://www.smrc.com.au/PDF/SMRC-research-glass-cont-municipal-waste.pdf.


3-19

• The residual of herbicides in the empty containers, bottles, etc. could introduce trace amounts of Clopyralid. Its detrimental impact on the growing of many garden plants has caused serious consequences to the greenwaste recycling industry

3.4.3 Voluntary Quality Control for Compost

The California Compost Quality Council (CCQC) provides an on-going voluntary method for agency and public assurance regarding the quality and consistency of compost, through producer registration and transparent adherence to established criteria. CCQC standards have been compiled for aerobic digestion of agricultural waste, manures, and urban “green wastes” (tree and yard trimmings). This may not be sufficient for in-vessel accelerated anaerobic digestion of MSW, considering the cautions listed above. QA/QC standards are an excellent, well-accepted starting place for establishing market acceptance.

CCQC recently joined the United States Composting Council (USCC), to better represent California’s compost community interests in the United States marketplace. The USCC affords national perspective and depth of collaboration to any who produce or use compost. The programs of CCQC were developed with guidance and support from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The standards are recognized QA/QC for both producers and users of compost:

The CIWMB has worked to fill the gap by promoting a voluntary, independent association known as the California Compost Quality Council (CCQC). Compost producers registered with the CCQC must be in compliance with applicable CIWMB composting regulations and agree to provide laboratory-verified information about their products to interested buyers. The CIWMB also has prepared a general guide to assist consumers in assessing compost characteristics, and is developing a series of fact sheets that provide guidelines for applying compost and mulch in different landscaping applications.41

The USCC maintains voluntary programs for compost quality assurance. Like CCQC protocols, USCC programs have been designed for aerobic compost quality assurance. The Council can however provide general information and/or contract as third party oversight in support of municipal interest in advanced MSW digestion:42

41 See CIWMB’s Organics program information on Compost Quality: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/organics/

Products/Quality.htm. 42 Personal conversation with Assistant Director Al Rattie (215-256-5259), 12-13-04. See: www.

compostcouncil.org.


3-20

• Seal of Testing Assurance (STA): The USCC adds assessment of compost stability (a measure of maturation), pathogenicity (fecal coliform or Salmonella), and trace metals (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 503 regulated metals). USCC quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program participation suggests frequency of sampling based on volume of tons of compost processed per quarter. A large and growing number of “approved labs” are identified for member usage. STA Sampling Collection Protocol and Chain of Custody information is available at no charge. Programs are open to all that would produce and offer compost for sale. http://tmecc.org/sta/index.html.

• Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC): TMECC provides detailed protocols for the composting industry to verify the physical, chemical, and biological condition of composting feedstocks, material in process and compost products at the point of sale. Material testing is needed to verify product safety and market claims. TMECC provides protocols to sample, monitor, and analyze materials at all stages of the composting process, i.e., prior to, during, and after composting to help maintain process control, verify product attributes, assure worker safety, and to avoid degradation of the environment in and around the composting facility. http://tmecc.org/tmecc/index.html.

• Compost Analysis Proficiency (CAP) Testing Program: CAP is a laboratory quality assurance program consisting of tri-annual exchanges of three compost materials, each submitted in blind triplicate [3 × 3 × 3 = 27] for each of two testing tiers: Tier I-Inorganic; and Tier II-Inorganic plus Biological. http://tmecc.org/cap/index.html.

3.4.4 Regulatory Oversight – Federal

Federal regulations addressing pathogenicity of putrescible material (40CFR Part 503, referenced above) have been designed for managing sewage sludge, both residential and industrial. Compost regulations strive to ensure that efficacy of decomposition qualifies as a “Process to Further Reduce Pathogens,” pursuant to the federal guidelines.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):43

On the federal level, the Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR Part 503 under the Clean Water Act) was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 9248 to 9404) on February 19, 1993. This act pertains to land application (and biosolids composting), surface disposal, and combustion of biosolids sewage sludge. Many of the standards promulgated in this rule can be applicable to municipal solid waste compost.

43 See: http://www.epa.gov/compost/laws.htm.


3-21

States have assumed the lead role in regulating composting facilities. Composting facilities may need approval from the state before operating. The permit requirements for composting facilities vary among states. Examples of topics covered in the permitting process include: a detailed facility design, operating plans, a description of incoming materials, the amount and types of residue to be generated in the plant, monitoring plans, potential environmental releases, landfills to be used, and potential markets for the compost.

Under Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Title 33, Chapter 26, 1311, USC), EPA has the authority to regulate point source discharges into United States waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program.

40 CFR Subpart B: Land Application, Part 503.13 provides the states with specific pollutant limits for land application.

Table in 503 Rule Table #1 Table #2 Table #3 Table #4

Pollutant

Ceiling Concentration Limits*(mg/kg)

Cumulative Pollutant Loading

Rates (kg/ha)

Monthly Average Concentration Limits(mg/kg)

Annual Pollutant Loading Rates

(kg/ha/yr) Arsenic 75 41 41 2.0 Cadmium 85 39 39 1.9 Copper 4,300 1,500 1,500 75 Lead 840 300 300 15 Mercury 57 17 17 0.85 Molybdenum** 75 n/a n/a n/a Nickel 420 420 420 21 Selenium 100 100 100 5.0 Zinc 7,500 2,800 2,800 140

* absolute values ** land application limits for molybdenum are under revision at this time

3.4.5 Regulatory Oversight – State

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has primary purview over composting facility regulation and enforcement. The CIWMB regularly assesses quality and quantity of compost produced in the state and maintains an extensive support framework for encouraging both backyard and commercial composting in California.

According to CIWMB, most commercial compost producers are subject to regulation, including permits, in the State of California. Certain aspects of mulch operations are also regulated. Local enforcement agencies (LEAs) oversee the permitting and oversight of


3-22

composting and mulch operations at the local level. CIWMB has implemented regulations, which exclude some activities from permitting requirements, allowing some to operate after making a notification to the LEA, and others to operate with less burdensome forms of permitting. Some activities still require the full solid waste facility permit. The tier in which an activity is slotted depends not only on the type of activity but also the type and amount of solid waste being handled.

State law pertaining to Compostable Materials Handling Operations and Facilities Regulatory Requirements is encoded in Section 40000 of the Public Resources Code. Regulations were promulgated as Chapter 3.1, beginning with Section 17850 of Title 14, California Code of Regulations (14CCR). CIWMB recently revised the composting regulations, amending Chapter 3.1 Composting standards, and 3.2 Enforcement procedures pertinent to composting.44

State code Chapters establish standards and regulatory requirements for intentional and inadvertent composting resulting from the handling of compostable materials. In-vessel or within-vessel composting operations with capacities greater than fifty cubic yards are subject to permit. By definition:

“Within-vessel Composting Process” means a process in which compostable material is enclosed in a drum, silo, bin, tunnel, reactor, or other container for the purpose of producing compost maintained under uniform conditions of temperature and moisture where air-borne emissions are controlled.45

Animal carcasses, medical waste, and hazardous waste are not allowed to be processed at a permitted composting facility. Considering the City of Los Angeles’ MSW profile, the prohibitions listed in Section 17588 could require a substantial increase in feedstock pre-processing beyond that of handling of agricultural and sewage sourced feedstock via aerobic windrow composting permit conditions. Such provisions, and any other QA/QC controls deemed necessary, could become part of the Composting Facility permit.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA): CDFA regulates nutritive and non-nutritive standards for fertilizing materials generated from wastes and bi-products, intended for transfer and beneficial use in agriculture. According to the CDFA, compost produced by in-vessel anaerobic and aerobic digestion must be profiled for quality, consistency, and ingredients including contaminants, to qualify for beneficial usage and to provide “truth in labeling” to prospective end-users.

44 See: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/RuleArchive/2003/CompMaterial/. 45 14 CCR Section 17850.


3-23

Title 3 CCR Section 2301 defines “Non-Nutritive Standards” for inorganic commercial fertilizer and agricultural mineral products, setting maximums for the non-nutrient metals arsenic, cadmium and lead:

Effective January 1, 2004, specialty fertilizers shall not exceed: arsenic, ten parts per million; cadmium, twenty parts per million; and lead, 100 parts per million.

Title 3 CCR Section 2302 expands upon management of the hazardous constituents to be found in waste materials, which require compliance with both state and federal hazardous waste management regulations. Processing MSW to generate fertilizing material is expected to create a product containing some amount of hazardous material. With appropriate identification, monitoring, and use, the hazardous constituents are considered “recycled materials.” The Food and Agricultural Code defers management of such hazardous “recycled materials” to provisions of Title 22:

Recyclable material used in fertilizing material manufacture shall be sampled and tested in accordance with procedures specified in Title 22, CCR, Division 4.5, Chapter 11 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, commencing with Section 66261.1.

In the narrow context of these definitions, a “Recyclable Material” refers specifically to any hazardous waste constituent found in products intended for agricultural use.46

Title 22 CCR, Division 4.5, Environmental Health Standards for Management of Hazardous Waste, Article 8.5, Requirements for Management of Recycled Materials in Agriculture, establishes the CDFA ‘s regulatory oversight:

No person shall use a recyclable material in agriculture or transfer such a material to another person for use in agriculture, without obtaining a letter of approval from the Department pursuant to subsection (c) of this section prior to such use or transfer, unless the material is to be transferred to the operator of a facility where it will be processed for such agricultural use pursuant to a valid license issued by the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

As used in this chapter, “use in agriculture” means that a recyclable material (either in its existing state or in processed products) is applied to the land as a fertilizer, soil amendment, agricultural mineral, or an auxiliary soil and plant substance, or is used to produce a food for domestic livestock or wildlife.47

46 3 CCR Article 1. Sections 2301, 2302. 47 22 CCR Article 8.5. Requirements for Management of Recyclable Materials Used in Agriculture, Section

66266.115. Generator Requirements, (d) and (e).


3-24

Claims that this compost is a “fertilizer,” rather than perhaps a simple “soil amendment,” must be validated according to standards. Criteria dictating what may and may not be sold as a “fertilizing material” can be found in the Title 3 CCR Food and Agriculture Code, Division 7, Chapter 5, Fertilizing Materials.48

3.4.6 Summary

Various forms of in-vessel aerobic and anaerobic digestion or composting have been fully commercialized for some time with facilities especially prevalent in Europe. Operational data is therefore available, placing consideration of such systems in a clearer light than for more recently emerging MSW conversion technologies.

In addition to volume reduction and pathogen management, bioconversion technologies generate a fibrous material of undigested and partially digested organics. This material entrains varying amounts and types of the inorganic constituents passed through the treatment vessel, and is commonly referred to as “compost” by the vendors.

In existing European examples, compost quality appears to correlate well with the degree of care taken in feedstock selection to maximize the organic fraction amenable to digestion and minimize the presence of metals and other contaminants. In better examples, feedstock is “source-segregated” and/or positively sorted to ensure the quality and consistency of the products. An example is given below for a typical European set of regulations and the results obtained by a particular AD vendor. For comparison, the EPA Rule 503 compost standards are provided.

Pollutant Unit

US EPA 503 Rule, Monthly Average

Concentration Limits

VLACO (Belgian)

regulations

Typical European anaerobic compost derived

from biowaste (average) Arsenic mg/kg 41 NA NA Cadmium mg/kg 39 1.5 1.0 Copper mg/kg 1,500 90 32 Lead mg/kg 300 120 97 Mercury mg/kg 17 1.5 0.15 Nickel mg/kg 420 20 8 Selenium mg/kg 100 NA NA Zinc mg/kg 2,800 300 180 Chromium mg/kg NA 70 23 Impurities < 2 mm (% w/w) % by weight NA 2 1.0 Germinating seeds number /L NA 0 0

48 See: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/is/acrs/fertcode.htm.


3-25

For our purposes in California, ensuring the quality and consistency of compost is problematic. Existing compost regulations providing pollution limit guidance and performance standards are, in general, based upon conversion of sewage and other organic wastes, not upon application of such technology to mixed municipal solid waste. Further, statistically based quality control criteria (such as that of the USCC) stipulate the frequency of product sampling based upon volume, assuming relatively little variability in the material to be tested. CIWMB waste characterization studies have clearly shown that MSW is a variable material, changing throughout the year and from region to region. This inherent variability of MSW requires a sufficiently frequent monitoring process of sampling and lab analyses to accurately characterize the constantly shifting contaminant profile.

If feedstock under consideration for conversion is source-selected and/or positively sorted for appropriate materials and then pre-processed to ensure consistency and contaminant minimization, existing regulations and performance criteria might reasonably be considered sufficient for ensuring end-user “compost” product quality control. This is not the proposed case. Mixed MSW from which recyclables and compostable organics have been “source removed,” along with the other recyclable commodities, is the target feedstock.

Not all “compost” needs to be presented as a horticultural quality product. Vast amounts of low-quality organic-laden mulch is needed for mining lands reclamation, for which background levels of allowable metals can be much higher than anything contained in MSW digestate. The suppliers, however, understandably seek to characterize their compost product as a high quality, high value, and easily salable material. Increasing feedstock quality through source selection and pre-processing would increase product valorization, and will certainly be accompanied by increased cost.

An acceptable cost-to-benefit balance must be established between feedstock preparation and product quality. Given the many choices for pre-processing, the proper analytical characterization of nutritive and non-nutritive constituents and multiple markets might be available to differing grades of biological conversion compost.

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This task screened the list of technologies and list of suppliers described in Section 1.0 to include those technologies and suppliers that might meet the City’s objectives for an alternative MSW processing facility. The process concluded with a “short list” of technology suppliers who were sent a Request for Qualifications (RFQ).

This task consisted of the following steps:

• Develop technology screening criteria

• Generate a short list of alternative MSW processing technologies

• Perform a supplier survey

• Screen technology suppliers

• Generate a technology supplier short list

4.2 TECHNOLOGY SCREENING CRITERIA

As a first step, a set of technology screening criteria was developed to screen the list of technologies shown in Table 1-1. Starting with the objectives hierarchy in Figure 1-1, key screening issues are:

• Meet 200 ton/day capacity (throughput) requirement

• Consider technologies at the commercial or late-emerging stage

• Include technologies that can produce marketable byproducts

• Include technologies that are compatible with post-source separated MSW

No environmental or cost/revenue screening criteria were considered because these issues would require more detailed technical data than was available at this point in the study.

The following technology screening criteria were established:

• Waste Treatability: ability of the alternative MSW processing technology to efficiently treat the organic portion of the black container waste stream

• Conversion Performance: ability of the conversion technology to convert the organic portion of the post-source separated MSW stream into useful products

• Throughput Requirement: ability of the alternative processing technology to treat at least 200 tons/day of post-source separated MSW in 2008-2010


4-2

• Commercial Status: conversion technology that can be developed on a commercial scale within the project development period (2008-2010)

• Technology Capability: Can support the development of conversion technology at commercial scale and can demonstrate the conversion technology with MSW at a scale of at least 25 tons/day.

4.3 ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY SCREENING

Table 4-1 shows the list of sixteen out of the twenty alternative MSW processing technologies presented in Section 2-1. Drying, mechanical separation, size reduction, and steam processing/autoclaving are considered preprocessing technologies and therefore not considered for evaluation and screening. The sixteen processes are grouped into three technologies: thermal, biological/chemical, and physical.

TABLE 4-1 LIST OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

Waste Processing Technology Group Waste Processing Technology Thermal Technologies Advanced Thermal Recycling Pyrolysis Pyrolysis/Gasification Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming Conventional Gasification-Fluid Bed Conventional Gasification-Fixed Bed Plasma Arc Gasification Biological/Chemical Technologies Anaerobic Digestion Aerobic Digestion/Composting Ethanol Fermentation Syngas-to-Ethanol Biodiesel Thermal Depolymerization Catalytic Cracking Physical Technologies Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) Densification/Pelletization

The criteria described above were applied to each of these technologies to determine which would be carried forward in the study. Each technology was evaluated using all of the criteria in a fatal flaw, or pass/fail manner. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 4-2.


4-3

TABLE 4-2 ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION MATRIX

Technology Conv Perform

Waste Treatability

Capacity TPD

Com Status

Tech Capability Comments

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW and RDF. Pyrolysis Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW and many other feedstocks. Pyrolysis/Gasification Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW and many other feedstocks. Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW, RDF, and many other feedstocks. Conventional Gasification – Fluid Bed Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW, RDF, and many other feedstocks. Conventional Gasification – Fixed Bed Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW, RDF, and many other feedstocks. Plasma Arc Gasification Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Proven technology on industrial hazardous waste and for vitrification of

ash. Recently commercial for MSW. Biological/Chemical Anaerobic Digestion Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Well-established technology for MSW. Aerobic Digestion/Composting Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass One 30 tpd plant, much larger plants under construction. Ethanol Fermentation Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Well established for sugars and starches, not yet for MSW, although full

scale plants are planned. Syngas-to-ethanol Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Great potential and government interest, but only at pilot scale so far. Biodiesel Pass Fail Fail Pass Fail Well established for oily/fatty waste, but not MSW. Thermal Depolymerization Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Proven at small scale; 200 tpd plant built and in commissioning. Catalytic Cracking Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass One 260 tpd plant, but only suitable for plastic. Physical Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass RDF systems do not convert feedstock into a useful product, but only

change physical characteristics of MSW. Densification/Pelletization Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass RDF systems do not convert feedstock into a useful product, but only

change physical characteristics of MSW.


4-4

From Table 4-2, the following waste processing technologies failed the fatal flaw screen:

• Ethanol Fermentation

• Syngas-to-Ethanol

• Biodiesel

• Catalytic Cracking

• Refuse Derived Fuel

• Densification

The remaining ten technologies were brought forward:

1. Advanced Thermal Recycling

2. Pyrolysis

3. Pyrolysis/Gasification

4. Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming

5. Conventional Gasification – Fluid Bed

6. Conventional Gasification – Fixed Bed

7. Plasma Arc Gasification

8. Anaerobic Digestion

9. Aerobic Digestion/Composting

10. Thermal Depolymerization

4.4 WASTE SAMPLING PROGRAM

The composition of post-source separated MSW was needed for preparing a questionnaire for screening the technology suppliers and as part of the Request for Qualifications. The only available data was contained in a waste sampling study conducted by Cascadia for the City of Los Angeles in 2000. In order to provide updated information, the project team decided to conduct a one-day sampling program at the City-owned transfer station where post-source separated MSW from all waste sheds in the City of Los Angeles were delivered.

On August 3rd, 2004, URS conducted a waste sampling of post-source separated MSW at the Central Los Angeles Recycling and Transfer Station. Ten samples were taken (including at least one sample from each of the six waste sheds) and divided into seven specific waste categories. Figure 4-1 presents the percentages of composition for the different categories.


4-5

FIGURE 4-1 AVERAGE PERCENT COMPOSITION OF POST-SOURCE SEPARATED MSW

Glass3.4% Hazard. Waste

1.4%Construction6.6%

Metal9.6%

Plastic16.6%

Paper25.7%

Other Organic36.7%

The percentages compared closely with the 2000 Cascadia sampling, with slight variations in the Organics category that can be explained from samplings conducted during different seasons (i.e., waste may be drier in August than in February).

The complete waste sampling analysis is included as Appendix B to this report.

4.5 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SCREENING CRITERIA

In order to screen the technology suppliers, they were sent a brief survey based upon the technology screening criteria. The criteria were applied as follows:

• Waste Treatability: The supplier was screened on whether they have MSW or similar feedstock processing experience.

• Conversion Performance: The supplier was asked if their facility would produce marketable byproducts.

• Throughput Requirement: This criterion was already met because the technology passed the technology screen discussed in Section 4.2.

• Commercial Status: This criterion was already met because the technology passed the technology screen discussed in Section 4.2.


4-6

• Technology Capability: The supplier was asked if their technology had processed at least 25 tons/day of feedstock.

4.6 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SURVEY

The next step was to prepare a brief written survey questionnaire to qualify, or screen, waste processing technology suppliers listed in Appendix A. The purpose of this form was twofold:

• Determine interest in the City’s project to develop an alternative MSW processing facility

• Determine if the supplier has sufficient experience to respond adequately to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

The questions included in the survey form were as follows:

1. Has your firm developed a conversion technology at least on a demonstration scale designed to process 25-50 tons/day (TPD) and operated for a minimum of one year during which at least 5,000 tons of MSW or similar feedstock have been processed?

___Yes ___No

If yes, please provide:

Name of technology ___________________________________________

Location of facility ____________________________________________

Feedstock ___________________________________________________

Design throughput in tons/day ___________________________________

Specific 12-month timeframe when at least 5,000 tons of MSW or similar feedstock was processed ____________________________________________________

Tons actually processed during that 12-month time period _____________

2. Has your firm’s technology facility treated MSW at least in a batch process test at a rate of at least 25 TPD?

___Yes ___No

3. Does your technology produce marketable products and/or by-products?

___Yes ___No


4-7

If yes, please provide:

Name of primary marketable products and/or by-products: ______________

Finally, the characteristics of black bin post-source separated MSW were attached to the survey form to provide the suppliers with data about the nature of the waste to be treated. Table 4-3 shows the waste composition data provided to the suppliers.

4.7 SCREENED TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

Responses to the questionnaire were compiled and evaluated. Results were used to create a supplier “short list” of twenty-six suppliers who successfully answered the questions. Table 4-4 shows the suppliers whose responses met the criteria listed in the questionnaire, and indicated interest in receiving the RFQ.


4-8

TABLE 4-3 CHARACTERISTICS OF BLACK BIN CONTENTS, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 2004

Waste Category Percent of Individual

Waste Type Total Percentage Paper Cardboard 9.87% 2.54% Paper bags 1.87% 0.48% Newspaper 11.06% 2.85% Ledger/Office 3.90% 1.00% Magazines/Catalogs 11.57% 2.98% Miscellaneous paper 37.02% 9.52% Mix paper (non-recyclable) 24.70% 6.36%

Category Total 294.70 lbs 25.73% Glass Bottles/jars 99.48% 3.37% Other glass 0.52% 0.02%

Category Total 38.80 lbs 3.39% Metal Ferrous containers 5.35% 0.52% Aluminum beverage cans 1.99% 0.19% Other aluminum 4.35% 0.42% Other ferrous 34.54% 3.33% Other non-ferrous 5.35% 0.52% Electronics 48.41% 4.66%

Category Total 110.30 lbs 9.63% Plastic PET/PETE bottles/jars 9.83% 1.63% HDPE bottles 9.46% 1.57% Other misc. containers 6.05% 1.00% Film plastic 59.52% 9.88% Miscellaneous plastic 15.14% 2.51%

Category Total 190.20 lbs 16.60% Organic Materials Food waste 24.23% 8.89% Yard waste 10.59% 3.88% Branches/woody material 2.62% 0.96% Other wood 10.66% 3.91% Textiles 17.35% 6.36% Manure 0.83% 0.31% Other organics 33.71% 12.36%

Category Total 420.100 lbs 36.67%


4-9

TABLE 4-4 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SHORT LIST

Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Biological Aerobic composting Wright Environmental Management Inc. (Wright) Biological Aerobic composting American Bio-Tech Biological Aerobic composting Horstmann Recyclingtechnik GmbH Biological Anaerobic digestion Canada Composting, Inc. (CCI) Biological Anaerobic digestion Valorga S.A.S. (Valorga) Biological Anaerobic digestion Organic Waste Systems N.V. (OWS) Biological Anaerobic digestion ISKA GmbH Biological Anaerobic digestion Arrow Ecology Ltd. (Arrow) Biological Anaerobic digestion Citec Biological Anaerobic digestion Global Renewables/ISKA Thermal Thermal Changing World Technologies (CWT) Thermal Gasification Primenergy (RRA) Thermal Gasification Omnifuel /Downstream Systems (Omni) Thermal Gasification Whitten Group /Entech Renewable Energy System (Whitten) Thermal Gasification Energy Products of Idaho (EPI) Thermal Gasification Ebara Thermal Destructive Distillation Pan American Resources (PAR) Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Consutech Systems LLC Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc. (Seghers) Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. (WRSI) Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Basic Envirotech Inc. Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Covanta Energy Corp. (Covanta) Thermal Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming Brightstar Environmental Thermal Pyrolysis WasteGen Ltd. /TechTrade (WasteGen) Thermal Pyrolysis Taylor Recycling Facility, LLC /FERCO (Taylor) Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Interstate Waste Technologies/Thermoselect (IWT)

DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION

After the list of twenty-six suppliers was identified, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was prepared and sent to these suppliers. This section includes summary evaluations of each of the responses received from issuance of the RFQ.

5.2 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

The task described in Section 4.6 concluded with identification of twenty-six suppliers of thermal conversion, advanced thermal recycling, and biological conversion technologies. In order to perform a more detailed assessment of these technologies, and the specific proposals from the suppliers, additional information was required. An RFQ was composed and sent to the twenty-six suppliers.

The RFQ asked for a variety of information relating to:

• Description of several “reference facilities” to become familiar with the firm’s past accomplishments

• Description of a proposed facility for the City project, at 100,000 tons/year throughput

• More detailed information about each component of the facility: pre-processing unit, conversion, or combustion unit, syngas/biogas clean-up, and byproduct production (e.g., electricity)

• Cost and revenue projections (several assumptions were provided to keep submittals comparable)

• Site layouts and mass balance diagrams

A copy of the complete RFQ is included in Appendix F.

The following firms responded to the RFQ, and their submittals are summarized in Section 5.4 and discussed in detail in Appendix E:

• Thermal Technologies:

��Ebara

��Interstate Waste Technologies (IWT)

��Omnifuel (Omni)

��Primenergy/RRA

��Taylor Biomass Recovery


5-2

��WasteGen Ltd.

��Whitten Group

��Pan American Resources (PAR)

• Advanced Thermal Recycling Technologies:

��Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. (WRSI)

��Seghers-Keppel

��Covanta

• Biological Technologies:

��Arrow Ecology (Arrow)

��Organic Waste Systems (OWS)

��Valorga (WRS Inc.)

��Canadian Composting, Inc. (CCI)

��Wright Environmental

��Global Renewables

5.3 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCESS

5.3.1 Definitions and Assumptions

Team members familiar with each of the technologies took the lead in assessing the responses. They were asked to prepare a report for each submittal that addressed the following:

• Technology Description

• Byproducts Produced

• Environmental Issues

• Costs and Revenues

• Assessment Summary

An important part of each evaluation was an economic analysis to put all suppliers on the same basis so that costs and revenues could be compared. This was necessary because the submittals were quite different with regard to how costs were presented, and the level of detail provided.


5-3

For each response, three “bottom line” figures were presented in the reports: the tipping fee provided by the supplier (if provided); a calculated breakeven tipping fee; and a worst-case breakeven tipping fee.

The “breakeven” tipping fee is defined as the funds required, in dollars/ton of delivered material, required to balance the costs (annualized capital costs plus operating and maintenance costs) with revenues.

The “worst-case breakeven” tipping fee is calculated by assuming that the solid byproducts cannot be marketed, but can be transported for use as landfill cover material, at a net cost of $10/ton.

A number of assumptions were used in an attempt to “normalize” the information provided by the suppliers and facilitate comparison. The key assumptions are:

• Debt service is based upon 100% debt financing at an interest rate of 6% for twenty years.

• Electricity will be sold at $0.06/kWh.

• Unmarketable residues are landfilled at a cost of $40/ton.

• Bottom ash sold at $5/ton.

• Transportation cost for solid residue disposal at $10/ton.

• Solid byproducts (e.g., compost) are sold at $10/ton.

• Recyclables recovery rate from the delivered black bin refuse is 16%.

��Recovery of ferrous metals is 50% at a rate of $50/ton.

��Recovery of paper is 12% at a rate of $75/ton.

��Recovery of plastics is 2.5% at a rate of $100/ton.

• For recovery above 16%, the extra materials are assumed to be landfilled at $40/ton.

• For recovery below 16%, the shortfall is removed from the residue amount.

5.3.2 Uses for Digestate from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the process used for all but one of the biological conversion technologies evaluated in this study. AD produces a significant tonnage of solid residue (15 to 40% of the tonnage of MSW delivered to the facility), which is generally matured aerobically and marketed as compost. The method of disposal of this product can have a significant impact on the overall diversion of waste from the landfill. The available disposal


5-4

options and their impact are discussed below, and apply to each of the AD systems discussed in this section.

5.3.2.1 Land Application of Compost

This is the base case of AD respondents, and is the option used by most existing AD facilities. The focus is on producing marketable compost by removing troublesome components in pre- and post-processing. The resulting tonnage of compost is obviously fully diverted from the landfill. However, the pre-and post-processing create reject streams which are destined for the landfill. In general, the more thorough the processing, the greater those reject tonnages, but the greater the odds that the compost can be marketed and thus diverted. Two scenarios can be envisioned:

• Usually, the compost is sold for horticultural or agricultural application, generally via a broker; 100,000 TPY of post-source separated MSW would generate enough compost to treat 150 acres of land (at a compost application rate of 2 inches per year). This is the highest use of digestate from the standpoint of profitability and the recycling hierarchy.

• Esthetic issues or negative perceptions may make it impossible to market the compost. In that case, it can be used for reclaiming degraded soils (strip mining & quarry reclamation, etc.); 100,000 tons of post-source separated MSW would produce enough compost to reclaim 25 acres (assuming a one-time 1-foot application).

5.3.2.2 Landfill Options

Organic stabilization before landfilling will soon become mandatory in Europe, and AD is increasingly used for that purpose (De Baere 2004). In this case, the process is geared to landfilling all AD digestate. Pre- and post-processing are reduced to the minimum compatible with recyclables recovery and mechanical feasibility of AD, thereby saving considerably on complexity and costs. Some aerobic maturation is still needed, to achieve full organic stabilization and its advantages to the landfill. The resulting product may be unsightly, but it is organically stabilized, i.e., when landfilled, odor, vermin, litter, reheating, landfill gas production, settling, leachate COD/BOD, etc. would be reduced by roughly one order of magnitude compared to what happens when MSW is landfilled. The final product would also be denser than MSW, so the volume landfilled would be cut by two thirds compared to landfilling unprocessed MSW, thereby tripling landfill life. Two landfilling sub-options may be negotiated:

• Use the digestate as alternative daily cover (ADC); digestate is more voluminous than conventional ADCs like tarps or foam, but it is also refuse to be disposed, so in reality no landfill air space is lost to daily cover at all.


5-5

• Landfill it as refuse but get credit (i.e., a reduced tipping fee) for the landfill advantages listed above; essentially, digestate would be landfilled more like Construction and Demolition waste than MSW.

5.3.2.3 Thermal and Combustion Options

Digestate can be burned or gasified. Compared to MSW, dewatered digestate is pre-processed and size-reduced, homogeneous, and has a higher heating value. It would have much in common with RDF. Product appearance would not be a concern, high-energy components like plastics would actually be desirable, and no aerobic maturation would be necessary. So, pre- and post-processing would be simplified, facility costs would be reduced, and reject tonnage minimized. In fact, the overall landfill diversion from the facility may well be greater than for the compost options listed above, because reject streams would be minimized and the only part of the digestate that may have to be landfilled would be the ash and/or char. This option would also maximize energy recovery. The main thermal and combustion alternatives are:

• Use as feedstock for gasification or pyrolysis

• Use as feedstock for an advanced thermal recycling facility

MSW can be gasified or combusted without the added complication of AD. However, ton per ton, it is cheaper to destroy or convert solids via AD than via thermal or combustion methods (Legrand et al. 1989). Additionally, biogas is more marketable as a fuel than syngas because of its higher Btu content, thus providing an additional energy marketing option.

5.4 SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS

Responses received from the technology suppliers were evaluated on the basis of the following general issues:

• Supplier experience in terms of operating “reference plants”

• Pre-processing System (if applicable)

• Treatment Process

• Post-processing Systems

• Power Generation System (if applicable)

• Environmental Issues

• Byproducts Produced

• Cost and Revenue Evaluation


5-6

• Overall Assessment of the Submission

A summary of the submissions is shown in Tables 5-1 through 5-3. Additional analyses of these data are presented in Section 7.0 and Appendix E.

The cost and revenue data included in the tables were calculated based upon the assumptions described in Section 5.3.1. The complete evaluations for each supplier are included in Appendix E.


5-7

TABLE 5-1 THERMAL CONVERSION FACILITIES

Company Name Ebara Interstate Waste

Technologies (IWT) Omnifuel (Omni) Primenergy (RRA) Headquarters Tokyo, Japan Malvern, PA Citrus Heights, CA Stanton, CA Company

Biography Operating Plants (MSW/Other) 12 32 0/4 1/6 Type Fluid Bed Gasification Pyrolysis / Gasification Fluid Bed Gasification Fixed Bed Gasification Technology

Technical Description TwinRec (Twin Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed

Gasification) w/Ash Melting

Thermoselect High Temperature Gasification

Downstream Systems Hearst Gasifier

PRM Energy Gasification

Description Shredders Compaction, Degasing MRF makes RDF MRF makes RDF MSW Delivered (TPY) 100,000 100,000 / 370,000 100,000 360,000

Pre-Processing

Recovers Recyclables (Yes/No) No No Yes Yes Products Syngas Syngas Syngas Syngas

Residue (tons/yr) 11,365 (slag) 1,230 (metals)

15,000 (slag) 2,563 (metals)

2,600 (hot cyclone ash) 12,677 (rejects)

22,392 (bottom ash) 52,704 (rejects)

Diversion Rate 91% 99% / 99% 85% 85%

Post Processing / Byproducts

Worst Case Diversion Rate1 79% 81% / 81% 85% 77% Type Boiler / Steam Turbine Reciprocating Engine Boiler / Steam Turbine Boiler / Steam Turbine Quantity (net MW) 5.5 11 / 38 4.4 15 Efficiency (kWh/ton) 376 838 / 875 459 600

Fuel Production Power Generation

Stack/Building/Tank Height (feet) N/A < 503 2003 100 Capital Costs ($/ton) 730 900 / 700 157 137 Annual O&M ($millions) 8.6 10.0 / 20.3 2.6 5.1 Electricity Revenues ($million) 2.3 5.0 / 19.9 1.6 7.8 Recoverable Revenues ($million) 0.12 0.55 / 1.6 1.3 4.6 Total Revenues ($millions) 2.4 5.6 / 21.5 2.9 12.4

Evaluated Economics

Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee ($/ton) 128 119 / 40 40 20

1 Calculated by normalizing recyclables to 16,500 tons/year and assuming all residuals, compost, or RDF is landfilled. 2 5 additional plants in development 3 Assumed.


TABLE 5-1 (CONTINUED)

THERMAL CONVERSION FACILITIES

5-8

Company Name Taylor Recycling WasteGen Whitten Pan American Resources

(PAR) Headquarters Montgomery, NY Stroud, Glos. UK Longview, WA Pleasanton, CA Company

Biography Operating Plants(MSW/Other) 0/5 2 5/41 0/5

Type Circulating Fluid Bed Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis Fixed Bed Gasification Pyrolysis Technology

Technical Description FERCO Silva Gas Tech Trade Pyrolysis Entech Renewable Energy

System Lantz Converter

Description MRF makes RDF Shredder N/A Sorting,Shredding,Drying MSW Delivered (TPY) 195,750 100,000 100,000 / 400,000 182,500

Pre-Processing

Recovers Recyclables (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Yes Products Syngas Syngas Syngas Syngas

Residue (TPY) 11,745 (hot cyclone ash) 20,000 (bottom ash)

2,241 (inerts) 4,195 (bottom ash)

5,801 (inerts) 38,143 (char, ash)

8,651 (rejects) Diversion Rate (%) 99% 99% 98% / 98% 74%

Post Processing Byproducts

Worst Case Diversion Rate (%)1 87% 79% 89% / 89% 74% Type Boiler / Steam Turbine Boiler / Steam Turbine Boiler / Steam Turbine Boiler / Steam Turbine Quantity (net MW) 12 9 7 / 28 6.5 Efficiency (kWh/ton) 728 675 686 / 725 463


Stack/Building/Tank Height (feet) 110 195 752 33 Capital Costs ($/ton) 547 606 560 / 450 163 Annual O&M ($millions) 14.3 4. 6 3.1 / N/A 2.4 Electricity Revenues ($millions) 5.1 4.1 3.4 / N/A 3.4 Recoverable Revenues ($million) 2.5 0.16 1.3 / N/A 0.20 Total Revenues ($millions) 9.6 4.2 4.6 / 19.2 3.6

Evaluated Economics

Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee ($/ton) 67 55 44 / 38 16

1 Calculated by normalizing recyclables to 16,500 tons/year and assuming all residuals, compost, or RDF is landfilled. 2 Assumed.


5-9

TABLE 5-2 ADVANCED THERMAL CONVERSION FACILITIES

Company Name Covanta Waste Recovery Seattle Inc.

(WRSI) Seghers Keppel Headquarters Fairfield, NJ Newcastle, WA Marietta, GA Company

Biography Operating Plants(MSW) 25 1 12 Type Thermal Recycling Thermal Recycling Thermal Recycling Technology

Technical Description Martin GmbH Rugenberger Damm GmbH DANOdrum /

Water-cooled Grate

Description None None Sorting and Magnetic Eddy Current,

DANOdrum MSW Delivered (TPY) 329,000 380,000 368,000

Pre-Processing

Recovers Recyclables (Yes/No) No No Yes

Products Metals, Electricity Bottom Ash, HCl,

Gypsum, Electricity Bottom Ash, Boiler Ash,

Flue Gas Residue, Electricity Combustion Residual (TPY) N/A 76,000 (bottom ash) N/A Diversion Rate (%) 80% 98% 92%

Combustion Unit / Byproducts

Worst Case Diversion Rate (%)1 80% 78% 43% Type Steam Turbine Steam Turbine Steam Turbine Quantity (net MW) 23 25 19 Efficiency (kWh/ton) 550 521 647


Stack/Building/Tank Height (feet) 275 250 2502

Capital Costs ($/ton) N/A 474 486 Annual O&M ($millions) 10.0 14.7 15.0 Electricity Revenues ($millions) 10.9 11.9 10.6 Recoverable Revenues ($millions) 0.8 2.1 1.7 Total Revenues ($millions) 11.7 14.0 12.3

Evaluated Economics

Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee ($/ton) 56 59 64 1 Calculated by normalizing recyclables to 16,500 tons/year and assuming all residuals, compost, or RDF is landfilled. 2 Assumed.


5-10

TABLE 5-3 BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION FACILITIES

Company Name Arrow Ecology

Canada Composting

(CCI) Global

Renewables Organic Waste Systems (OWS)

Wright Environmental

(RDF only)

Waste Recovery Systems Inc.

(Valorga)

Headquarters Wheeling, WV Newmarket, ON, Canada

Perth, Australia Gent, Belgium Richmond Hill, ON, Canada

Monarch Beach, CA

Company Biography

Operating Plants (MSW/Other) 1 3/23 1 4/5 2/4 6/5

Type Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic Digestion

Aerobic Composting (Biodryer)

Anaerobic Digestion

Technology

Technical Description The ArrowBio Process

BTA Process ISKA, SCT DRANCO In-Vessel Valorga

Description Separation, Bag

Breaking, Trommel

Sorting, Trommel, BTA pulper, Degritting

Mechanical separation

Separation, Hammer Mill

Sorting, Trommel, Shredding

Bag Breaking, Shredding, Sieve

MSW Delivered (TPY) 100,000 100,000 / 300,000 100,000 100,000 / 300,000 100,000 100,000 / 300,000

Pre-Processing

Recovers Recyclables (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Products Biogas Biogas Biogas Biogas RDF Biogas

Compost (TPY) based on 100K MSW throughput 23,000 22,000 21,000 40,000 44,000 20,000

Residue (TPY) based on 100K MSW throughput

19,000 26,000 16,000 39,000 21,000 21,000

Diversion Rate 81% 74% / 74% 84% 61% / 61% 78% 79% / 79%

Post Processing / Byproducts

Worst Case Diversion Rate1 59% 64% / 64% N/A 33% / 33% 42% 55% / 55%

Type Reciprocating Engine

Reciprocating Engine



RDF Pelletized Fuel Reciprocating

Engine

Quantity (net MW) 2.6 0.9 / 1.33 0.9 1.4 / 4.1 5.4 1.5 / 4.6

Efficiency (kWh/ton) 268 155 / 155 N/A 116 / 116 N/A 138 / 138


Stack/Building/Tank Height (feet) 502 70 26 65 < 502 96


TABLE 5-3 (CONTINUED) BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION FACILITIES

5-11

Company Name Arrow Ecology

Canada Composting

(CCI) Global

Renewables Organic Waste Systems (OWS)

Wright Environmental

(RDF only)

Waste Recovery Systems Inc.

(Valorga) Capital Costs ($/ton) 270 550 / 275 N/A 401 / 294 313 334 / 217

Annual O&M ($millions) 1.2 7.05 / N/A N/A 4.8 / N/A 3.57 3.02 / N/A

Electricity Revenues ($millions) 1.4 0.61 / N/A N/A 0.73 / N/A N/A 0.81 / N/A

Recoverable Revenues ($millions) 1.3 1.3 / N/A N/A 1.25 / N/A 1.25 1.3 / N/A

Total Revenues ($millions) 2.8 2.1 / 6 N/A 2.4 / 7.2 2.8 2.3 / 6.6

Evaluated Economics

Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee ($/ton) 19 97 / 61 N/A 62 / 45 51 42 / 23

1 Calculated by normalizing recyclables to 16,500 tons/year and assuming all residuals, compost, or RDF is landfilled. 2 Assumed.

SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION

An important part of this study is identifying, quantifying, and evaluating the life cycle environmental benefits (and burdens) associated with including alternative waste disposal technologies in the City’s integrated solid waste management system. This allows the City of Los Angeles to more accurately compare these new technologies to existing solid waste management practices.

RTI International (RTI) was engaged to conduct a life cycle analysis of alternative waste disposal technologies and more traditional solid waste management options available for the City of Los Angeles. This study focuses on the management of 1,000,000 tons per year (TPY) of the city’s post-source separated MSW, which is currently being sent to a landfill for disposal.

6.2 INTRODUCTION TO LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

A Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a type of systems analysis that accounts for the overall upstream and downstream (cradle-to-grave) energy and environmental impacts associated with industrial systems. The technique examines the inputs and outputs from every stage of the life cycle – from the extraction of raw materials, through manufacturing, distribution, use/reuse, and then final disposal. In the context of an integrated waste management system, an LCA tracks the energy and environmental burdens associated with all stages of waste management, including waste collection, transfer, materials recovery, treatment, and final disposal. For each waste management stage, or operation, energy/material inputs and emissions and energy/material outputs are calculated as depicted in Figure 6-1. The energy and emissions associated with fuels, electrical energy, and material inputs also are captured. Similarly, the potential benefits of the process associated with energy and/or materials recovery displacing (avoiding) energy and/or materials production from virgin resources are captured.

As an example, one stage of the waste management process is waste collection, which will contribute to NOx emissions through the combustion of diesel fuel by the collection vehicles. The City of Los Angeles curbside collection trucks are fueled with liquid natural gas and low sulfur diesel at a ratio of 80 to 20, respectively. The collection model calculates the quantity of fuel consumed based upon the amount of waste generated, number of households, travel distances, and vehicle fuel efficiency. In addition, the model accounts for “upstream” fuel-related NOx emissions associated with petroleum extraction and diesel fuel production, as well as maintenance garage and office activities.

Waste collection is just one waste management operation. If the landfilling scenario is considered, the NOx emissions from all of the stages in the life cycle are calculated by summing the life cycle NOx emissions from waste collection, transfer station, transportation,


6-2

FIGURE 6-1 LIFE CYCLE INPUTS AND OUTPUTS OF A

WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Waste Management Process (e.g., WTE)

Solid Waste

Energy (power/steam)

Energy Materials

Air Emissions

Water Pollution

Residual Wastes

Waste Management Process

Solid Waste

Energy (power/steam)

Energy Materials

Air Emissions

Water Pollution

Residual Wastes

Recovered Materials (for recycling)

All waste management processes that comprise an integrated waste management system consume energy and materials and produce emissions. Some processes, such as advanced thermal recycling,, recover energy and materials. The benefits associated with any energy or materials recovered are captured in the life cycle study.

and landfill, as shown in Figure 6-2. The NOx emission offsets (i.e., avoided emissions) from energy recovery at the landfill are subtracted from this value to obtain the net total life cycle NOx emissions for the landfill scenario.

FIGURE 6-2 CALCULATION OF TOTAL LIFE CYCLE NOx EMISSIONS FOR A

LANDFILL-BASED WASTE MANAGEMENT SCENARIO

Total Net Life Cycle

NOx Emissions = Collection

NOx Emissions Transfer Station NOx Emissions

Landfill NOx Emissions

Utility Sector NOx Emissions

Offset Transportation NOx Emissions + - + +

Total Net Life Cycle

NOx Emissions = Collection

NOx Emissions Transfer Station NOx Emissions

Landfill NOx Emissions

Utility Sector NOx Emissions

Offset Transportation NOx Emissions + - + +

The MSW decision support tool (MSW DST) is a computer-based model used by RTI to complete the life cycle inventory for the alternative waste disposal technologies and traditional MSW management options for the City of Los Angeles. This model was developed by RTI over a period of ten years, in cooperation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Research and Development. The MSW DST has undergone extensive stakeholder input and peer review (as well as a separate


6-3

peer review by the USEPA) and is regarded as a cutting-edge software tool that can help solid waste planners make more informed decisions. The MSW DST was used as the foundation of a conversion technologies life cycle study recently completed for the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).

The data and results generated from the LCA are used to evaluate the life cycle environmental benefits, burdens, and tradeoffs of alternative waste disposal technologies versus more traditional MSW management options, with the overall goal of identifying strategies that are environmentally sustainable. In this respect, an LCA can be a valuable tool to ensure that a given technology creates actual environmental improvements rather than just transferring environmental burdens from one life cycle stage to another or from one environmental medium to another. This study is also useful for screening waste management strategies to identify the key drivers behind their environmental performance.

6.3 THE CIWMB CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY LIFE CYCLE STUDY

RTI recently completed a study for the CIWMB to analyze the potential life cycle environmental and market impacts of advanced thermal recycling facilities and MSW conversion technologies for the Los Angeles and San Francisco regions. These impacts were then compared to traditional waste management methods, including landfilling, composting and recycling.

The life cycle study focused on the issues that demonstrate greatest differentiation between advanced thermal recycling or conversion technologies, and existing traditional solid waste management processes. These issues were:

• Energy Consumption. Energy is consumed by all waste management activities (e.g., collection, material recovery facilities [MRFs], transportation, treatment, disposal), as well as by the processes to produce energy and material inputs that are included in the life cycle inventory. Energy offsets can result from the production of fuels or electrical energy and from the recycling of materials

• NOx Emissions. NOx emissions, a criteria pollutant, are largely the result of fuel combustion processes. NOx emission offsets can result from the displacement of combustion activities, mainly fuels and electrical energy production

• SOx Emissions. SOx emissions also a criteria pollutant, are largely the result of fuel combustion processes. Likewise, SOx emission offsets can result from the displacement of combustion activities, mainly fuels and electrical energy production, as well as the use of lower sulfur-containing fuels.

• Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which is the largest source of CO; other sources include industrial processes, and power production. CO contributes to the formation of smog.


6-4

• Carbon Emissions. Carbon emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect; thus, these emissions can lead to climate change and its associated impacts. Carbon emissions can result from the combustion of fossil fuels and the biodegradation of organic materials (for example, methane gas from landfills). Offsets of carbon emissions can result from the displacement of fossil fuels, materials recycling, and the diversion of organic wastes from landfills.

The report concluded that the main advantage that thermal technologies have over landfilling is the reduction of material that is landfilled. Rather, this material is converted into a product that has a higher and better use such as electricity or alternative fuels. Another advantage is the reduction of post-closure landfill maintenance and long-term liability, since the landfilled residues would be inert.

The life cycle studies performed by RTI for the CIWMB formed the basis for the life cycle inventory presented in the following section.

It is important to point out that this life cycle analysis is based upon generalized technology concepts, and is not definitive with regard to a specific technology design evaluated in this study. The purpose of this LCA is to illuminate significant differences between existing waste management processes, such as landfilling, with alternative MSW processing technologies, including thermal and biological.

6.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

For this study, life cycle environmental profiles were developed for four alternative integrated MSW management scenarios for the current black bin post-source separated MSW in Los Angeles:

1) Collection, transfer, and disposal in a conventional landfill, with landfill gas collection for the generation of electricity

2) Collection and transfer of the post-source separated MSW to and combustion in a thermal recycling facility to generate electricity with recovery of metals from the bottom ash and disposal of the bottom ash in a landfill

3) Collection and transfer of the post-source separated MSW to an alternative waste disposal facility, with gasification of the carbonaceous waste constituents and recovery of metal and glass and disposal of residuals in a conventional landfill

4) Collection and transfer of the post-source separated MSW to an alternative waste disposal facility, with anaerobic digestion of the biodegradable wastes, and recovery of metal and glass with disposal of residuals in a landfill


6-5

The analysis was conducted using RTI’s MSW DST. Additional information about the MSW DST is provided in Appendix D.

The following basic assumptions were applied to the three scenarios evaluated:

• 1,000,000 tons of solid waste per year is managed under each scenario considered.

• The waste composition of the post-source separated MSW is based on characterization data as supplied by URS from Cascadia (see Table 6-1). This annual data was judged to be more applicable to the life cycle inventory than the August 2004 sampling conducted in this study. At any rate, these databases are quite similar.

6.4.1 Scenario Development

Additional details regarding each scenario are provided in the following sections.

6.4.1.1 Scenario 1 – Waste Disposal in a Landfill

This scenario models a truck transfer to landfill scenario and is illustrated in Figure 6-3. Assumptions related to this scenario are as follows:

• Fifty percent of waste is hauled directly to the landfill.

• Fifty percent of waste is hauled to transfer station and then to the landfill via transfer trailer truck.

• The average distance from the collection truck route to the transfer station is 10 miles.

• Transfer trailer truck haul distance from the transfer station to the landfill is 25 miles.

• Landfill is a Subtitle D landfill with a liner system and gas collection system with electricity generation via internal combustion engines.

6.4.1.2 Scenario 2 – Advanced Thermal Recycling (ATR)

This scenario models an advanced thermal recycling facility located in the City of Los Angeles and is illustrated in Figure 6-4. We assumed that this facility is a new, efficient and equipped with advanced emission controls, capable of generating electrical power for sale.

The process for advanced thermal recycling is shown in Figure 6-5. The advanced thermal recycling facility would have three processing trains, each equipped with air emission control equipment that would include selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), spray dry absorbers with fabric filters (SDA/FF), and carbon injection. The electricity generated by this facility is assumed to offset the average mix in fuels used for electrical energy production based on the Western States Coordinating Council power grid: 41% coal, 0.5% oil, 15% natural gas, 12.5% nuclear, 30% hydro, and 1% wood.


6-6

TABLE 6-1 LOS ANGELES WASTE COMPOSITION

Greater Los Angeles Area Percent Composition Total Paper 22.70% Cardboard 2.30% Paper bags 1.00% Newspaper 4.40% Office paper 0.50% Ledger paper 0.70% Magazines and catalogs 1.30% Miscellaneous paper 5.00% Remainder (mix) 7.40% Total Glass 2.10% Clear bottles 1.10% Green bottles 0.40% Brown bottles 0.40% Other glass 0.20% Total Metal 4.80% Ferrous containers 1.40% Other ferrous 1.10% Aluminum cans 0.20% Other aluminum 0.42% Other non-ferrous 0.20% Electronics/remainder 1.80% Total Plastics 10.00% HDPE containers 0.70% PETE containers 0.60% Miscellaneous plastic containers 0.60% Film plastic 4.50% Durable plastic 1.10% Remainder 2.60% Total Organic 46.70% Food 26.90% Grass/leaves 5.20% Trimmings 2.80% Branches 0.40% Textiles 2.80% Remainder/composite organic 8.60% Total Construction and Demolition 9.40% Concrete 1.10% Lumber 3.50% Gypsum board 0.60% Rock, soil, and fines 2.70% Remainder 1.20%


TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED) LOS ANGELES WASTE COMPOSITION

6-7

Greater Los Angeles Area Percent Composition Total Household Hazardous 0.30% Used oil 0.10% Batteries 0.10% Remainder 0.10% Total Special Waste 0.50% Ash 0.10% Bulky items 0.30% Remainder 0.10% Total Mixed Residue 3.50% Mixed residue 3.50% Total 100.00%

FIGURE 6-3 LANDFILL SCENARIO ILLUSTRATION

Black-BinCollection

Truck TransferStation Landfill

50% Direct Haul

50%Black-BinCollection

Truck TransferStation LandfillBlack-Bin

CollectionTruck Transfer

Station Landfill

50% Direct Haul

50%

FIGURE 6-4 ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING SCENARIO ILLUSTRATION

Black - Bin Collection

Transfer Station

WTE Combustion

Metals Recycling

50%

50% Direct Haul

Ash Landfill


Transfer Station

ATR Combustion

Metals Recycling

50%

50% Direct Haul

Ash Landfill

The process flow diagram shows only major process areas; for simplification, not all internal process streams are shown.


6-8

FIGURE 6-5 ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING PROCESS DIAGRAM

Black-b inW aste

M eta ls R ecovery from Ash

T ipping F loor/

H o ld ingArea

E lec tricalE nergy

Produc tion

Steam G enerato r

B ankC om bustion

C ham ber

M eta lsto

R ecyc ling

AshD isposa l/

R euse

FeedH opper

B aghouseF ilter

S crubber R eacto r

Bo ile r

C h im neyStack

Steam

F lue G as

Hea t

F ilte r C akeD isposa l

B lack-b inW aste

M eta ls R ecovery from Ash

T ipping F loor/

H o ld ingArea

E lec tricalE nergy

Produc tion

Steam G enerato r

B ankC om bustion

C ham ber

M eta lsto

R ecyc ling

AshD isposa l/

R euse

FeedH opper

B aghouseF ilter

S crubber R eacto r

Bo ile r

C h im neyStack

Steam

F lue G as

Hea t

F ilte r C akeD isposa l


We also assumed that the facility would be equipped with post-combustion ferrous and non-ferrous metal recovery systems for recycling purposes. Using a magnet, the ferrous metal recovery rate from the combustion ash was assumed to be 90%. The facility would separate fly ash and bottom ash, and reuse the bottom ash.

Collection and transportation assumptions were as follows:

• Fifty percent of waste hauled directly to the advanced thermal recycling facility

• Fifty percent of waste hauled to transfer station and then to advanced thermal recycling facility via transfer trailer truck

• Twenty-five miles one-way for ash hauled from the advanced thermal recycling facility to a landfill

• Twenty-five miles one-way for waste hauled by transfer truck from Transfer Station to the advanced thermal recycling facility

• Ten miles one-way by packer truck from collection route to Transfer Station

The assumptions listed above are reasonable approximations. If these assumptions were to vary significantly, but still be within the expected range of possibility, the effect on the


6-9

overall modeled results would be minor. The same is also true for the other modeled scenarios described below.

6.4.1.3 Scenario 3 – Waste Conversion via Pyrolysis/Gasification

This scenario models a waste conversion system using a pyrolysis/gasification technology (Brightstar Environmental process) as illustrated in Figure 6-6. In gasification, the feedstock is converted to syngas, primarily CO and H2, in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. Gasification is compatible with the organic fraction (e.g., yard wastes, wood wastes) and plastic fraction of the MSW feedstock. Metal, glass, and other recyclables are typically removed in the pre-processing subsystem. Electricity produced by the facility can be readily integrated into the power grid.

FIGURE 6-6 PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION SCENARIO ILLUSTRATION


Transfer Station

WTE Combustion

Metals Recycling

50%

50% Direct Haul

Ash Landfill


Transfer Station

Gasification

Metals & Glass

Recycling

50%

50% Direct Haul

Ash Landfill


The detailed process for waste gasification is illustrated in Figure 6-7 and described in the following section.

Following pre-processing, the feedstock is sent to the main gasification area, where the feedstock is heated, pyrolyzed, and reformed into syngas, bio-oils, and char. The char is recovered from the other products via a cyclone, cooled with a water quench, and sent off-site for disposal. The syngas and bio-oils are scrubbed and cooled to recover bio-oil. Heavy bio-oils and some of the syngas are combusted to provide the indirect heat needed for pyrolysis. The majority of the syngas and the light bio-oils are combusted in reciprocating engines to generate electricity. Waste heat from the engines is converted to steam and hot water for use in the process and for export to MSW processing. The engine exhaust will be subject to air emission controls. At a minimum, CO, NOx, and VOC controls will likely be required. For large facilities (for example, greater than 2 MW) such as the one proposed, a combination oxidation catalyst and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is used.


6-10

FIGURE 6-7 PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

Processed Waste

Gasifier / Reformer

Centrifuge

Water Cooler/ Treatment Cyclone Gas

Scrubber

De - Emulsifier

Air Pollution Control

Engine/ Generator

Set Waste Heat Recovery

Gas Cooler

Mix Tank

Processed Waste

Gasifier / Reformer

Centrifuge

Water Cooler/ Treatment Cyclone Gas

Scrubber

De - Emulsifier

Air Pollution Control

Engine/ Generator

Set Waste Heat Recovery

Gas Cooler

Mix Tank


Process inputs are composed of MSW, combustion air, water, ammonia, and catalysts. Electricity, wastewater, spent catalysts, char/bottom ash mixture, emulsified bio-oil, and combustion emissions are the process outputs.

Gasification produces air emissions (for example, NOx) from the engines and the pyrolysis burners. However, all emissions are expected to be controlled with SCR and oxidation catalysts. Air toxics such as metals and dioxins are expected to be minimal.

Table 6-2 provides a summary of the key assumptions used in the gasification, advanced thermal recycling and landfill scenarios.

6.4.1.4 Scenario 4 – Bioconversion

This scenario models a waste conversion system using an anaerobic digestion technology, as illustrated in Figure 6-8. Anaerobic digestion is a biological treatment process by which organic wastes are fermented in anaerobic conditions to produce biogas and a stable compost.

A generic design for a MSW anaerobic digestion facility is shown in Figure 6-9. For an anaerobic digestion facility accepting MSW, the facility will need to include preprocessing of the incoming MSW to remove non-degradable recyclables such as metal, glass, and plastic as well as non-degradable non-recyclable materials (e.g., concrete, dirt, rock, non-recyclable scrap). Some facilities also recover high-grade paper for recycling. For purposes of this analysis, we assume that the anaerobic digestion facility recovers metals (ferrous and aluminum), glass, and plastic for recycling. All paper wastes are assumed to be throughput to the digester.


6-11

TABLE 6-2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN GASIFICATION,

ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING, & LANDFILL SCENARIOS

Parameter Assumption General Waste Generation 1,000,000 tons/year Waste Composition Los Angeles – post recovery1

Waste Collection Frequency 1 time per week Transportation Distances Collection to Transfer Station 10 miles one way Transfer Station to Landfill 25 miles one way Transfer Station to WTE Facility 25 miles one way Transfer Station to CT Facility 25 miles one way WTE Facility to Ash Landfill 25 miles one way CT Facility to Landfill 25 miles one way Gasification Facility Basic design Pyrolysis w/steam reforming; 360,000 tons/year capacity; 16 MW net output Glass recycling rate 50% Metal recycling rate 70% Process contamination rate 5% (percent of glass and metal that pass through) Product Syngas Energy recovery system Internal combustion engines Advanced Thermal Recycling Basic Design Advanced thermal recycling Heat Rate 15,000 Btu/kWh Waste Input Heating Value Varies by waste constituent Metals Recovery Rate 90% ferrous from ash Utility Sector Offset Offset is based on the average Western States Coordinating Council grid mix Landfill Basic Design Subtitle D with liner Time Period for Calculating Emissions 100 years Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency 75% Landfill Gas Management Gas collection and energy recovery using internal combustion engines Utility Sector Offset Offset is based on the average Western States Coordinating Council grid mix

1 From Cascadia.


6-12

FIGURE 6-8 WASTE CONVERSION (ANAEROBIC DIGESTION) SCENARIO

Black-BinCollection

TransferStation

AnaerobicDigestion

Materials Recycling

50%

50% Direct Haul

Landfill

Product

Black-BinCollection

TransferStation

AnaerobicDigestion

Materials Recycling

50%

50% Direct Haul

Landfill

Product

FIGURE 6-9 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

Black-binW aste

Materials Recovery

Organics Separation

InorganicsProcessing

Power/HeatRecovery

Screw Press

Engine/Generator

Set

AnaerobicDigester

LiquidsBuffer Tank

SolidsFinishing Compost

ResidualsDisposal

W astewaterTreatment

Nutrient Recovery

Black-binW aste

Materials Recovery

Organics Separation


Power/HeatRecovery

Screw Press

Engine/Generator

Set

AnaerobicDigester

LiquidsBuffer Tank


ResidualsDisposal


Nutrient Recovery

Black-binW aste

Materials Recovery

Organics Separation


Power/HeatRecovery

Screw Press

Engine/Generator

Set

AnaerobicDigester

LiquidsBuffer Tank


ResidualsDisposal


Nutrient Recovery


6-13

After the preprocessing stage, the organic fraction is sent to the anaerobic digestion tank where anaerobic microorganisms convert the organic materials into biogas. The biogas produced is high in methane content (55-65%) and is used to power internal combustion engines to produce electrical energy. A range of 20-50% of the electrical energy is used for internal power requirements and the remaining 50-80% is exported to the regional electrical energy grid. The portion of the organic materials not converted to biogas is recovered, dewatered, and can be sold as a compost product or for soil amendment. The liquid portion has a high nutrient content and can be reused in the process, applied to soil as a fertilizer, or treated and released to the sewer. For this analysis, it was assumed that the liquid process waste is reused and any remaining portion treated and released to the sewer.

The integrated waste management system design for the anaerobic digestion scenario is illustrated in Figure 6-8. In the anaerobic digestion scenario, 1,000,000 TPY of post-source separated MSW is collected and it is assumed that half of the waste is direct-hauled to the anaerobic digestion facility and half first is routed through a transfer station.

As the waste arrives at the anaerobic digestion facility, it is processed to remove inorganic and other unwanted materials. It is assumed that 5% (by mass) of the incoming MSW is recovered for recycling, 25% is unwanted and/or non-recyclable material that is disposed of in a landfill, and the remaining 70% is usable organic waste for input into the anaerobic digestion process.

The products of the anaerobic digestion process include biogas, a solid compost fraction, and a nutrient rich liquid fraction. It is assumed that the biogas is used to power internal combustion engine generators to produce electrical energy. It is assumed that the solid compost fraction is applied to the land as a soil amendment (but does not offset the use of fertilizers or other amendments), and assumed that the liquid waste is recirculated into the process.

Table 6-3 contains a summary of the key assumptions used in the anaerobic digestion scenario.

6.4.2 Results

The summary level results for each scenario analyzed are shown in Table 6-4. These results are presented as net life cycle totals for each scenario. Therefore, a positive value represents a net life cycle burden, whereas a negative value represents a net life cycle benefit, savings or avoidance. For example, a negative value for energy consumption in the advanced thermal recycling, anaerobic digestion, and conversion technology scenarios means that more energy is generated than consumed, Significant energy offsets are also created through the recovery and recycling of metals. Detailed results by scenario are included in Appendix D of this report.


6-14

TABLE 6-3 KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN AD SCENARIO

Parameter Data/Assumption Anaerobic Digestion Facility Basic design High-solids; single stage Incoming BB waste composition See Table 6-2 Incoming BB waste tonnage (wet) 1,000,000 TPY Incoming BB waste recovered for recycling 5% Incoming BB waste as rejects landfilled 25% Incoming BB waste as AD throughput 70% Total Solids 70% of wet mass (based on composition)

BVS Conversion Efficiency 75% of BVS Products Biogas; compost; liquid nutrients Energy Recovery System ICE generator set (33% conversion efficiency) Material Recovery Rates 75% of incoming glass and plastic; 90% of

incoming ferrous and aluminum. Internal power load 30% of power produced Exported power 70% of power produced Transportation Distances From collection route to AD facility 15 miles From collection route to transfer station 10 miles From transfer station to AD facility 25 miles From AD facility to landfill 25 miles From AD facility to materials remanufacturing Varies by material

TABLE 6-4

SUMMARY LEVEL RESULTS FOR THE SCENARIOS ANALYZED FOR LOS ANGELES (PER 1,000,000 TONS OF WASTE MANAGED)

Parameter Units Landfill ATR Gasification AD Energy Consumption MBTU 168,879 -7,979,688 -10,618,761 -4,698,885

Air Emissions

Total Particulate Matter lb -7,576 -676,023 -1,440,538 -717,400 Nitrogen Oxides lb 1,063,535 -139,325 -2,487,030 156,285 Sulfur Oxides lb -1,721,492 -4,219,963 -7,291,912 -2,298,109 Carbon Monoxide lb 2,441,973 126,226 -3,575,318 -379,452 Green House Equivalents MTCE 752,701 -18,279 -78,601 -41,945


6-15

6.4.2.1 Net Energy Consumption

Energy, in the form of fuels and electricity, is directly consumed by all waste management activities (e.g., collection, transportation, treatment, disposal). Energy is also indirectly consumed in the production of energy and material inputs that are used by waste management activities. Both direct and indirect consumption of energy are included in the study.

The table below is the same from the first draft, except this time all the information is not shown.

Energy is also produced by many waste management activities (e.g., advanced thermal recycling, landfill gas-to-energy, anaerobic digestion, gasification). If the energy produced by a waste management system is greater than the direct and indirect energy consumed, then there is a net energy offset or savings. The benefit of this offset is that emissions associated with fossil fuel extraction, processing, transportation and combustion are avoided. Energy is an important parameter in life cycle studies, because it often drives the results of the study due to the significant amounts of air and water emissions associated with energy production.

As shown in Figure 6-10, the advanced thermal recycling and gasification scenarios for the City of Los Angeles result in large net energy savings. Anaerobic digestion also creates some energy savings, although only about half the savings from the thermal technologies.

FIGURE 6-10 ANNUAL NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SCENARIO

-12,000,000

-10,000,000

-8,000,000

-6,000,000

-4,000,000

-2,000,000

0

2,000,000

Net

Ene

rgy

Con

sum

ptio

n (M

Btu

)

ATR Landfill Gasification AD


6-16

The net energy savings attributed to the advanced thermal recycling and gasification scenarios can be summarized as resulting from two key aspects:

• Electrical energy produced by combusting the MSW (ATR), or syngas (gasification) offsets electrical energy produced in the utility sector.

• Materials recovered (primarily metal and glass) from the advanced thermal recycling and gasification offset the extraction of virgin resources and production of virgin materials.

The anaerobic digestion scenario also resulted in a net energy savings. This energy savings is due to two primary aspects:

• Biogas production and utilization to produce electrical energy that is exported to the electrical energy grid and offsets the production of electrical energy by the utility sector.

• Recovery and recycling of glass, metals, and plastic, which offsets the production of glass, metals, and plastic from virgin resources thus saving energy. This aspect contributes almost 99% of the total life cycle energy savings.

The landfill with landfill gas collection and electricity generation scenario is a net energy consumer.

Similar to findings in the CIWMB study, the energy savings potential resulting from the additional materials recycling is a significant side benefit of the gasification and anaerobic digestion technologies and contributes approximately twenty percent of the total net energy savings.

6.4.2.2 Criteria Pollutants

In general, emissions of criteria air emissions, including particulate matter, SOx, NOx, and CO, are lower (i.e., exhibit a savings) for the advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion scenarios than for the landfill scenario, as shown in Figure 6-11. This is largely due to the electrical energy and recycling offsets created by these technologies. The electrical energy offset in particular is highly correlated to criteria air emissions. The anaerobic digestion alternative performs about on par with advanced thermal recycling and gasification, except that it has higher net NOx emissions.

6.4.2.2.1 Particulate Emissions. Particulate matter, or PM, is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Particles can be suspended in the air for long periods of time. They come from a variety of sources and, in the case of waste management and this study, result largely from fuel combustion in trucks, combustion of waste, and combustion of fuel for the production of electrical energy. PM is a major source of haze that reduces visibility, and leads to health effects associated with lung and heart disease.


6-17

FIGURE 6-11 ANNUAL NET POUNDS OF CRITERIA AIR EMISSIONS BY SCENARIO

-8,000,000

-6,000,000

-4,000,000

-2,000,000

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

. . . .

Pou

nds

of C

rite

ria

Air

Em

issi

ons

ATR

Landfill

Gasification

AD

ParticulateMatter (PM)

NitrogenOxides (NOx)

SulfurOxides (SOx)

CarbonMonoxide (CO)

As shown in Figure 6-11, advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion showed the lowest net levels of PM emissions. Although the combustion of MSW or syngas to produce electrical energy generates PM emissions, the net avoidance is a result of significant offsets of PM emissions associated with the production of electricity and recovery and the recycling of materials.

The landfill scenario showed a small net savings of PM emissions. The PM associated with the landfill scenario largely results from the collection and transfer of waste and the fuel combusted by landfill equipment, such as graders, front-end loaders and compactors.

6.4.2.2.2 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions. NOx emissions can lead to such environmental impacts as smog production, acid deposition, and decreased visibility. NOx emissions are largely the result of fuel combustion processes. Likewise, NOx emission offsets can result from the displacement of combustion activities, mainly fuels and electrical energy production.

Figure 6-11 illustrates that gasification showed the lowest net levels of NOx emissions and resulted in a significant net NOx emissions avoidance. Although the gasification process, namely the combustion of the syngas to produce electrical energy, generates some NOx emissions, the net avoidance is a result of significant offsets of NOx emissions associated with the production of electricity and recovery and the recycling of materials.


6-18

Advanced thermal recycling also showed a net NOx offset associated with electrical energy, as well as metal and other solid resources recycling offsets. The anaerobic digestion scenario showed slightly positive net levels of NOx emissions. The significant sources of NOx emissions for anaerobic digestion include waste collection and the AD process itself.

The landfill scenario showed the highest levels of NOx emissions. The NOx associated with the landfill scenario largely results from the collection and transfer of waste and fuel combusted by landfill equipment, such as graders, front-end loaders and compactors.

6.4.2.2.3 Sulfur Oxide Emissions. SOx emissions can lead to such environmental impacts as acid deposition, corrosion, and decreased visibility. Similar to NOx, SOx emissions are largely the result of fuel combustion processes. Likewise, SOx emission offsets can result by using alternative combustion systems, mainly fuel and electrical energy production, as well as the use of lower sulfur-containing fuel.

As shown in Figure 6-11, advanced thermal recycling and gasification resulted in the lowest levels of SOx emissions and a significant net avoidance of SOx emissions results for electrical energy production and metals and glass recovery and recycling.

The anaerobic digestion and landfill scenarios exhibited comparable net SOx emission savings. These savings were the result of the offsets of fossil fuel production and combustion in the utility sector for the landfill scenario.

6.4.2.2.4 Carbon Monoxide Emissions. Carbon monoxide, or CO, is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56% of all CO emissions nationwide. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes, such as metal processing and chemical manufacturing, and power production. CO contributes to the formation of smog, which can trigger serious respiratory problems.

As shown in Figure 6-11, gasification showed the lowest net levels of CO emissions and was the only scenario that exhibited a net CO emissions saving. Although the gasification process, namely the combustion of the syngas to produce electrical energy, generates CO emissions, the net avoidance is a result of significant offsets of CO emissions associated with the production of electricity and recovery and the recycling of materials.

The anaerobic digestion scenario exhibited slightly negative net levels of CO emissions. The primary contributor to CO emissions is the AD engine/generator set.

The advanced thermal recycling scenario showed slight positive net CO emissions.

The landfill scenario showed strong positive net CO emissions. The CO associated with the landfill scenario largely results from the collection and transfer of waste, the combustion of


6-19

landfill gas, and the fuel combusted by landfill equipment, such as graders, front-end loaders and compactors.

6.4.2.2.5 Carbon Emissions. Carbon emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect. Carbon emissions result from the combustion of fossil fuels and the biodegradation of organic materials (e.g., methane gas from landfills). Offsets of carbon emissions can result from the displacement of fossil fuels, materials recycling, and the diversion of organic wastes from landfills. Carbon emissions are expressed in units of metric ton of carbon equivalent (MTCE), which is derived as follows:

[(Fossil CO2*1 + CH4*21)*12/44] / 2000

Note that methane has a 21x multiplier compared to CO2 with regard to impact on greenhouse gas activity.

As shown in Figure 6-12, the advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion, scenarios exhibited net carbon emission savings.

FIGURE 6-12 ANNUAL NET METRIC TONS OF CARBON EQUIVALENT BY SCENARIO

-200,000

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

. . . .

Net

Car

bon

Em

issi

ons

(MTC

E)

ATR Landfill Gasification AD

The landfill scenario produced the highest levels of carbon emissions, largely due to the landfill gas (methane) that is not captured by the gas collection system. The gas collection system was assumed to have had a gas collection system efficiency of 75 percent (i.e., 25 percent of the gas generated vented to the atmosphere). Without any gas collection, the landfill scenario would produce much higher levels of carbon emissions.


6-20

6.5 CONCLUSIONS

The results of the analysis show that incorporating an alternative waste processing technology as part of the City’s integrated waste management system would be an attractive option for black bin post-source separated MSW, from a life cycle environmental perspective. Each of the waste processing technologies evaluated (advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion) will provide substantial savings/reductions with respect to energy consumption, air emissions of criteria pollutants, and carbon emissions/climate change issues. This result is especially evident when comparing landfilling of post-source separated MSW versus treating this material in an advanced thermal waste processing facility.

The advanced thermal recycling and gasification scenarios exhibited about twice the net annual energy savings as the anaerobic digestion scenario. This energy savings results from a combination of syngas and electrical energy production, as well as from materials recovery and recycling. For example, if a 250,000-ton per year thermal conversion facility replaced this quantity of post-source separated MSW going to the landfill, the energy savings would be about 2.6 million MBtu, which is equivalent to a 30 MW power plant operating for one year.

For the criteria air emissions, the advanced thermal recycling and gasification scenarios also performed generally better than the anaerobic digestion, or landfilling options. The reduced transportation needed to bring waste to the landfill contributed to the air emission reductions offered by advanced thermal recycling and gasification, and anaerobic digestion. For example, if a 250,000-ton per year thermal conversion facility replaced this quantity of post-source separated MSW going to the landfill, about 425 tons of NOx emissions per year would be saved (avoided), which is equivalent to the NOx emissions emitted from a 975 MW natural gas-fired power plant operating for a year.

Carbon emissions, which contribute to greenhouse gas/climate change impacts, would be reduced substantially by replacing landfilling with an alternative waste disposal technology. For example, if 250,000 tons of black bin post-source separated MSW were diverted to a thermal conversion facility from landfilling, this would reduce carbon emissions by about 200,000 tons per year, which is equivalent to the carbon emissions from a 130 MW natural gas-fired power plant operating for a year.

In summary, the key advantage that alternative waste processing facilities have over landfilling the post-source separated MSW is the significant reduction of material that is landfilled and converted into products that have a higher and better use, such as electricity. In addition, because most of the residuals from these technologies are inert, there will be a reduction in post-closure landfill maintenance and long-term liability.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine which alternative MSW waste processing technologies are most suitable for treating the City’s black bin post-source separated MSW. This objective is accomplished by first evaluating the qualifications submitted by the suppliers representing these technologies, followed by a determination of which technology groups should be brought forward in the study. Essentially, the data provided by suppliers were used as “indicators” of the technology groups.

Evaluating the alternative MSW processing technologies and the suppliers of the various technologies is a complex task, with multiple dimensions. There are significant differences in the technology groups being considered (i.e., thermal and biological MSW treatment processing), and the specific technologies offered by suppliers within the technology groups vary widely. Even suppliers of similar technologies, i.e., gasification, have very different designs for their gasifiers, such as fixed bed or fluid bed reactors, as well as differences in how they address pre-processing and power generation. Furthermore, the analysis can only be based upon the data submitted by the various suppliers; this data, in some cases was quite detailed, and in other instances, less so.

Data provided by the suppliers at this stage of the study is preliminary and subject to change. This report illustrates and presents this information only for the purpose of a general comparison of technologies. Because of the preliminary nature of the data provided, the study generally focused on outliers among the data, in order to identify fatal flaws or major technical or economic issues. A formal RFP process, utilizing a detailed engineering specification, would provide more certain and detailed capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and more accurate revenues from byproduct sales.

A number of technical and economic assumptions were made to “levelize” the data submitted by the suppliers and to facilitate analysis (see Section 5.2.1).

The first step in the assessment of alternatives was to analyze a number of factors that make it possible to differentiate among technology groups and individual alternatives within groups (see Section 7.2).

In the second step, the data compiled in Section 7.2 was compared to the project objectives to identify any fatal flaws (see Section 7.3).

The third step in the comparative analysis was to use essential differences to develop a set of ranking criteria and rank alternative MSW processing technologies (in terms of their suppliers) based upon technical, environmental, and economic parameters. The results were used to select the technologies for use in the succeeding phases of the project (see Section 7.4).


7-2

Each of these steps is described below.

7.2 OVERVIEW

The advanced thermal recycling, thermal conversion, and biological conversion, technology groups under evaluation differ in regard to the three basic sub-systems required for an alternative MSW processing facility. These sub-systems are:

• Pre-processing

• Processing Unit

• Power Generation

There are also differences in the byproducts, as some technologies produce electricity, while others produce large quantities of compost or similar material. Figure 7-1, highlights some of the basic differences among these technology groups. Table 7-1 provides some additional quantitative information.

FIGURE 7-1 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR TREATING

BLACK BIN POST-SOURCE SEPARATED MSW

Adv Thermal Recycling

Adv Thermal Recycling

Thermal Conversion

Thermal Conversion

Biological Conversion

MB&R

MB&R

MB&R

MB&R

C&R

RecyclablesSolid Byproducts

No P

re-p

roce

ssin

g

Pre - processing

Black Bin

Contents

Heat

Syngas

Biogas

Syngas

Heat

MB&R: Marketable Byproducts & Residue C&R: Compost & Residue


7-3

TABLE 7-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF TECHNOLOGY GROUPS

Feature Thermal Conversion Advanced Thermal Recycling


Throughput, Tons Per Year (TPY) Commercial Operating Experience

<10,000-250,000 75,000-1,000,000 <10,000-200,000

Operating Temperatures, °F 750-2,500 1,300-2,500 <200 Technology Pyrolysis and/or Gasification Combustion Anaerobic Digestion Marketable Byproducts Electricity, bottom ash, slag,

sulfur, metal hydroxides, carbon char, salts, compost

Electricity, bottom ash, metals, hydrochloric acid, gypsum, compost

Electricity, medium Btu biogas, compost

Advanced thermal recycling uses the heat of combustion of the waste to produce steam in a boiler, which is then used to generate electricity. Byproducts are recovered either in pre-processing or post-processing.

If facilities keep fly ash (which may contain hazardous substances) separate from the bottom ash, the bottom ash can be marketed for use in construction material or road base.

Some thermal conversion technologies direct all incoming waste to the conversion unit. Others incorporate extensive pre-processing to recover recyclables and produce a more homogeneous feedstock for the conversion unit. All thermal conversion units produce a syngas that is used to generate electricity in addition to producing other solid byproducts. Some combust syngas in a boiler to make steam to drive a turbine generator, and the flue gases are cleaned in an emission control system. Others clean the syngas first and then combust it in a reciprocating engine-generator or boiler.

Anaerobic digestion is utilized for the majority of the commercially available bioconversion technologies. After required pre-processing, it produces biogas, a medium heating value Btu gas that is generally used to generate electricity. In addition, these technologies produce a marketable compost or soil amendment.

7.2.1 Technical Comparison

In this section, several technical issues are discussed to compare the individual technology groups and show essential differences among technologies and designs.

7.2.1.1 Throughput

Data was requested from suppliers based upon a standard 100,000 TPY throughput, so that meaningful comparisons could be made. This throughput was selected for two reasons: it


7-4

matched one-half the size of individual waste sheds in Los Angeles, and it was a size judged achievable by all suppliers based upon their prior experience. It should be noted that a design throughput for the proposed facility has not yet been selected.

However, this throughput was not a good match for some suppliers, particularly the advanced thermal recycling suppliers. Therefore, some responses included designs that better matched their module (equipment) sizing. The responses primarily fell into one of two categories: 100,000 TPY or 300,000-400,000 TPY. Some suppliers who provided a 100,000 TPY design, and have operational experience with larger systems, were subsequently asked to provide basic technical and cost information for the higher throughput level. Therefore, several examples at the higher throughput levels are presented; they provide insight into how facility designs and associated technical and cost data vary with different levels of throughput.

Figure 7-2 shows the design throughputs evaluated in this study. The numbers after the suppliers in the figures represent the throughput in hundreds of thousands of tons per year. Higher throughputs also were evaluated for Ebara and WasteGen. However, these data are not shown in the figures in this section because facility efficiencies and costs per ton did not vary significantly with facility size. Higher throughputs were considered only for those suppliers with larger throughput experience.

FIGURE 7-2 THROUGHPUT BY SUPPLIER (TPY)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Ebara 1

00

Whitt

en 10

0

Whitt

en 40

0

IWT 10

0

IWT 37

0

RRA 360

Omni 100

Taylor 2

00

Was

teGen

100

PAR 180

Covanta

330

Segher

s 370

WRSI 3

80

Arrow 10

0

OWS 10

0

OWS 30

0

Valorg

a 100

Valorg

a 300

CCI 100

CCI 300

Wrig

ht 100

Thro

ughp

ut, T

ons/

Yea

r

Thermal Conversion Advanced Thermal Recycling Biological Conversion


7-5

7.2.1.2 Pre-Processing and Recovered Materials

Using the preliminary black bin characterization data provided in the RFQ, most of the supplier submittals included facilities for recovering additional materials from the inlet feedstock prior to treatment. Three reasons were typically cited for this inclusion:

• To recover recyclables for sale (recycling represents a more lucrative, or higher value use of these materials)

• To reduce feedstock size and/or moisture content in order to prepare a more homogeneous material for processing

• To remove contaminants from the black bin post-source separated MSW, which would otherwise result in processing problems in the processing unit

WRSI, IWT, and Ebara proposed no mechanical pre-processing for recovery of recyclables; however, these suppliers do recover recyclables from the byproducts produced in the combustion/conversion unit or emission control system. WasteGen proposed no pre-processing for material recovery, but did propose shredders and dryers for pre-processing, as well as post-processing for recovery of metals.

7.2.1.3 Electricity Production

All responses except Wright Environmental (RDF only) included electricity generation. The amount of electricity production varies according to the designs and waste throughput.

Net MW (generation) is the amount of electricity that is available for sale on the grid, taking into consideration the amount of internal use by the facility (i.e., net = gross - internal use). In general, there is great variability in the thermal conversion designs, where electricity production ranges from 4 to 38 net MW, depending upon waste throughput and type of power generation equipment chosen. Advanced thermal recycling facilities generate 18-25 net MW for the 350,000-400,000 TPY throughput level, while thermal conversion facilities generate about 15-38 net MW for 370,000-380,000 TPY Biological conversion facilities generate the least amount of electricity, ranging from 0.4 to 4.6 net MW.

The net electricity production by supplier is shown in Figure 7-3. As noted above, electricity production within technology groups varies widely, mainly due to differences in throughput, choice of power generation equipment, and production of compost by biological conversion technologies.

The electricity production expressed as thermal efficiency (net kWh/ton feedstock) is shown in Figure 7-4. This shows the amount of net electricity generation per ton of feedstock processed in the conversion or combustion unit. For some technologies, the feedstock would


7-6

FIGURE 7-3 NET ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, MW

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ebara 1

00

Whitt

en 10

0

Whitt

en 40

0

IWT 10

0

IWT 37

0

RRA 360

Omni 100

Taylor 2

00

Was

teGen

100

PAR 180

Covanta

330

Segher

s 370

WRSI 3

80

Arrow 10

0

OWS 10

0

OWS 30

0

Valorg

a 100

Valorg

a 300

CCI 100

CCI 300

Wrig

ht 100

Ele

ctri

city

, MW


FIGURE 7-4

ENERGY EFFICIENCY, NET kWh/TON

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Ebara 1

00

Whitt

en 10

0

Whitt

en 40

0

IWT 10

0

IWT 37

0

RRA 360

Omni 100

Taylor 2

00

Was

teGen

100

PAR 180

Covanta

360

Segher

s 370

WRSI 3

80

Arrow 10

0

OWS 10

0

OWS 30

0

Valorg

a 100

Valorg

a 300

CCI 100

CCI 300

Wrig

ht 100

Net

kW

h/to

n fe

edst

ock



7-7

be raw black bin post-source separated MSW. For others, significant pre-processing would be performed to produce the feedstock.

There are several reasons for the variability in efficiency:

• A higher quality feedstock, i.e., one with lower moisture and with non-convertible components with glass and metal removed, generally results in higher facility efficiency.

• Higher throughput generally results in higher efficiency.

• At these sizes, reciprocating engines are a more efficient method of power generation than conventional steam turbine generators. Typically, reciprocating engines will have efficiencies of about 40%, as compared to about 25% for small boilers.

• Converting more feedstock into energy is more efficient than producing large quantities of compost.


All of the alternatives being evaluated will produce some solid byproducts (pre-processing or post-processing) that would be marketable. The nature and quantity varies by technology and throughput. The types of solid byproducts generated, by technology group, are as follows:

• Thermal Conversion:

��Metals

��Plastic

��Paper

��Glass

��Compost-like material (RRA and Taylor)

��Bottom ash or cyclone ash

��Slag

��Sulfur

��Metal hydroxide

��Carbon char

��Salts

• Advanced Thermal Recycling:

��Metals


7-8

��Bottom ash

��Hydrochloric acid (WRSI)

��Compost (Seghers)

��Gypsum (WRSI)

• Biological Conversion:

��Metals

��Plastic

��Paper

��Compost

��Soil Amendment

7.2.1.5 Diversion Rate

Diversion rate, measured in percent of total throughput, represents the amount of black bin post-source separated MSW that is recovered in pre-processing, processed in the facility, and recovered in post-processing, leaving unmarketable or unusable residues that must still be landfilled. This rate can vary depending upon the marketability of the solid materials produced. Bottom ash and compost materials will be marketable only if they meet regulatory standards in California.

If no agreement can be reached to use this material as alternative daily cover, some of this byproduct may require disposal as refuse in an appropriate landfill. Therefore, as a theoretical worst case, all solid byproducts would be sent to a landfill for disposal. This is mentioned here to illustrate the potential magnitude of the residue disposal problem should byproducts prove unmarketable.

Figure 7-5 shows the estimated diversion rate, and the worst-case diversion rate for each supplier. The former is based upon the evaluated data described in Section 5.0, and for which recovery rates were levelized, or normalized, for all suppliers. Figure 7-5 shows that the thermal technologies will provide significantly higher diversion rates than biological technologies.

7.2.2 Environmental Comparison

In this section, several key environmental and regulatory issues are compared among technologies and suppliers.


7-9

FIGURE 7-5 DIVERSION RATE, PERCENT OF THROUGHPUT

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ebara 1

00

Whitt

en 10

0

Whitt

en 40

0

IWT 10

0

IWT 37

0

RRA 360

Omni 100

Taylor 2

00

Was

teGen

100

PAR 180

Covanta

330

Segher

s 370

WRSI 3

80

Arrow 10

0

OWS 10

0

OWS 30

0

Valorg

a 100

Valorg

a 300

CCI 100

CCI 300

Wrig

ht 100

% D

iver

sion

Thermal Conversion (Diversion Rate | Worst Case Diversion Rate) Advanced Thermal Recycling (Diversion Rate | Worst Case Diversion Rate) Biological Conversion (Diversion Rate | Worst Case Diversion Rate)

7.2.2.1 Air Emissions

Air emission levels and constituents of concern are a function of the specific designs of each technology, as well as the design of emission control systems. Therefore, this discussion will be limited to the three designated technology groups.

7.2.2.1.1 Advanced Thermal Recycling. There are several operating thermal recycling facilities in California (however, they are not advanced thermal recycling, per the definition presented in Section 2.0). These facilities meet all applicable regulatory limits on air emissions, including criteria pollutants such as NOx and trace constituents such as dioxins, furans and metals. Concentrations of dioxins and furans are below detection limits. Similar, or lower, emissions would be expected from the advanced thermal recycling designs evaluated in this report, as they incorporate state-of-the-art emission control systems.

As described in Section 2.0, advanced thermal recycling facilities are equipped with state-of-the-art air emission control systems designed to capture and recover components in the flue gas, converting them to marketable byproducts such as gypsum (for manufacturing wallboard) and hydrochloric acid (a chemical feedstock that can be used for water treatment).


7-10

The advanced thermal recycling emission control systems with recovery/recycling go beyond the technology utilized at existing resource recovery plants such as the Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility and the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility.

7.2.2.1.2 Thermal Conversion. At this early stage, without a detailed facility design, it was decided to address air emissions associated with thermal conversion in terms of their technical design issues as contrasted with advanced thermal recycling systems.

Thermal conversion technologies are much different than advanced thermal recycling facilities in terms of their design; therefore, air emissions characteristics will differ as well. As mentioned in Section 2.2.2.5, key design differences include:

• Thermal conversion processes occur in a reducing environment, typically using indirect heat without available air or oxygen, or with a limited amount of air or oxygen. With this technology the formation of unwanted organic compounds or trace constituents is precluded or minimized.

• Thermal conversion technologies typically are closed, pressurized systems, so that there are no direct air emission points. Contaminants are removed from the syngas and/or from the flue gases prior to being exhausted from a stack.

• Thermal conversion technologies often incorporate pre-processing subsystems in order to produce a more homogeneous feedstock. This provides the opportunity to recover chlorine-containing plastic (as a recyclable), which could otherwise contribute to the formation of organic compounds and/or trace constituents.

• The volume of syngas produced in the conversion of the feedstock is considerably lower than the volume of flue gases formed in the combustion of MSW in an advanced thermal recycling facility. Smaller gas volumes are easier and less costly to treat.

• Pre-cleaning of syngas is possible prior to combustion in a boiler and is required when producing chemicals or prior to combustion in a reciprocating engine or gas turbine in order to reduce the potential for corrosion in this sensitive equipment. Syngas pre-cleaning also serves to reduce overall air emissions.

• Syngas produced by thermal conversion technologies is a much more homogeneous and cleaner-burning fuel than MSW.

As a result of these design differences, expected concentrations of criteria pollutants and trace constituents, including dioxins and furans, are expected to be, in general, lower than concentrations associated with advanced thermal recycling facilities. Therefore, thermal conversion facilities would meet or exceed all regulatory limits for air emissions.


7-11

7.2.2.1.3 Biological Conversion. Biological conversion facilities, specifically anaerobic digestion facilities, have several potential air emission pathways:

• Waste delivery and preprocessing: the emissions from these operations are approximately the same for all technologies and are adequately controlled by enclosing the operations inside a negative pressure-controlled building.

• Anaerobic digestion requires an airtight system, which precludes any air emissions from this step.

• Digestate processing/composting: could have significant air emissions, which are controlled by composting either in-vessel or inside a negative pressure-controlled building.

• Biogas combustion has emissions similar to those of any natural gas combustion process, which can be controlled to meet any air quality regulations.

Emissions per ton of MSW for biological conversion are inherently lower than those of MSW combustion or thermal conversion since biogas production and combustion is cleaner (conversion temperature is well below 200°F, and biogas combustion is similar to combusting natural gas). As a result, biological conversion of MSW is not expected to have significant air emissions concerns.

7.2.2.2 Wastewater Discharges

As with air emissions, water discharge levels and constituents of concern are a function of the specific designs of each technology, as well as the design of wastewater treatment systems. In addition, the location of the facility will dictate, to a large degree, what the discharges will be. For example, at locations where sewer connections are not available, a zero discharge (100% recycle) could be implemented.

About half of the respondents indicated that they would recycle and reuse their wastewater and, therefore, would not have any significant wastewater discharges. The others will discharge about thirty gallons/minute (per 100,000 tons throughput) of treated wastewater from sources such as wet scrubbers, cooling towers, and boiler blowdown.

Biological conversion systems may produce “gray” water suitable for irrigation.

Each technology group will meet or exceed wastewater discharge limits.

7.2.2.3 Solid Wastes

Solid waste is defined as material rejects or unmarketable materials and residues that would be landfilled. Solid waste generation will vary by technology group.


7-12

Advanced thermal recycling systems will generate bottom ash, boiler ash, and fabric filter ash at about 25% of the throughput. Recycling of bottom ash and marketable byproducts from emission control systems could reduce the quantity of landfilled material to less than 5% (this assumes that all of the recovered material can be sold as a byproduct), which is a diversion rate of 95%. As a worst-case, assuming these byproducts are not marketable, the diversion rate could fall to about 80%.

Thermal conversion systems will generate solid waste consisting primarily of pre-processing rejects and other residuals at an approximate rate of 20% of the throughput. Recycling the residuals could reduce the quantity of landfilled material to about 2% (this assumes that all of the recovered material can be sold as a byproduct). As a worst-case, assuming that these products are not marketable, the diversion rate could fall to about 80%.

Finally, biological conversion systems will generate unmarketable residuals consisting of about 15-40% of the throughput. As a worst-case, which assumes that the compost produced will not be marketable, the diversion rate would fall to about 40-50%.

7.2.2.4 Siting Issues

Locating a site for an alternative MSW processing facility in the City of Los Angeles will primarily depend upon the following factors:

7.2.2.4.1 Availability of Infrastructure. An alternative MSW processing facility will require suitable infrastructure, typically including electricity interconnection, natural gas supply, water supply, sewer connection, and adequate road access for delivery of MSW and removal of byproducts and residuals. A rail siding may be desirable. The infrastructure will need to provide the capacity required to service the facility.

7.2.2.4.2 Aesthetics or Visual Impacts. Building size and stack height will affect the visual intrusion of the facility in the community, as well as the existing visual features adjacent to the site.

7.2.2.4.3 Traffic Impacts. An alternative MSW processing facility will receive deliveries by truck during normal working hours. If the facility is located at an existing waste management facility, such as transfer station, impacts to traffic may not be affected significantly, or may be reduced. If the facility is located at another type of site, the impact on existing traffic volumes and level of service will become an important siting consideration.

7.2.2.4.4 Noise, Odors, Litter, and Dust. The local community will be interested in these “nuisance” impacts. Mitigation measures will need to be implemented to minimize these impacts. Sites in industrial areas will be less sensitive to these impacts.


7-13

7.2.2.4.5 Land Use Compatibility and Zoning. The waste processing facility must be reasonably compatible with the adjacent land uses, and compatible with future land use plans. It is likely that the facility would be constructed in an industrially zoned area (M-3). While required land area is specific to a particular design, it is likely that the facility can be built on less than five acres. The need for a buffer with adjacent properties will depend upon adjacent land uses.

7.2.2.4.6 Air Impacts. Site location will be an important determinant of air emissions impacts from the standpoint of stack emissions and the potential interaction of stack gas plumes with nearby structures or topography. The most desirable locations are relatively flat with good circulation.

7.2.2.4.7 Community Impacts. Perhaps the most important siting issue will be the perceived and real impacts of the facility upon the local community. Potential issues include impact on local services, tax benefits, and impacts on the “quality of life.” A public outreach program will be essential to identify facility benefits and impacts of concern, and to learn how to mitigate these impacts.

These factors are site-specific in nature, and can best be evaluated with more detailed information about the designs applied to identify alternative sites. It is not anticipated that any of these issues would present an insurmountable challenge during the permitting process.

7.2.2.5 Regulatory Issues

Permitting an alternative MSW processing technology will require compliance with a variety of federal, California, County, and local environmental regulations. Section 3.0 provides a discussion of these requirements. Each technology group will face different challenges.

7.2.2.5.1 Advanced Thermal Recycling. Advanced thermal recycling systems have a clearly established regulatory precedent, in that several resource recovery facilities have already been permitted in California. The last facility was permitted nearly fifteen years ago. The key permits that a new facility would require are listed in Section 5.1. The air quality related permitting will be complex; many new regulations have been promulgated since the early 1990s. Of particular import are the New Source Review, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and toxics.

Basic requirements of the New Source Review process include:

• Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis demonstrating that the proposed facility conforms to SCAQMD BACT Guidelines (there are established BACT guidelines for municipal waste combustion).


7-14

• Demonstration of compliance with all applicable State and Federal ambient air quality standards by performing air dispersion modeling of the proposed facility impacts using SCAQMD-approved modeling procedures.

• Provide offsetting emission reductions for proposed emission increases by surrendering previously banked emission reduction credit (ERC) certificates.

The NSPSs regulate emissions of oxides of sulfur (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl), dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, fugitive ash, and opacity. In addition, the NSPS specify preconstruction notification, planning, analysis and reporting requirements as well as operating practices, monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements.

The SCAQMD will complete NSR for air toxics pursuant to Rule 1401. Under this regulation a proposed facility with potential emissions of air toxics above screening thresholds would be required to complete a screening level health risk assessment using SCAQMD-specified procedures.

7.2.2.5.2 Thermal Conversion. Thermal conversion facilities may face the most challenging regulatory hurdles. Current California regulations addressing conversion technologies are not clear and contain numerous inconsistencies. While the CIWMB recognizes this problem, agency personnel are uncertain when regulations that provide a clear regulatory path will be promulgated. Until then, obtaining permits for a thermal conversion system will be problematical.

New Source Review, NSPS, and air toxics regulations, as described above for advanced thermal recycling, will also pertain to thermal conversion facilities.

7.2.2.5.3 Biological Conversion. Bioconversion facilities also have a relatively clear regulatory path, in that anaerobic digestion and aerobic digestion facilities have already been permitted in California. These facilities, however, use quite different feedstocks, including various forms of biomass, such as green waste and biosolids. Perhaps the most important regulatory hurdle will be meeting the complex regulatory requirements for utilization of compost materials produced from the post-source separated MSW. While anaerobic digestion facilities in Europe generally produce compost that is acceptable for marketing, their feedstocks are usually source-separated biowaste. European feedstock may be different in composition than the black bin contents.


7-15

7.2.3 Economic Comparison

In this section, the economic considerations of the alternatives are compared using capital costs, total revenues, and a breakeven tipping fee. All costs are preliminary, and can be expected to change as designs evolve.

7.2.3.1 Capital Cost

Capital cost is a function of technology, design considerations, and throughput. Ranges of capital cost by technology group were as follows:

• Thermal Conversion: $16-90 million (100,000 TPY)

• Thermal Conversion: $50-250 million (360,000-400,000 TPY)

• Advanced Thermal Recycling: $125-180 million (360,000-380,000 TPY)

• Biological Conversion: $27-55 million (100,000 TPY)

Capital cost as cost per ton of annual throughput is shown in Figure 7-6 (Covanta did not provide a capital cost). The economies of scale achieved at higher throughputs are evident.

FIGURE 7-6 CAPITAL COST, $/TPY

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Ebara 1

00

Whitt

en 10

0

Whitt

en 40

0

IWT 10

0

IWT 37

0

RRA 360

Omni 100

Taylor 2

00

Was

teGen

100

PAR 180

Covanta

330

Segher

s 370

WRSI 3

80

Arrow 10

0

OWS 10

0

OWS 30

0

Valorg

a 100

Valorg

a 300

CCI 100

CCI 300

Wrig

ht 100

Cap

ital C

ost,

$/TP

Y



7-16

7.2.3.2 Annual Revenues

Annual revenues generated by each technology and supplier varied significantly by design and throughput. While revenues from the sale of electricity are all calculated at $0.06/kWh, each supplier used different assumptions for the expected recovery and revenue per ton for recyclables such as ferrous metal, non-ferrous metal, and plastic. Specific assumptions on recovery and revenues per ton were made to levelize these values for this comparison (see Section 5.0).

The ranges of annual revenues by technology group, based upon supplier-provided data were as follows:

• Thermal Conversion: $2.4-4.6 million (100,000 TPY)

• Thermal Conversion: $12-21 million (360,000-400,000 TPY)

• Advanced Thermal Recycling: $9-14 million (360,000-380,000 TPY)

• Biological Conversion: $2-3 million (100,000 TPY)

Figure 7-7 shows total revenues as a function of throughput. Total revenues are defined as the revenues recovered from the sale of all byproducts and electricity, per ton of post-source separated MSW throughput processed (estimated based upon levelized recovery quantities).

FIGURE 7-7 TOTAL REVENUE/TON BY SUPPLIER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ebar

a 10

0W

hitte

n 10

0W

hitte

n 40

0IW

T 10

0IW

T 37

0RR

A 36

0O

mni

100

Tayl

or 2

00W

aste

Gen

100

PAR

180

Cova

nta

330

Segh

ers

370

WRS

I 380

Arro

w 1

00O

WS

100

OW

S 30

0Va

lorg

a 10

0Va

lorg

a 30

0CC

I 100

CCI 3

00W

right

100

Rev

enue

, $/to

n th

roug

hput



7-17

The variability in Figure 7-7 primarily arises from these sources:

• Conversion to more electricity versus compost increases revenue/ton

• Pre-processing increases revenue/ton

• Higher efficiencies translate into higher revenues/ton

7.2.3.3 Breakeven Tipping Fees

Suppliers were asked to provide a tipping fee required to make their project economic. Although specific economic parameters were provided in the RFQ, suppliers calculated tipping fees using differing assumptions and different profit margins (where provided). To facilitate the evaluation, both a breakeven tipping fee and a worst-case breakeven tipping fee were calculated for each response. The breakeven tipping fee was estimated by adding capital recovery and interest charges to annual operating and maintenance costs and subtracting annual revenues calculated at standard prices using a fixed proportion of recyclables (16.5%) that would be recovered. The worst-case breakeven tipping fee was calculated by assuming that some byproducts, such as compost and bottom ash, would not be marketable, and would be transported to a landfill to be used as daily cover. The full set of assumptions used to develop the cost analysis is presented in Section 5.0.

Figure 7-8 shows the estimated breakeven tipping fee and worst-case breakeven tipping fees for each submittal.

7.3 COMPARISON TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objectives hierarchy, shown in Figure 7-9, was refined from Figure 1-1 to accommodate the more detailed information available at this stage of the study. As mentioned in Section 1.1, the highest level objective is “identify alternative MSW processing technologies that will increase landfill diversion in an environmentally sound manner, while emphasizing options that are energy efficient, socially acceptable, and economical.” Note that “Select Suitable Waste Processing Technology” shown in Figure 7-9, is a shorthand for this objective.

The ranking criteria are included in the figure as bulleted items and discussed in the following section. The high level objectives are described in the following section:

Maximize Environmental Suitability. All responses were evaluated based on expected environmental issues, including air emissions, siting constraints, and ability to receive permits. All suppliers should be able to meet environmental requirements needed to obtain permits, utilizing commercially available emission control equipment and systems. The differences in environmental impacts are evaluated in the ranking process.


7-18

FIGURE 7-8 ESTIMATED BREAKEVEN TIPPING FEE AND

WORST CASE BREAKEVEN TIPPING FEE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ebara 1

00

Whitt

en 10

0

Whitt

en 40

0

IWT 10

0

IWT 37

0

RRA 360

Omni 100

Taylor 2

00

Was

teGen

PAR 180

Covanta

330

Segher

s 370

WRSI 3

80

Arrow 10

0

OWS 10

0

OWS 30

0

Valorg

a 100

Valorg

a 300

CCI 100

CCI 300

Wrig

ht 100

Tipp

ing

Fee,

$

Thermal Conversion (Breakeven Tipping Fee | Worst Case Breakeven Tipping Fee) Advanced Thermal Recycling (Breakeven Tipping Fee | Worst Case Breakeven Tipping Fee) Biological Conversion (Breakeven Tipping Fee | Worst Case Breakeven Tipping Fee)

Maximize Technical Feasibility. All responses were evaluated with regard to operational characteristics and the ability of the proposed system to successfully treat post-source separated MSW. All suppliers appear to have proposed designs that can meet this objective. The ranking process evaluates the degree to which suppliers can produce acceptable facility designs.

Maximize Economic Feasibility. Economics will be a very important determinant of project feasibility. Economics was included in the ranking process, and received a moderate weight due to the preliminary nature of the data. Figure 7-8 shows the worst-case breakeven tipping fee calculated for each supplier. Most tipping fees are in the area of $40/ton. There are two outliers: Ebara at $127/ton and the IWT 100,000 TPY option at $119/ton. Based upon these relatively high costs, these options are viewed as fatal flaws. Therefore, the IWT 100,000 TPY option is dropped, and Ebara is eliminated (Ebara’s cost data for a larger facility showed that the tipping fee did not change significantly).


7-19

FIGURE 7-9 OBJECTIVES HIERARCHY

Select SuitableWaste Disposal

Technology

MaximizeEconomicViability

Maximize TechnicalFeasibility

Maximize Environmental

Suitability

MinimizeEnvironImpacts

MinimizeLandfilling

MaximizeDesignQuality

MinimizeTechnical

Risk

MaximizeRevenues

MinimizeCost

MaximizeSupplier

Resources

• Permitability

• VisualImpacts

• OperationalReliability

• Engineeringthe CompleteSystem

• Diversion Rate • Economics • Ability toMarketConversionByproducts

• SupplierCredibility

7.4 RANKING OF ALTERNATIVE WASTE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

The following procedure was used to develop a ranking of the technology suppliers based upon technical, environmental, and economic considerations. As stated earlier, the supplier ranking procedure was used to determine the feasible waste processing technologies.

Define the Decision Criteria. As a first step, the criteria that were used to rank the responses were developed based upon the set of business objectives described in Section 1.0.

Establish Performance Levels. Criterion scales, or performance levels, were defined for each criterion based upon the information submitted by the suppliers. These scales are made as specific and numerical as possible.

Define Criteria Ratings. Numerical ratings were assigned to each performance level. The best level was assigned 100 points, and the worst level was assigned 0 points. The intermediate levels were assigned proportionate ratings.

Define Criteria Weights. Weights were assigned to each criterion based upon the collective judgment of the URS project team and the City of Los Angeles’ Bureau of Sanitation staff.


7-20

Evaluate Criteria. Each supplier’s response was reviewed to determine the appropriate performance level for each criterion.

Calculate Scores. Scores were calculated for each supplier, and the suppliers ranked based upon these scores. Technologies represented by the best scores will be brought forward in the study.

The ranking procedure is described in the following sections.

7.4.1 Criteria Development

As described in Section 1.0, criteria were established by constructing an objectives hierarchy. Overall project objectives are shown at the top of the hierarchy. These objectives are broken down into a series of “sub-objectives,” where measurable criteria are defined. Figure 7-9 shows the objectives hierarchy and corresponding criteria developed for ranking supplier responses. The criteria definitions (attributes) are shown in Table 7-2.

7.4.2 Establish Performance Levels

Performance levels were assigned to each criterion using the data provided by suppliers. The number of performance levels reflects the variability of the data; based on this, the number of levels ranged from three to five.

For example, consider the visual impact criterion in Table 7-2. Structure height (buildings, stacks, and tanks) was used as an indicator of visual impact. Looking at the data furnished by each supplier, the structure heights varied from less than 50 feet to greater than 200 feet. It was judged that visual impact would be linear with structure height. Therefore, a scale was composed of four performance levels, proportional to the height. Ratings were assigned inverse to the height, with lower structure height being preferred.

The same process was used for Operational Experience, Economics, and Landfill Diversion. The remaining performance levels were developed using more subjective scales, as shown in Table 7-2.

7.4.3 Assign Criteria Weights

Weights were assigned to criteria by spreading a total of 100 points among the eight criteria. Points were assigned based upon the intrinsic importance of the criterion, as well as the range over the criterion (i.e., a wider range of data implies more importance). Another consideration was the quality of the data available (in general, where the data was suspect, or not complete, less weight was assigned).


7-21

TABLE 7-2 CRITERIA PERFORMANCE LEVELS AND RATINGS

Criteria Attributes Performance Levels Rating Ability to Market Byproducts

Experience selling byproducts with strong markets is desired

1. Experience selling byproducts with strong markets in CA 2. Experience selling byproducts in other markets 3. Experience selling byproducts, but unknown markets in CA 4. No selling experience

100 80 40 0

Visual Impact of Facility

Facilities with higher stacks or structures will exhibit greater visual impacts

1. Stack/building/tank height �200 ft 2. Stack/building/tank height = 90-199 ft 3. Stack/building/tank height = 50-89 ft 4. Stack/building/tank height < 50 ft

0 25 50

100 Operational Experience

The number of operating plants is an indication of overall experience

1. > 20 facilities operational 2. 10-20 units operational 3. 5-10 units operating 4. 2-4 units operating 5. 1 unit operating 6. 0 units operating

100 85 70 50 25 0

Economics Worst Case Breakeven Tipping Fee (WCBETF)

1. WCBETF = $0-$29/ton 2. WCBETF = $30-$44/ton 3. WCBETF = $45-$59/ton 4. WCBETF = $60-$79/ton 5. WCBETF >$80/ton

100 75 50 25 0

Supplier Credibility

Suppliers must have organizations (including partners) with sufficient technical and financial resources

1. Supplier organization has extensive technical and financial resources

2. Supplier has limited technical and financial resources, or limited MSW experience

3. Supplier resources are of questionable size

100

50

0 Landfill Diversion

Percent by weight of inlet MSW sent to landfill (includes rejects and unmarketable materials – worst case)

1. <15% 2. 16-25% 3. 26-35% 4. 36-50% 5. >50%

100 75 50 25 0

Engineering the Complete System

Demonstrated ability to design the complete facility

1. Quality submittal, complete design 2. Quality submittal, some design issues 3. Several significant design issues 4. Many design issues and/or incomplete submittal

100 66 33 0

Permitability This is a function of expected environmental impacts, and the potential for a difficult regulatory process or pathway

1. No unmanageable permitting difficulties identified 2. Complex and lengthy permitting process anticipated 3. Incomplete regulatory pathway for obtaining permits in

California may lengthen and/or complicate the permitting process

100 50 0


7-22

The weight distribution is as follows:

1. Landfill Diversion 25

2. Engineering the Complete System 15

3. Operational Experience 15

4. Permitability 10

5. Supplier Credibility 10

6. Ability to Market Byproducts 10

7. Economics 10

8. Visual Impact 5

The most critical criterion was judged to be Landfill Diversion, which received a weight of 25 out of 100. Landfill diversion is the highest-level objective of this project, and, therefore, deserves the highest weight among the criteria. Note that a worst case was assumed, in which all materials exiting the conversion process are unmarketable, cannot be used as alternative daily cover, and have to be landfilled.

Engineering the Complete System received a relatively high weight of 15. This criterion relates to the design information provided by the suppliers, the confidence the project team has in the ability of the respective suppliers to design an integrated facility, and confidence that the technologies and designs will perform as proposed.

Operational Experience also received a relatively high weighting of 15. Operational Experience was viewed as a critical issue that added confidence that the supplier could successfully implement a project for the City.

Permitability, Economics, and Supplier Credibility received a moderate weight of 10. Permitability relates to the complex issue of securing environmental permits for the facilities; however, with so much uncertainty relating to the thermal conversion and advanced thermal recycling permitting pathways, this criterion was given a moderate weight. Existing technology being used in the United States, especially Southern California are given a higher score. Note that permitability relates only to the regulatory process. Public acceptability is not considered in the ranking.

Economics received a relatively lower weight because the cost and revenue figures provided at this stage of the study are preliminary and not based on detailed engineering specifications. Similarly, Supplier Credibility received a moderate weight because detailed information about the financial condition and ability to fund a development project were not requested nor evaluated at this preliminary stage.


7-23

7.4.4 Technology Ranking

The ranking results are summarized in Tables 7-3 through 7-5. The total scores also are presented in graphical format in Figure 7-10.

Table 7-3 shows the individual ratings assignments by supplier and the total scores by supplier. The ratings were assigned based upon supplier data in accord with the performance levels described in Table 7-2.

Figure 7-10 shows the ranking results based upon the total score. The highest-ranking suppliers, with scores in the range of 60-75, are IWT, WRSI, Whitten, RRA, and WasteGen, which represent thermal conversion and advanced thermal recycling technologies. The second group, roughly in the 54-59 score range, includes two biological conversion suppliers, OWS and Valorga, as well as Covanta (advanced thermal recycling).

As shown in Table 7-4, the scores also were calculated for the environmental, engineering, and economics criteria as follows:

• Total Score (100% total weight)

��All criteria

• Environmental (Siting) Score (40% of total weight)

��Landfill Diversion

��Permitability

��Visual Impacts

• Engineering Score (30% of total weight)

��Engineering the Complete System

��Operational Experience

• Economics Score (30% of total weight)

��Economics

��Supplier Credibility

��Ability to Market Byproducts


7-24

TABLE 7-3 SCORES BY SUPPLIER BY CRITERION

Landfill Diversion Engineering

Operational Experience Permitability

Supplier Credibility Byproducts Economics

Visual Impacts

Total Score

Weight 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 5 IWT 75 100 70 0 100 80 75 100 75 Whitten 100 66 70 0 100 0 75 50 65 RRA 75 66 25 0 50 100 100 50 60 WasteGen 75 66 50 0 100 80 50 25 60 Taylor 100 33 0 0 50 80 25 25 47 PAR 50 33 0 0 0 0 75 100 30

Thermal Conversion

Omnifuel 75 0 0 0 0 100 75 0 36 WRSI 75 100 25 50 100 80 50 0 66 Covanta 75 33 100 50 100 0 50 0 59

Advanced Thermal Recycling Seghers 25 0 85 50 100 0 25 0 37

OWS 0 100 50 100 100 40 50 50 54 Valorga 25 33 70 100 100 40 100 25 57 Wright 0 66 50 100 100 0 50 100 47 Arrow 25 33 25 100 50 40 100 50 46


CCI 25 33 50 100 50 40 25 50 43


7-25

TABLE 7-4 SUPPLIER SCORES BY SUB-CATEGORY

Environmental Score

Engineering Score

Economics Score Total Score

Weight 40 30 30 100 IWT 59 85 85 75 Whitten 69 68 58 65 RRA 53 46 83 60 WasteGen 50 58 77 60 Taylor 66 17 52 47 PAR 44 17 25 30

Thermal Conversion

Omnifuel 47 0 58 36 WRSI 59 63 77 66 Covanta 59 67 50 59

Advanced Thermal Recycling Seghers 28 43 42 37

OWS 31 75 63 54 Valorga 44 52 80 57 Wright 38 58 50 47 Arrow 47 29 63 46


CCI 47 42 38 43

TABLE 7-5

SUMMARY OF HIGHEST SCORES IN EACH SCORING CATEGORY

Score Category Supplier Score Technology IWT 75 Thermal Conversion WRSI 66 Advanced Thermal Recycling Whitten 65 Thermal Conversion WasteGen 60 Thermal Conversion

Total Score • All Criteria

RRA 60 Thermal Conversion Whitten 69 Thermal Conversion Taylor 66 Thermal Conversion IWT 59 Thermal Conversion WRSI 59 Advanced Thermal Recycling

Environmental Score • Landfill Diversion • Permitability • Visual Impacts

Covanta 59 Advanced Thermal Recycling IWT 85 Thermal Conversion OWS 75 Biological Conversion Whitten 68 Thermal Conversion

Engineering Score • Engineering Complete System • Operational Experience

Covanta 67 Advanced Thermal Recycling IWT 85 Thermal Conversion RRA 83 Thermal Conversion Valorga 80 Biological Conversion Waste-Gen 77 Thermal Conversion

Economics Score • Economics • Supplier Credibility • Ability to Market Byproducts

WRSI 77 Advanced Thermal Recycling


7-26

FIGURE 7-10 TOTAL RANKING SCORE BY SUPPLIER

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

IWT

WRSI

Whitt

en

Was

teGen

RRA

Covanta

Valorg

aOW

S

Wrig

ht

Taylor

Arrow

CCI

Segher

s

Omnifuel

PAR

Sco

re


The criteria included in each score are shown in Table 7-4, as well as the weight for each score subcategory. The environmental score subcategory received the highest proportionate weight because it includes Landfill Diversion, the criterion with the highest weight.

A summary of the best scores (four highest) in each scoring category is shown in Table 7-5. The best overall scores included thermal conversion and advanced thermal recycling.

The best environmental scores also included thermal conversion and advanced thermal recycling. This is consistent with landfill diversion being a criterion in this scoring category.

The best engineering scores included all three technology groups, as was the case for the economics category.

In summary, the ranking process, which is based upon the Bureau’s project objectives, indicates that thermal technologies (thermal conversion and advanced thermal recycling) are preferred alternative MSW processing technologies that will best satisfy the project’s highest level objective, i.e., maximize landfill diversion. This result is further discussed in Section 8.0.

SECTION 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8-1

8.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The study evaluated the ability of alternative technologies to process black bin post-source separated MSW from three perspectives: siting (or environmental) feasibility, technical feasibility, and economic feasibility. The results of this evaluation, in part, can be expressed in terms of key findings that impact the overall study conclusions and recommendations that follow.

Table 8-1 provides a summary of these key findings. The table is arranged by objective (siting, technical and economic), and each key finding is described, and discussed in the context of each technology evaluated. The study began with an evaluation of sixteen thermal, biological/chemical, and physical technologies, and these were screened on the basis of ability and experience processing black bin post-source separated MSW on a commercial level to arrive at the following short list of technologies:

• Thermal technologies – Advanced thermal recycling, and thermal conversion (includes pyrolysis, gasification and pyrolysis-gasification)

• Biological/chemical – Anaerobic digestion

• Physical – None (Section 4.3)

As a result, the key findings address advanced thermal recycling, thermal conversion, and biological conversion.

The table includes references to report sections where each finding is discussed in more detail.

8.2 CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the key findings from Section 8.1 and the technology ranking presented in Section 7.4, the following conclusions are made:

• An alternative MSW processing facility can be successfully developed in the City of Los Angeles.

• The technologies best suited for processing black bin post-source separated MSW on a commercial level are the thermal technologies. These include advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion (pyrolysis and gasification).

• The biological/chemical conversion technologies and physical technologies present significant technical challenges for treatment of the black bin post-source separated MSW. While biological conversion technologies show the most promise in this group, they also bring significant challenges, as explained below.


8-2

TABLE 8-1 KEY FINDINGS

Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion Siting/Environmental Diversion rate, the percentage of black bin post-source separated MSW that is diverted from landfilling, is an important objective for this project. (7.2.1.5)



Eighty percent diversion rate expected with a worst-case rate of 50%.

Air emissions characteristics will differ among the alternative technology groups evaluated. All technology groups will meet regulatory limits. (7.2.2.1)

Air emission control systems are available to limit emissions to well below regulatory limits.

Thermal conversion systems are expected to result in emissions well below regulatory limits.

Emissions from biological systems will be lower than thermal technologies due to lower operating temperatures.

Wastewater will be generated in relatively small quantities. This liquid waste will either be recycled or discharged to a local sewer. (7.2.2.2)

No significant difference among technologies.

Solid residue will be generated from material rejects, process waste, and air emission control systems. (7.2.2.3)

Advanced thermal recycling systems will generate bottom ash, boiler ash, and fabric filter ash. Assuming the bottom ash is recycled, about 5% of the incoming material will be landfilled.

Similar to advanced recycling systems. Biological systems will typically generate unmarketable residuals consisting of 15-40% of the total throughput.

An alternative MSW processing technology can be sited in urban Los Angeles. (7.2.2.4)

No fatal siting constraints were identified. The best sites will be in heavy industrial (M3) areas of the City.



The pathway regarding environmental regulations differs by technology in California. (7.2.2.5)

Several waste-to-energy facilities have been permitted in California. Therefore, regulations exist for advanced thermal recycling systems to obtain the required environmental permits to operate.

The legislature and the CIWMB are establishing a regulatory framework for thermal conversion technologies. The lack of such a framework will complicate permitting these facilities.

The technology for biological conversion in this study is anaerobic digestion. Regulations exist in California for this technology, although no systems have been permitted for treatment of MSW.


TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED) KEY FINDINGS

8-3

Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion Life Cycle Analysis of energy consumption reveals advantages of employing thermal or biological MSW processing technologies. (6.5)

Thermal technologies and biological conversion technologies will create significant energy savings when compared to landfilling. This energy savings results from a combination of syngas and electrical energy production, as well as from materials recovery and recycling. For example, if a 250,000 TPY per year thermal conversion facility replaced this quantity of black bin post-source separated MSW going to the landfill, the energy savings would be about 2.6 million MBtu, which is equivalent to a 30 MW power plant operating for one year.

Life Cycle Analysis of criteria pollutant emissions reveals advantages of employing thermal or biological MSW processing technologies. (6.5)

For the criteria air emissions, the advanced thermal recycling, gasification and anaerobic digestion scenarios also performed generally better than landfilling. The reduced transportation needed to take waste to the landfill contributed to the air emission reductions offered by advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion. For example, if a 250,000 TPY thermal conversion facility treated this quantity of black bin post-source separated MSW, about 425 tons of NOx emissions per year would be saved (avoided), which is equivalent to the NOx emissions emitted from a 975 MW natural gas-fired power plant operating for a year.

Technical The technical maturity of alternative MSW processing technologies differs.

Combustion of MSW is the most mature of the alternative MSW processing technologies evaluated. Approximately 100 such facilities are operational in the U.S., with many more in Europe and Japan (these facilities are predecessors of the new advanced thermal recycling technology).

Thermal conversion technologies have been in successful, long-term use around the world, although typically using more homogeneous feedstocks such as coal and biomass. While technical challenges are expected, because of their relatively short operating history using MSW as a feedstock, these challenges are judged to be manageable.

Biological conversion facilities processing source separated organics (SSO), and more recently MSW, are operating in Europe and elsewhere overseas.

Facility designs are relatively new; therefore, current facility designs generally have not achieved the desired level of optimization.

There is room for improvement in most designs that would better integrate the three major components of a system (pre-processing, combustion/conversion, and post-processing/byproduct production). This would increase efficiency and reduced cost/ton.

Air emission control systems are commercially available to limit air emissions to below regulatory levels for all technologies. (2.2)




8-4

Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion Thermal efficiency, the amount of net electricity generation per ton of feedstock processed, varies by technology. Higher efficiencies result in better financial performance. (7.2.1.3)

Thermal technologies that use a steam turbine for electricity production have thermal efficiencies in the range of about 500-600 kWh/ton. If a reciprocating engine is used, the efficiency will increase to about 800-900 kWh/ton.

Thermal efficiency is in the range of 150-200 kWh/ton using reciprocating engines. Thermal processes recover more energy than biological ones because they convert essentially all organics to energy, not just the biodegradable organics.

Solid residuals generated by these technologies differ in composition. (7.2.1.4)

Residuals include boiler and fabric filter fly ash (assumes bottom ash is recyclable). This material, although small in terms of quantity (about 7500 tons/yr for a 400,000 TPY facility), may be classified as hazardous.

Residuals for low temperature gasification and pyrolysis include boiler and fabric filter fly ash, and bottom ash (if not recycled). These materials, although small in quantity (1000-6000 tons/yr for a 100,000 TPY facility), may be classified as hazardous. Residuals (slag) from high temperature gasification will be non-hazardous and inert.

Residuals primarily will consist of unmarketable rejects, which will be landfilled. Quantities will range from 15,000 to 40,000 tons/yr for a 100,000 TPY facility.

Revenue/ton can be viewed as a measure of recycling effectiveness, or the ability of the technology to achieve higher market value for its byproducts. (7.2.3.2)

Suppliers in this category can achieve revenues of about $30-35 per ton.

Suppliers in this category can achieve revenues of up to $40-55 per ton. This higher range is due to greater pre-processing and higher thermal efficiencies.

Suppliers in this category can achieve revenues of about $20-30 per ton. This lower range is due to the production of compost.

The quality of response from the suppliers affected the results of this study with regard to the technical evaluation.

The quality of response from suppliers varied. Some responses were incomplete, and others indicated that some information and data were confidential. This situation affected the presentation of material in this report, particularly with respect to technical issues and economics.

Economics The financial feasibility, as measured by a breakeven tipping fee, varied among technologies and suppliers. (7.2.3.3)

Advanced thermal recycling systems exhibited breakeven tipping fees of $56-$64/ton for 330-380K TPY facilities. The small range is attributed to the extensive experience with this technology (i.e., its predecessor technology) in the U.S.

Thermal conversion breakeven tipping fees exhibited a wide range ($20-$128/ton for 100K TPY, and $20-$40/ton for 360-400K TPY facilities). This is attributed to the lack of experience with these facilities in the U.S.

Biological conversion breakeven tipping fees exhibited a wide range ($19-$97/ton for a 100K TPY facility).



8-5

Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion Economy of scale is a term that refers to the variation in project economics with facility throughput. In general, the tipping fee decreased with increasing throughput. (7.2.3.3)

Only one size was proposed (330-380K TPY)



Byproduct marketability is an important issue. Significant uncertainty with regard to some materials may impact economic viability. (7.2.1.5)

Advanced thermal recycling gains most of its revenue from the sale of electricity. This is a well-developed market. Although only small amounts of bottom ash are presently recycled/reused, this is expected to increase as designs isolate the potentially hazardous fly ash from the bottom ash.

Thermal conversion gains most of its revenue from the sale of electricity, a well-developed market. Another significant revenue source for some designs are the recyclables recovered from pre-processing the inlet black bin post-source separated MSW. The market for glass, metals and paper is also well-developed.

Biological conversion facilities produce both electricity and compost. The compost is produced in large quantities (15,000-40,000 tons/yr for a 100K TPY facility). California compost quality regulations are complex. Extensive testing is required to ensure acceptability. In addition, the market for this material is uncertain.

With regard to conversion technologies, the relationship of project economics to supplier experience generally indicates that the more experienced suppliers provide higher project costs.

The lowest breakeven tipping fees (in the neighborhood of $15-$30/ton) were provided by suppliers with the least number of operating units. These results could not be verified in this study; therefore, additional evaluation is needed.

Pre-processing to remove recoverable recyclables increases revenues. The value of uncontaminated recyclables in the black bin post-source separated MSW is higher as a recyclable material than as a feedstock to produce electricity.



8-6

The technology ranking in Section 7.4 evaluated the thermal and biological technologies using eight criteria that addressed siting, technical, and economic issues. While the ranking was conducted using supplier data, the results were used to decide which technology groups exhibited the best characteristics with regard to successfully disposing of black bin post-source separated MSW.

Based upon the ranking scores in terms of technologies rather than suppliers, the following conclusions are drawn:

• Advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion received the highest total scores.

• Advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion received the highest environmental scores, primarily due to advantages with regard to landfill diversion rate.

• All three technologies were in the top five scores on engineering.

• All three technologies received similar scores on economics, although advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion ranked higher on byproduct marketability.

In summary, the advantages of the thermal technologies over biological conversion are:

• Higher landfill diversion rates, which is a primary objective of the project

• Lower production of solid byproducts and correspondingly greater production of electricity, a higher value product with a more well-developed and stable market

• Less risk with regard to byproduct marketability, particularly in comparison to compost

• Significantly higher thermal efficiencies and, therefore, higher revenue/ton because thermal processes convert essentially all organics (not just biodegradables) to energy

• More operational experience at higher throughputs

8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the City of Los Angeles proceed with the activities shown in Table 8-2 for continued development of an alternative MSW processing facility for black bin post-source separated MSW utilizing a thermal technology.

8.3.1 Public Outreach

Public acceptability will be one of the most important determinants of this project’s success. Siting, permitting and developing a new alternative MSW processing technology for the City of Los Angeles will lead to many questions from the public with regard to environmental impacts and public health issues. The key is to consider the public as a partner and present the facts and


8-7

TABLE 8-2 RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES FOR MSW PROCESSING FACILITY

DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Activity Approximate Dates Initiate Public Outreach September 2005, ongoing Develop Short List of Suppliers September-November 2005 Conduct Initial Siting Study September-November 2005 Prepare Request for Proposal (RFP) November-February 2006 Issue RFP March 2006 RFP Responses Due June 2006 Evaluate RFP Responses June-October 2006 Announce Preferred Supplier(s) October 2006 Conduct Facility Permitting/Conceptual Design October 2006-October 2007 Prepare Detailed Facility Design July 2007-December 2007 Facility Construction January 2008-October 2009 Performance Testing and Start-up October 2009-January 2010 Commercial Operation (February 2010) Each of the activities in Table 8-2 is discussed in the following sections.

benefits as early as possible while being responsive to their concerns at all times. Developing early relationships with key stakeholder groups is essential.

The public outreach should be conducted in two phases. The first phase begins in mid-2005, with two purposes: educate the public about the alternative MSW processing technologies, and elicit feedback regarding the public’s attitude toward the technologies under consideration. Education about the characteristics of the technologies, compared to existing disposal methods, their benefits, and their anticipated environmental impacts are critical tasks. Public outreach is also important at this stage to provide counterpoint to opposing groups. A communications strategy in the first phase will access the public in broad terms, to reach large audiences, using techniques such as television spots, radio interviews, press conferences, and editorial pieces. Selected focus groups, as well as meetings with community leaders, agency personnel knowledgeable about emerging MSW processing technologies, and environmental groups also would be helpful.

The second phase of public outreach takes place after the technology supplier is selected and alternative site locations are known. Then the outreach becomes more specific than before, and is focused on the communities, which could be directly affected by the project. The communications strategy in this phase will use techniques that involve the affected communities, such as Citizen’s Advisory Committees and specific neighborhood councils.


8-8

8.3.2 Develop a Short List of Suppliers

Prior to issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a supplier for the alternative MSW processing technology, a list of suppliers eligible for receiving this RFP will be developed.

This short list will be compiled using the following input:

• Results of the supplier evaluation conducted during this study.

• A review of the key uncertainties remaining after the supplier evaluation carried out in this study. Additional discussion with selected suppliers may be held to address issues such as methods to improve facility reliability and efficiency, ways to reduce design risks (use of standardized equipment where feasible), and further evaluation of costs and revenue projections.

• Feedback from the public outreach program scheduled to be initiated in mid-2005 with regard to technology preferences.

8.3.3 Initial Siting Study

An RFP must be quite specific with regard to site characteristics in order to encourage the most detailed and complete responses. Potential bidders will want to know more information about site environmental constraints and availability of infrastructure. This information must be compiled while the RFP is being prepared.

8.3.4 Preparation of Request for Proposal and Select Preferred Supplier

A technology supplier must formally be selected for this project. This will be accomplished by issuing an RFP to selected bidders. The RFP will contain a detailed set of instructions about how to reply, and will require the bidder to provide a comprehensive design along with a detailed cost and revenue estimate and information on performance guarantees and financing. The responses to the RFP will be evaluated and a preferred supplier will be selected.

8.3.5 Conduct Facility Permitting and Conceptual Design

Once a technology supplier has been selected, a conceptual design is prepared to support preparation of required environmental and permit application documents. In parallel, these environmental documents will be prepared, and submitted to the appropriate agencies for processing. A series of public meetings will be held during agency review.

8.3.6 Detailed Design and Construction

Finally, the detailed design is prepared, which will support facility construction, followed by construction, start-up, and initiation of operation.

Appendix A

Master Supply List of Technologies

APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-1

TABLE A-1 LIST OF PHYSICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES

CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Physical Agglomeration CPM/Roskamp Champion California Pellet Mill Co. Multiple Crawfordsville, IN Physical Agglomeration FEECO International Multiple Green Bay, WI Physical Agglomeration Advanced Processes, Inc. Ferro-Tech Multiple, fly ash, biosolids,

used tires, metal wastes Ambridge, PA

Physical Agglomeration Komar Industries, Inc. MSW, solid, industrial, petrochemical, and medical waste

Groveport, OH

Physical Autoclaving Brightstar Environmental Solid Waste Energy And Recycling Facility (SWERF)

MSW Ron Menville Baton Rouge, LA

Physical Autoclaving Estech Europe Fibrecycle MSW Aldridge, West Midlands, UK Physical Autoclaving Tempico, Inc. Rotoclave MSW, medical waste, animal

waste Hammond, LA

Physical Densification Marathon Equipment Company

MSW Vernon, AL

Physical Densification Warren Baerg MSW, wood, paper Dinuba, CA Physical Densification Lundell Manufacturing, Inc. MSW Cherokee, IA Physical Drying M-E-C Company. MSW, wood, biomass Richard Chaney Neodesha, KS Physical RDF Herhof Umwelttechnik GmbH Herhof Stabilat MSW Solms-Niederbiel, Germany Physical RDF reCulture AB MSW Karlstad, Sweden Physical RDF DMS Group Uses Herhof process MSW N/A Physical RDF Energy Answers Corp. Processed Refuse Fuel (PRF) MSW Albany, NY Physical RDF Sentinel Power Corp. MSW John Philipson/

Arnold McMillan Strathroy, Ontario, Canada

Physical RDF Renewable Resources Alliance, LLC

Post Recycled Municipal Biomass (PRMB)

MSW Paul Relis Stanton, CA

Physical RDF CHAMCO CHAMCO/SELCO MSW Des Plaines, IL


TABLE A-1 (CONTINUED) LIST OF PHYSICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES



Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Physical Separation/

Delamination Brian Brady & Associates, Inc.

Result Technology AG (Switzerland)

Circuit boards, tires, telephones, batteries, cables

Brian Brady Toronto, ON, Canada

Physical Separation/RDF Enviro-Services & Constructors, Inc. (RRT Design & Construction)

Previously Waste Management's RRT process

Paper and plastic recycling, dirty MRFs, mixed-waste processing, transfer stations, RDF, yard waste, ash

Nathaniel Egosi Melville, NY

Physical Size Reduction SSI Shredding Systems, Inc. MSW Wilsonville, OR Physical Size Reduction Granutech-Saturn Systems MSW, plastic, tires Grand Prairie, TX Physical Size Reduction Blower Application Company,

Inc. Wood, plastic, tires, metal Germantown, WI

Physical Size Reduction Mayfran International MSW, plastic, metals Cleveland, OH Physical Size Reduction Peterson Wood Eugene, OR Physical Size Reduction Shred-Tech MSW, tires, plastic, wood Cambridge, ON, Canada

Canada Physical Size Reduction Lundell Manufacturing Inc. MSW Cherokee, IA Physical Size Reduction Continental Biomass

Industries Inc. MSW, wood Aaron Benway Newton, NH

Physical Steam processing/ Autoclaving

Waste Reduction Technologies, Inc.

Steam Pressure Pulverization (SPP)

MSW, cellulose Tony Noll Covington, KY


World Waste of America, Inc. N/A Dick Pallett N/A


Waste Technology Partnership

RCR STAG: dry, saturated steam at 320°F to sanitize MSW, reduce volume by 85% to fibrous form, de-lacquer/delabel containers, provide homogenous outflow.

MSW Dr. Anthony Haden-Taylor

Wigan, UK



TABLE A-2 LIST OF BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES


Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Biological Aerobic Wright Environmental

Management, Inc. MSW Richmond Hill, ON, Canada

Biological Aerobic BAV Umwelttechnik MSW Tornesch, Germany Biological Aerobic Outspoken Industries MSW Lawrence Boul Christchurch, NZ Biological Aerobic Antrim Industries Canada Ronald Mark

Stafford

Biological Aerobic Waste Options Atlantic N/A N/A Biological Aerobic EWMCE MSW Jerry Leonard Edmonton AB, Canada Biological Aerobic Real Earth U.S. Enterprises N/A N/A Biological Aerobic Conporec MSW Jeffrey Heath Cazenovia, NY Biological Aerobic Stinnes Enerco MSW Jim Lee Mississauga, ON, Canada Biological Aerobic American Bio-Tech Yard waste, wood waste,

biosolids John G. Laurenson, Jr.

Vancouver, BC, Canada

Biological Aerobic International Bio Recovery Corporation

Organic waste Haifa, Israel

Biological Anaerobic digestion Arrow Ecology MSW Camarillo, CA Biological Anaerobic digestion Onsite Power Systems Processed wastewater Orville Moe Santa Monica, CA Biological Anaerobic digestion BioConverter LLC MSW Gainesville, FL Biological Anaerobic digestion SEBAC MSW Chynoweth;

David P. München, Germany

Biological Anaerobic digestion BTA (Biotechnische Abfallverwertung)

MSW Harry Wiljan Pasadena, CA

Biological Anaerobic digestion EcoCorp, Inc. MSW Dr. Christian A. Kaendler

Toronto, ON, Canada

Biological Anaerobic digestion Dufferin Organics Processing Center

MSW Newmarket, ON, Canada


TABLE A-2 (CONTINUED) LIST OF BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES



Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Biological Anaerobic digestion Global Renewables/ISKA MSW Greg MacDonald Perth, Australia Biological Anaerobic digestion Dufferin Organics

Processing Center MSW Newmarket, ON, Canada

Biological Anaerobic digestion Canada Composting, Inc. (CCI)

MSW Jim Tully Montpellier, France

Biological Anaerobic digestion Steinmüller Valorga MSW Gent, Belgium Biological Anaerobic digestion Organic Waste Systems MSW Winfried Six Ettlingen, (where?) Biological Anaerobic digestion ISKA Gumbo N/A Stanton, CA Biological Anaerobic digestion Pinnacle Biotechnology MSW Brian Duff Atlanta, GA Biological Anaerobic digestion MCX Environmental Energy

Corporation Agricultural waste Calumet City, IL

Biological Anaerobic digestion Linde-KCA-Dresden MSW Dr. Gunter Bruntsch

Aadorf, Switzerland

Biological Anaerobic digestion Nova Energie GmbH Vantaa, Finland Biological Anaerobic digestion Skanska MSW Emmendingen, Germany Biological Anaerobic digestion Wehrle Werk AG MSW Mr. H Wienands Glattbrugg, Germany Biological Anaerobic digestion Kompogas Sorted MSW Theo Huwiler Longstock, Hampshire, UK Biological Anaerobic digestion Bioplex Ltd. N/A N/A Biological Anaerobic digestion Eastern Power MSW Frankenburg , Austria Biological Anaerobic digestion Rotec N/A Horsington, Somerset, UK Biological Anaerobic digestion Organic Power Ltd. MSW Susan Fazio CA Biological Anaerobic digestion Guépard Energy, Inc. Agricultural waste Rockwell

Swanson Larkspur, CA

Biological Anaerobic digestion Microgy Cogeneration Systems, Inc.

Agricultural waste Jeff Dasovich Shawnee Mission, KS


TABLE A-2 (CONTINUED) LIST OF BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES



Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Biological Anaerobic digestion WaterSmart Environmental,

Inc. Agricultural waste Fresno, CA

Biological Ethanol Fermentation Nova Fuels Wood Mike Kaufher Dedhamm, MA Biological Ethanol fermentation BC International MSW John Doyle Irvine, CA Biological Ethanol fermentation Arkenol Agricultural/biomass waste Michael Fatigati Birmingham, AL Biological Ethanol fermentation Masada MSW Ottawa, ON, Canada Biological Ethanol fermentation Iogen Biomass Jeffrey Tolan Bozeman, MT Biological Ethanol fermentation Genahol MSW Donald Brelsford N/A Biological Ethanol fermentation Waste To Energy MSW fractions Greg Shipley Palo Alto, CA Biological Ethanol fermentation Genencor Biomass Ft. Lupton, CO Biological Ethanol fermentation PureVision Technology Biomass Dick Wingerson N/A Biological Ethanol fermentation C2 Envirosource N/A Hudson, OH Biological Ethanol fermentation GeneSyst International MSW N/A Biological Ethanol fermentation Global American Energy

Holding Company N/A Encino, CA

Biological Thermal - ethanol fermentation

BRI Biomass Jim Stewart N/A



TABLE A-3 LIST OF CHEMICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES


Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process

Primary Feedstock Experience Name Location

Chemical Hydrolysis Arkenol Agricultural/biomass waste Michael Fatigati N/A Chemical Hydrolysis Genahol MSW, biomass Donald Brelsford N/A Chemical Hydrolysis Iogen Biomass Jeffrey Tolan Ottawa, ON, Canada Chemical Hydrolysis Genencor Biomass N/A Chemical Hydrolysis PureVision Technology Biomass Dick Wingerson Ft. Lupton, CO Chemical Hydrolysis GeneSyst International MSW James Titmas N/A Chemical Hydrolysis BC International MSW John Doyle N/A Chemical Hydrolysis C2 Envirosource N/A N/A Chemical Hydrolysis Global American Energy

Holding Co. N/A N/A

Chemical Catalysis Power Energy Fuels, Inc. PEFI catalysis process produces Ecalene (alcohol)

MSW, carbon-based wastes Lakewood, CO

Chemical Hydrolysis Masada Resource Group CES OxyNol MSW, sewage sludge, waste paper, green waste

Doug Elliott Vestavia Hills, AL

Chemical Catalytic cracking H.SMARTech, Inc. Plastic waste Portland, OR Chemical Hydrotreating, wet

gasification Pacific Northwest National Lab

Biomass, MSW Richland, WA


TABLE A-3 (CONTINUED) LIST OF CHEMICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES



Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process

Primary Feedstock Experience Name Location

Chemical Other CE-CERT Norbeck, J. M., and Johnson, K. (2000). "Evaluation of a Process to Convert Biomass to Methanol Fuel." NRMRL-RTP-202, CE-CERT, Riverside.

Clean wood Riverside, CA

Chemical Other Pacific Biodiesel Restaurant grease trap oil Bob Armantrout Maui, HI Chemical Other Biodiesel Industries, Inc. Recycled cooking oil Las Vegas, NV Chemical Other MCX Environmental Energy

Corporation SlurryCarb MSW, Solid Wastes Atlanta, GA



TABLE A-4 LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES

CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Gasification Primenergy, LLC PRM Energy

gasification Biomass, RDF, rice hulls, olive waste

Bill Scott Tulsa, OK

Thermal Gasification Emery Energy Company Emery Energy gasification process

Tires, RDF Ben Phillips Salt Lake City, UT

Thermal Gasification Thermogenics, Inc. Thermogenics Gasification System

MSW, wood waste, lignin, tires Tom Taylor Albuquerque, NM

Thermal Gasification Chiptec N/A Wood waste Bob Bender Burlington, VT Thermal Gasification AmbientECO Produces

EnviroFuel, to gasification

MSW Warren Hyland Inglewood, ON, Canada

Thermal Gasification Global Warming Prevention Technologies, Inc.

Natural State Reduction System (NSRS)

MSW, industrial and medical waste

Steve Poulos Toronto, ON, Canada

Thermal Gasification SenreQ, LLC Batch gasification MSW Michael Pope Oak Brook, IL Thermal Gasification Synxx Energy Solutions, Inc. Synxx Zero

Waste Process MSW Fred Arnold Thornhill, ON, Canada

Thermal Gasification City Clean 2000 Inc. Arlis System/Terra Recycling & Energy GmbH

MSW Peter Meszaros Ft. Myers, FL

Thermal Gasification Omnifuel Technologies, Inc. (previously Down Stream Systems)

Organic waste, tires, sewage sludge, biomass

John Black, Robert McChesney

Citrus Heights, CA

Thermal Gasification Costich Company MSW Dale Costich Brush Prairie, WA


TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED) LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES



Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Gasification Global Green Energy, LLC MSW Alexander

"Duke" Bascom Edina, MN

Thermal Gasification Lurgi Energie und Entsorgung GmbH

Rowitec (go through Gryphen Technologies in USA)

N/A Düsseldorf, Germany

Thermal Gasification Nippon Steel - Environmental Plant Sales Div.

Waste Direct Melting System

MSW U.S. - Masato - Osamu Suzuki

New York, NY

Thermal Gasification Innovative Logistics Solutions, Inc.

Pyromex MSW Richard Dietrich Palm Desert, CA

Thermal Gasification Whitten Group International Entech Renewable Energy System

MSW, medical and animal food waste, dried sewage, hazardous waste

Ron Whitten Longview, WA

Thermal Gasification Eco Waste Solutions 2-stage gasifier w/close-coupled thermal oxidizer

MSW, medical, and hazardous waste

Burlington, ON, Canada

Thermal Gasification Nathaniel Energy Corp. Thermal Combustor

MSW, RDF Englewood, CO

Thermal Gasification Improved Converters, Inc. Advanced Multi-Purpose Converter

MSW, RDF, tires, hazardous waste

Chris Kasten Sacramento, CA

Thermal Gasification Heuristic Engineering EnvirOcycler MSW, RDF, wood, biomass Dr. Malcolm D. Lefcort

Vancouver, BC, Canada

Thermal Gasification Kara Energy Systems b.v. Biomass Almelo, Netherlands Thermal Gasification TPS Termiska Processer AB RDF, wood Lars Waldheim Nyköping, Sweden





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Gasification Energy Products of Idaho MSW, RDF, biomass, wood

chips, sawdust, paper mill sludge, industrial sludge, plastic, tires, coal

Kent Pope Coeur d'Alene, ID

Thermal Gasification Community Power Corp. Designed by CPA and Iowa State Univ., manufactured by EPI

Sawdust, wood chips, chicken litter

Art Lilley Littleton, CO

Thermal Gasification Trillium Recycling & Energy Management Corp.

Ebara - Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasification (ICFG)

MSW, RDF, wood chips Kazuo Kato Mississauga, ON, Canada

Thermal Gasification Trillium Recycling & Energy Management Corp.

Ebara - TwinRec MSW, RDF Kazuo Kato Mississauga, ON, Canada

Thermal Gasification Enerkem Technologies, Inc. (part of KEMESTRIE Group, part of Univ. of Sherbrooke)

Biosyn Technology, Fluid bed w/alumina or silica

MSW, plastic, wood waste, RDF

Vincent Chornet Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

Thermal Gasification Woodland Chemical Systems, Inc.

Catalyzed Pressure Reduction (CPR) - gasification and ethanol formation

Biomass, sewage sludge, wood waste

No data Burlington, ON, Canada





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Gasification FERCO Enterprises Inc.

(formerly Future Energy Resources Corp.)

SilvaGas MSW, wood waste, agricultural waste

James W. Taylor, Jr.

Montgomery, NY; Norcross, GA

Thermal Gasification Torftech (Canada) Ltd. Torbed process MSW Bob Laughlin Mississauga, ON, Canada Thermal Gasification NKK Corporation High-

Temperature Gasifying and Direct Melting Furnace

MSW, industrial waste Tokyo, Japan

Thermal Gasification Eco Electric Power Company MSW Las Vegas, NV Thermal Gasification Malahat Energy N/A N/A Thermal Gasification Dynecology, Inc. MSW Dr Helmut W

Schulz Harrison, NY

Thermal Gasification Novera Energy Ltd. Advanced Thermal Gasification

MSW Shane Gannon Sydney, Australia

Thermal Gasification Advanced Technology Concepts, LLC

Gasification, followed by conversion to ethanol

MSW, biomass Alfred R. Dozier Albuquerque, NM

Thermal Gasification Ebara Ebara Twin Rec TIFG (Twin Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasification)

N/A Kaoru Shin Tokyo, Japan

Thermal Gasification Nova-Conrex Nova N/A Jov Theodor New York, NY





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Hi Temp Tech Corp. HiTemp

Technology (HTT) w/rotary kiln

MSW Steve Parker Flemington, NJ

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling EnerWaste International Corp.

Batch Oxidizing System

MSW, medical and industrial waste, wood

Tom Dutcher Bellingham, WA

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Consutech Systems, LLC Consumat MSW, medical and industrial waste

Bob Lee Richmond, VA

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Tanner Management Corp Pyrotechnix MSW, medical waste Huntington Station, NY Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Pennram Diversified

Manufacturing Corp MSW, medical waste Andrew Hooker Williamsport, PA

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.

Seghersdano drum for pre-screening and pulverizing MSW, followed by Seghers multi-stage grate

MSW Dirk Eeraerts Maruietta, GA

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Econergy Biomass, wood-fueled systems Jim Birse Bristol, UK Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Omega Thermal

Technologies Advanced Thermal Recycling

MSW, medical waste, ash Mount Laurel, NJ

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermtec, Inc. MSW, medical and industrial waste,

Sherwood, OR

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. MSW Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann

N/A





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Alstom Power MSW Christer

Mauritzson N/A

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Riley Power, Inc. Advanced Thermal Recycling

MSW Worcester, MA

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Barlow Projects, Inc. Aireal™ combustion system

MSW Brad Moorman Ft. Collins, CO

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Advanced Combustion Systems

MSW Mike Milnes Bellingham, WA

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Basic Envirotech, Inc. Basic Pulse Hearth Boiler (stoker), w/3-stage combustion

MSW John Basic, Jr. Naperville IL

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Covanta Energy Corp. (U.S. rep for Martin GmbH)

Martin MSW Trish Libertell Fairfield, NJ

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Energy Answers Corp. MSW Albany, NY Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Foster Wheeler Power Corp. MSW Clinton, NJ Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling KMS Peel, Inc. N/A N/A Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Martin GmbH (Covanta is

U.S. rep) SYNCOM (inclined grate)

MSW Erwin Leitmeir or Ekkehart Gartner

Munich, Germany

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Onyx Montenay Power Corp. MSW New York, NY Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Von Roll, Inc. Used by

Wheelabrator MSW Norcross, GA

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.

Von Roll MSW Richard Stone, Mark Lyons

Hampton, NH





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling International Combustion

Systems, Inc. No data No data No data No data

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling American Ref-Fuel Company MSW Derek Veenhof N/A Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Gryphen Technologies, Inc. Lurgi Rowitec

CFB Advanced Thermal Recycling

MSW Irvin Kew Victoria, BC, Canada

Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Detroit Stoker Company. MSW, wood, biomass Tom Tillman Monroe, MI Thermal Other Thermal Molecular Waste

Technologies, Inc. No data Alan Miller Marietta, GA

Thermal Other Thermal Environmental Waste International

Reverse Polymerization Process (in nitrogen environment)

Biological waste, tires Michael Vocilka Ajax, ON, Canada

Thermal Other Thermal Kinectrics Biomedical waste Dave Young Toronto, ON, Canada Thermal Other thermal Changing World

Technologies, Inc. Thermal Conversion Process (TCP)

MSW, animal waste, organics to oils

Brian Appel Hempstead, NY

Thermal Plasma Gasification Recovered Energy, Inc. Recovered Energy System

MSW Richard Lewis Pocatello, ID

Thermal Plasma Gasification Integrated Environmental Technologies, LLC

Plasma Enhanced Melter

MSW, hazardous, radioactive, medical, and industrial waste and plastic

William J. Quapp

Richland, WA





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Plasma Gasification Scientific Utilization, Inc. Pyro-Electric

Thermal Conversion (PETC)

Medical and hazardous waste Keith Bucher Huntsville, AL

Thermal Plasma Gasification Solena Group Plasma Gasification Vitrification

Industrial waste/MSW Richard Weissman, Ph.D.

Washington, DC

Thermal Plasma Gasification Try Star Ltd. Westinghouse plasma torch

MSW Ron Mestach N/A

Thermal Plasma Gasification American Plasma Corp. N/A N/A Thermal Plasma Gasification RCL Plasma, Inc. (formerly

Resorption Canada Limited) Phoenix Solutions or Europlasma

Biomedical and hazardous waste

Randy Bennett Gloucester, ON, Canada

Thermal Plasma Gasification U.S. Plasma, Inc. Plasma Gasification Process (PGP), using RCL Plasma technology (plasma torch by Phoenix Solutions)

Ash vitrification, industrial, hazardous and medical waste, PCBs, solvents

No data Mt. Pleasant, SC

Thermal Plasma Gasification Global Environmental Technologies of Ontario, Inc.

Westinghouse plasma torch

No data No data No data

Thermal Plasma Gasification Hi-Tech Enterprise Ltd. IMCO BRT process (?)

No data No data No data





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Plasma Gasification Geoplasma LLC (part of

Jacoby Development, Inc.) Plasma Direct Melting Reactor. Westinghouse Plasma torches.

MSW Hilburn Hillestad Atlanta, GA

Thermal Plasma Gasification Pearl Earth Sciences Corp. Plasma Waste Converter

No data Donna Dickson Ajax, ON, Canada

Thermal Plasma Gasification Plasma Environmental Technologies, Inc.

Plasma Assisted Gasifier (PAG). Also PARCON process w/Kinectrics

Hazardous waste No data Burlington, ON, Canada

Thermal Plasma Gasification PyroGenesis, Inc. Plasma Resource Recovery System (PRRS)

Hazardous waste, incinerator ash

P. Peter Pascali Montreal, QC, Canada

Thermal Plasma Gasification Startech Environmental Corp.

Plasma Converter System

No data Joseph Longo Wilton, CT

Thermal Plasma Gasification Plasma Waste Conversion Corp.

N/A N/A

Thermal Plasma Gasification MPM Technologies, Inc. Skygas plasma gasification

MSW, industrial waste, wood waste

Frank Hsu Parsippany, NJ

Thermal Plasma Gasification Phoenix Solutions Company Ash vitrification, industrial, hazardous and medical waste, PCBs, solvents

Douglas Frame Crystal, MN

Thermal Plasma Gasification SRL Plasma Ltd. PLASCON process

Gaseous and liquid waste Rex Williams Narangba, Queensland, Australia





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Plasma Gasification Thermal Conversion Corp.

(owned by Nuvotec, Inc.) Induction-Coupled Plasma (ICP) Reforming Process

No data No data Richland, WA

Thermal Plasma Gasification Golden State Energy Plasma-Based Pyrolysis/Vitrification (PBPV), using PEAT system

Destruction of special, hazardous and medical waste; vitrification of ash

Dr. Tom Damberger (former CEO for HI Disposal Systems, LLC)

Carson City, NV

Thermal Plasma Gasification Tetronics Ltd. Vitrification of incinerator and steel mill ash

Jas Manik Faringdon, Oxon, UK

Thermal Plasma Gasification Hitachi Metals, Inc. Plasma Direct Melting Furnace (Westinghouse Plasma)

MSW Akira Nomura Tokyo, Japan

Thermal Plasma Gasification HI Disposal Systems, LLC Plasma-Based Pyrolysis/Vitrification (PBPV), using PEAT system

Destruction of special, hazardous and medical waste; vitrification of ash

Indianapolis, IN

Thermal Plasma Gasification Europlasma Vitrification of ash Laure Chanony Munich, Germany Thermal Plasma Gasification PEAT International, Inc. Peat Thermal

Destruction and Recovery (PTDR)

MSW, medical, industrial, and hazardous waste, fly ash, bottom ash

Frank Menon Northbrook, IL

Thermal Pyrolysis Conrad Industries 121 Melhart Road Chehalis, WA, 98532

Plastic Bill Conrad Chehalis, WA





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Pyrolysis Life Energy & Technology

Holdings Biosphere Process

MSW Rick Diederich New Orleans, LA

Thermal Pyrolysis Mitsui Babcock R21 Process MSW David Allen Atlanta, GA Thermal Pyrolysis WasteGen (UK) Ltd Materials and

Energy Recovery Plant (MERP)

MSW Colin Hygate Wolvey, Hinckley, Leicestershire, UK

Thermal Pyrolysis Graveson Energy Management

GEM High-Speed Conversion Technology

MSW Doug Weltz Summit, NJ

Thermal Pyrolysis JF Ventures Ltd. JF Bioenergy N/A Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Interstate Waste

Technologies Thermoselect MSW Frank Campbell Malvern, PA

Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Global Energy Solutions, Inc. Thermal Converter

MSW Don Allen Sarasota, FL

Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Compact Power Holdings PLC/Compact Power Ltd

MSW John Acton Avonmouth, Bristol, U.K.

Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification RGR Ambiente Srl MSW, RDF, medical, industrial, and hazardous waste

No data Verona, Italy

Thermal Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming Brightstar Environmental Solid Waste Energy Recovery Facility (SWERF)

MSW Ron Menville Baton Rouge, LA

Thermal Steam reforming/catalysis ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc.

PulseEnhanced Steam Reformer

Black liquor, bark, wood waste and other organic waste products

Eric Connor Baltimore, MD

Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Organic Power ASA MSW Bergen, Norway Thermal Pyrolysis Waste Gas Technology MSW





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Pyrolysis PyNe Biomass Stefan Czernik Golden, CO Thermal Pyrolysis Metso Minerals Tires Englewood, CO Thermal Pyrolysis Unisphere Waste

Conversion Ltd TDP Process Tires Toronto, ON, Canada

Thermal Pyrolysis Beven Recycling Ltd. TP2000 Tires Upper Rissington, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, U.K.

Thermal Pyrolysis Ensyn Renewables, Inc. Rapid Thermal Processing (RTP)

Biomass Boston, MA

Thermal Pyrolysis Wellman Process Engineering

Integrated Fast Pyrolysis

Biomass Richard McLellan

Oldbury, U.K.

Thermal Pyrolysis Dynamotive BioTherm (BioOil)

Biomass Los Angeles, CA

Thermal Pyrolysis Thide Environmental Arthelyse MSW Voisins Le Bretonnaux, France Thermal Pyrolysis Adherent Technologies, Inc Titan

Technologies, Inc.

Tires Albuquerque, NM

Thermal Pyrolysis BTG Biomass Technology Group B.V.

Rotating Cone Pyrolysis

Wood Dr. B.M. Wagenaar

Enschede, The Netherlands

Thermal Pyrolysis Pyrovac International Pyrocycling Vacuum Pyrolysis

Wood bark Michele Dubois Franquet, QC, Canada

Thermal Pyrolysis Titan Technologies Tires Albuquerque, NM Thermal Pyrolysis Eco Waste Solutions 2-stage pyrolysis MSW Burlington, ON, Canada Thermal Pyrolysis North American Power

Company Thermal Recovery Unit

MSW, industrial and medical waste, plastic

Edward H. Stammel III

Las Vegas, NV





Technology Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location Thermal Pyrolysis B.S. Engineering S.A. P.I.T. Pyroflam

System by Serpac Environnement

MSW, industrial and animal waste

L'Arbresle Cedex, France

Thermal Destructure Distillation Pan American Resources N/A John Toman Pleasanton, CA

Appendix B

Characterization of Alternative Waste Processing Technologies

APPENDIX B TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-i

B.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................B-1 B.2 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................B-2 B.3 8/3/04 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) STUDY...........................................B-3 B.3.1 Sample Data ......................................................................................................B-3 B.4 CASCADIA MSW STUDY......................................................................................B-24 B.4.1 2000 Sample Data ...........................................................................................B-24 B.5 2000 VS. 8/3/04 COMPARISON .............................................................................B-25 List of Tables Table B-1 North Central Waste Load Data........................................................................B-4 Table B-2 West L.A. Waste Load Data .............................................................................B-6 Table B-3 West, East Valley, South Central, and Harbor Waste Load Data.....................B-8 Table B-4 Percent Composition of North Central ...........................................................B-10 Table B-5 Percent Composition of West L.A. .................................................................B-12 Table B-6 Percent Composition of East Valley...............................................................B-14 Table B-7 Percent Composition of South Central ...........................................................B-16 Table B-8 Percent Composition of West Valley..............................................................B-18 Table B-9 Percent Composition of Harbor ......................................................................B-20 Table B-10 Paper Waste Totals .........................................................................................B-22 Table B-11 Glass Waste Totals..........................................................................................B-22 Table B-12 Metal Waste Totals .........................................................................................B-22 Table B-13 Plastic Waste Totals........................................................................................B-22 Table B-14 Organic Material Waste Totals .......................................................................B-23 Table B-15 Construction Material Waste Totals ...............................................................B-23 List of Figures Figure B-1 8/3/04 Percent Composition of All Black Container Waste .............................B-1 Figure B-2 Cascadia 2000 Sample of Single-Family Residences.......................................B-2 Figure B-3 8/3/04 Percent Composition of All Black Container Waste ...........................B-24 Figure B-4 Cascadia 2000 Sample of Single Family Residences .....................................B-25 Attachments Attachment A Residential Waste Sorting Protocols for the City of Los Angeles

CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-1

B.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The scope of this report is to discuss the results of the 8/3/04 Municipal Solid Waste Sampling Study and compare those results to the Cascadia study from 2000. On August 3rd, 2004 URS conducted a waste sampling of Central Los Angeles’ Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). 10 Samples were taken and broken down into seven categories. Below in Figure B-1 are the percentages of composition for the different categories.

FIGURE B-1 8/3/04 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF ALL BLACK CONTAINER WASTE

Glass3.4% Hazard. Waste


Metal9.6%

Plastic16.6%

Paper25.7%

Other Organic36.7%

The percentages compare closely with the 2000 Cascadia sampling, with slight variations in the Organics category that can be explained from samplings conducted during different seasons (August, dry vs. February, wet). In addition, Glass, Metal, and Plastic percentages climbed, possibly due to normal, or market value fluctuations, as well as, the use of consumer film plastic has increased dramatically since 2000. The Cascadia categorical percentages are shown in Figure B-2 below for comparison with the 2004 sampling data. An in depth analysis of the Cascadia vs. 8/3/04 Sampling is included in Section 5.



FIGURE B-2 CASCADIA 2000 SAMPLE OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES

Hazard. Waste0.2%

Special Waste0.5%

Glass2.1%

Mixed Residue3.5%

Metal4.8%

Other Organic46.7%

Construcion9.4%

Plastic10.0%

Paper22.7%

B.2 INTRODUCTION URS conducted a waste sampling program at the Central Los Angeles Transfer Station, 2201 East Washington Blvd, on August 3, 2004. A total of 10 samples were evaluated as follows: • Three samples from North Central

• Three samples from West Los Angeles

• One sample from East Los Angeles

• One sample from South Central

• One sample from West Valley

• One sample from Harbor



B.3 8/3/04 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) STUDY B.3.1 Sample Data The data collected from the 10 waste sheds are broken down into 4 different categories from reporting purposes. • Data Sorted by Waste Load

• Data Sorted by Waste Shed

• Data Sorted by Waste Category

• Individual Waste Category Totals B.3.1.1 Waste Load Data Tables B-1 through B-3 shows the data collected from the sampling sorted by waste load. Table B-1 shows the waste load and the corresponding data from the three trucks for North Central Los Angeles. Table B-2 shows the data of the three trucks from West Los Angeles and Table B-3 shows the areas of East Valley, South Central, West Valley, and Harbor. B.3.1.2 Waste Shed Data The data contained in Tables B-4 through B-9 are the percentages of composition for the sampled waste sheds. B.3.1.3 Individual Waste Category Totals The waste sheds were broken down into individual categories and then totaled. Tables B-10 through B-15 illustrate the waste categories and the type of waste included within them.



TABLE B-1 NORTH CENTRAL WASTE LOAD DATA

Sample Number 1 2 3

Area of Generation North Central North Central North Central Truck # 36378 37200 37166

Waste Category Time of Delivery 9am 9:45am 10am Paper 30.25% 21.23% 10.65% Cardboard 16.7 0.5 0 Paper bags 0 0.1 0.2 Newspaper 13 0.1 0 Ledger/Office 7 0.5 0 Magazines/Catalogs 25.5 0.1 2.7 Miscellaneous paper 27.9 27.5 6.4 Mix paper (non-recyclable) 56.8 1.5 1.5 Category Total 146.9 30.3 10.8 Glass 3.01% 2.10% 9.57% Bottles/jars 14.6 3 9.7 Other glass 0 0 0 Category Total 14.6 3 9.7 Metal 4.88% 11.84% 0.59% Ferrous containers 0 1.8 0.4 Aluminum beverage cans 0 0.1 0.2 Other aluminum 3 0 0 Other ferrous 20.7 15 0 Other non-ferrous 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 Category Total 23.7 16.9 0.6 Plastic 16.41% 6.94% 23.37% PET/PETE bottles/jars 5.5 0.5 0.6 HDPE bottles 3.7 1.5 2.7 Other misc. containers 4.4 0.5 0.5 Film plastic 51.7 5.4 17.4 Miscellaneous plastic 14.4 2 2.5 Category Total 79.7 9.9 23.7 Organic Materials 40.70% 41.42% 52.17% Food waste 11 45.5 19.4 Yard waste 3.5 1.5 16.1 Branches/woody material 0 0 0 Other wood 31.6 4.4 0 Textiles 36 1.9 6.6 Manure 0 0 3.5 Other organics 115.6 5.8 7.3 Category Total 197.7 59.1 52.9


TABLE B-1 (CONTINUED)

NORTH CENTRAL WASTE LOAD DATA


Sample Number 1 2 3 Area of Generation North Central North Central North Central

Truck # 36378 37200 37166 Waste Category Time of Delivery 9am 9:45am 10am Construction Materials 4.76% 7.36% 2.27% Concrete 0 3.5 2 Gypsum board 23.1 3.5 0 Soil, rock, or brick 0 3.5 0.3 Category Total 23.1 10.5 2.3 Mixed Residue 0.00% 9.11% 1.38% HHW 0 13 1.4 Total Sample Weight (lbs) 485.7 142.7 101.4



TABLE B-2 WEST L.A. WASTE LOAD DATA

Sample Number 4 6 7

Area of Generation West LA West LA West LA Waste Category Truck # 36242 37026 37058 Paper 34.82% 23.89% 14.95% Cardboard 1.9 0.1 2 Paper bags 0 1.5 0.5 Newspaper 0 0 1 Ledger/Office 0 0.5 0.5 Magazines/Catalogs 0 0 3.4 Miscellaneous paper 13.1 19.5 2.7 Mix paper (non-recyclable) 4.5 1.5 1.5 Category Total 19.5 23.1 11.6 Glass 0.36% 0.83% 8.76% Bottles/jars 0 0.8 6.8 Other glass 0.2 0 0 Category Total 0.2 0.8 6.8 Metal 8.93% 7.03% 60.95% Ferrous containers 0.5 0.5 0.1 Aluminum beverage cans 0.2 0.1 0.6 Other aluminum 1.5 0.2 0 Other ferrous 0.3 0 0.6 Other non-ferrous 0 1.5 1.5 Electronics 2.5 4.5 44.5 Category Total 5 6.8 47.3 Plastic 14.64% 19.44% 1.68% PET/PETE bottles/jars 2.5 3 0.5 HDPE bottles 1.5 0.1 0.4 Other misc. containers 0 4 0.1 Film plastic 2.7 10.2 0.1 Miscellaneous plastic 1.5 1.5 0.2 Category Total 8.2 18.8 1.3 Organic Materials 41.25% 24.51% 7.86% Food waste 2.8 8.7 0 Yard waste 4.6 15 1.8 Branches/woody material 0 0 0 Other wood 0 0 0 Textiles 11.7 0 2.9 Manure 0 0 0 Other organics 4 0 1.4 Category Total 23.1 23.7 6.1


TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED) WEST L.A. WASTE LOAD DATA


Sample Number 4 6 7 Area of Generation West LA West LA West LA

Waste Category Truck # 36242 37026 37058 Construction Materials 0.00% 24.30% 5.80% Concrete 0 1.5 0 Gypsum board 0 1.5 0 Soil, rock, or brick 0 20.5 4.5 Category Total 0 23.5 4.5 Mixed Residue 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% HHW 0 0 0 Total Sample Weight (lbs) 56 96.7 77.6



TABLE B-3 WEST, EAST VALLEY, SOUTH CENTRAL, AND HARBOR WASTE LOAD DATA

Sample Number 5 8 9 10

Area of Generation East Valley South Central West Valley Harbor Waste Category Truck # 36477 36389 36666 37134 Paper 16.39% 39.00% 22.74% 34.48% Cardboard 0 0.3 4.3 3.3 Paper bags 0 2.5 0.5 0.2 Newspaper 0 0 0.5 18 Ledger/Office 1.5 1.5 0 0 Magazines/Catalogs 0 2.4 0 0 Miscellaneous paper 4.5 4.5 2 1 Mix paper (non-recyclable) 1 0.5 2.5 1.5 Category Total 7 11.7 9.8 24 Glass 0.00% 5.33% 4.87% 0.00% Bottles/jars 0 1.6 2.1 0 Other glass 0 0 0 0 Category Total 0 1.6 2.1 0 Metal 4.45% 3.67% 5.57% 6.61% Ferrous containers 0 0.7 1.8 0.1 Aluminum beverage cans 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 Other aluminum 0 0.1 0 0 Other ferrous 0 0 0 1.5 Other non-ferrous 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.8 Electronics 0 0 0 1.9 Category Total 1.9 1.1 2.4 4.6 Plastic 26.00% 32.33% 24.59% 24.71% PET/PETE bottles/jars 2.9 1.2 1.1 0.9 HDPE bottles 2 2.6 0.5 3 Other misc. containers 0.5 0.2 0 1.3 Film plastic 5.4 5.6 5 9.7 Miscellaneous plastic 0.3 0.1 4 2.3 Category Total 11.1 9.7 10.6 17.2 Organic Materials 25.76% 16.00% 41.53% 34.20% Food waste 1.5 0 6 6.9 Yard waste 0.5 0 1.5 0 Branches/woody material 4.5 0 0 6.5 Other wood 0 0 8.8 0 Textiles 4.5 2.5 1.6 5.2 Manure 0 0 0 0 Other organics 0 2.3 0 5.2 Category Total 11 4.8 17.9 23.8


TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED) WEST, EAST VALLEY, SOUTH CENTRAL, AND HARBOR WASTE LOAD DATA


Sample Number 5 8 9 10 Area of Generation East Valley South Central West Valley Harbor

Waste Category Truck # 36477 36389 36666 37134 Construction Materials 26.23% 0.00% 0.70% 0.00% Concrete 0 0 0 0 Gypsum board 0 0 0 0 Soil, rock, or brick 11.2 0 0.3 0 Category Total 11.2 0 0.3 0 Mixed Residue 1.17% 3.67% 0.00% 0.00% HHW 0.5 1.1 0 0 Total Sample Weight (lbs) 42.7 30 43.1 69.6



TABLE B-4 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF NORTH CENTRAL

Sample Number (1,2,3) North Central

Area of Generation North Central North Central Percent of Indv. Percent Total

Waste Type Sample

Waste Category Paper 25.76% 25.76% Cardboard 9.15% 2.36% Paper bags 0.16% 0.04% Newspaper 6.97% 1.80% Ledger/Office 3.99% 1.03% Magazines/Catalogs 15.05% 3.88% Miscellaneous paper 32.87% 8.47% Mix paper (non-recyclable) 31.81% 8.19% Category Total 188.00 Glass 3.74% 3.74% Bottles/jars 100.00% 3.74% Other glass 0.00% 0.00% Category Total 27.30 Metal 5.65% 5.62% Ferrous containers 5.34% 0.30% Aluminum beverage cans 0.73% 0.01% Other aluminum 7.28% 0.41% Other ferrous 86.65% 4.89% Other non-ferrous 0.00% 0.00% Electronics 0.00% 0.00% Category Total 41.20 Plastic 15.52% 15.52% PET/PETE bottles/jars 5.83% 0.90% HDPE bottles 6.97% 1.08% Other misc. containers 4.77% 0.74% Film plastic 65.75% 10.21% Miscellaneous plastic 16.68% 2.59% Category Total 113.30 Organic Materials 42.44% 42.44% Food waste 24.51% 10.40% Yard waste 6.81% 2.89% Branches/woody material 0.00% 0.00% Other wood 11.62% 4.93% Textiles 14.37% 6.10% Manure 1.13% 0.48% Other organics 41.56% 17.63%


TABLE B-4 (CONTINUED) PERCENT COMPOSITION OF NORTH CENTRAL


Sample Number (1,2,3) North Central Area of Generation North Central North Central

Percent of Indv. Percent Total

Waste Type Sample

Waste Category Organic Materials (continued) 42.44% 42.44% Category Total 309.70 Construction Materials 4.92% 4.92% Concrete 15.32% 0.75% Gypsum board 74.09% 3.64% Soil, rock, or brick 10.58% 0.52% Category Total 35.90 Mixed Residue 1.97% 1.97% HHW 14.40 1.97% Total Sample Weight (lbs) 729.80 729.80



TABLE B-5 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF WEST L.A.

Sample Number (4,6,7) West LA

Area of Generation West LA West LA Percent of Indv. Percent Total

Waste Type Sample

Waste Category Paper 23.53% 23.53% Cardboard 7.38% 1.74% Paper bags 3.69% 0.87% Newspaper 1.85% 0.43% Ledger/Office 1.85% 0.43% Magazines/Catalogs 6.27% 1.48% Miscellaneous paper 65.13% 15.33% Mix paper (non-recyclable) 13.84% 3.26% Category Total 54.20 Glass 3.39% 3.39% Bottles/jars 97.44% 3.30% Other glass 2.56% 0.09% Category Total 7.80 Metal 25.66% 25.40% Ferrous containers 1.86% 0.48% Aluminum beverage cans 1.52% 0.13% Other aluminum 2.88% 0.74% Other ferrous 1.52% 0.39% Other non-ferrous 5.08% 1.30% Electronics 87.14% 22.36% Category Total 59.10 Plastic 12.29% 12.29% PET/PETE bottles/jars 21.20% 2.61% HDPE bottles 7.07% 0.87% Other misc. containers 14.49% 1.78% Film plastic 45.94% 5.64% Miscellaneous plastic 11.31% 1.39% Category Total 28.30 Organic Materials 22.97% 22.97% Food waste 21.74% 4.99% Yard waste 40.45% 9.29% Branches/woody material 0.00% 0.00% Other wood 0.00% 0.00% Textiles 27.60% 6.34% Manure 0.00% 0.00% Other organics 10.21% 2.34%


TABLE B-5 (CONTINUED) PERCENT COMPOSITION OF WEST L.A.


Sample Number (4,6,7) West LA Area of Generation West LA West LA


Waste Type Sample

Waste Category Organic Materials (continued) 22.97% 22.97% Category Total 52.90 Construction Materials 12.16% 12.16% Concrete 5.36% 0.65% Gypsum board 5.36% 0.65% Soil, rock, or brick 89.29% 10.86% Category Total 28.00 Mixed Residue 0.00% 0.00% HHW 0.00 0.00% Total Sample Weight (lbs) 230.30 230.30



TABLE B-6 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF EAST VALLEY

Sample Number (5) East Valley

Area of Generation East Valley East Valley Percent of Indv. Percent Total

Waste Type Sample

Waste Category Paper 16.39% Cardboard 0.00% 0.00% Paper bags 0.00% 0.00% Newspaper 0.00% 0.00% Ledger/Office 21.43% 3.51% Magazines/Catalogs 0.00% 0.00% Miscellaneous paper 64.29% 10.54% Mix paper (non-recyclable) 14.29% 2.34% Category Total Glass 0.00% Bottles/jars 0.00% 0.00% Other glass 0.00% 0.00% Category Total Metal 4.45% Ferrous containers 0.00% 0.00% Aluminum beverage cans 26.32% 1.17% Other aluminum 0.00% 0.00% Other ferrous 0.00% 0.00% Other non-ferrous 73.68% 3.28% Electronics 0.00% 0.00% Category Total Plastic 26.00% PET/PETE bottles/jars 26.13% 6.79% HDPE bottles 18.02% 4.68% Other misc. containers 4.50% 1.17% Film plastic 48.65% 12.65% Miscellaneous plastic 2.70% 0.70% Category Total Organic Materials 25.76% Food waste 13.64% 3.51% Yard waste 4.55% 1.17% Branches/woody material 40.91% 10.54% Other wood 0.00% 0.00% Textiles 40.91% 10.54% Manure 0.00% 0.00% Other organics 0.00% 0.00%


TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED) PERCENT COMPOSITION OF EAST VALLEY


Sample Number (5) East Valley Area of Generation East Valley East Valley


Waste Type Sample

Waste Category Organic Materials (continued) 25.76% Category Total Construction Materials 26.23% Concrete 0.00% 0.00% Gypsum board 0.00% 0.00% Soil, rock, or brick 100.00% 26.23% Category Total Mixed Residue 1.17% HHW 100.00% 1.17% Total Sample Weight (lbs) 42.7 42.7



TABLE B-7 PERCENT COMPOSTION OF SOUTH CENTRAL

Sample Number (8) South Central

Area of Generation South Central South Central Percent of Indv. Percent Total

Waste Type Sample



TABLE B-7 (CONTINUED) PERCENT COMPOSTION OF SOUTH CENTRAL


Sample Number (8) South Central Area of Generation South Central South Central


Waste Type Sample

Waste Category Organic Materials (continued) 16.00% Category Total Construction Materials 0.00% Concrete 0.00% 0.00% Gypsum board 0.00% 0.00% Soil, rock, or brick 0.00% 0.00% Category Total Mixed Residue 3.67% HHW 100.00% 3.67% Total Sample Weight (lbs) 30 30



TABLE B-8 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF WEST VALLEY

Sample Number (9) West Valley

Area of Generation West Valley West Valley Percent of Indv. Percent Total

Waste Type Sample



TABLE B-8 (CONTINUED) PERCENT COMPOSITION OF WEST VALLEY


Sample Number (9) West Valley Area of Generation West Valley West Valley


Waste Type Sample

Waste Category Organic Materials (continued) 41.53% Category Total Construction Materials 0.70% Concrete 0.00% 0.00% Gypsum board 0.00% 0.00% Soil, rock, or brick 100.00% 0.70% Category Total Mixed Residue 0.00% HHW Total Sample Weight (lbs) 43.1 43.1



TABLE B-9 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF HARBOR

Sample Number (10) Harbor

Area of Generation Harbor Harbor Percent of Indv. Percent Total

Waste Type Sample



TABLE B-9 (CONTINUED) PERCENT COMPOSITION OF HARBOR


Sample Number (10) Harbor Area of Generation Harbor Harbor


Waste Type Sample

Waste Category Organic Materials (continued) 34.20% Category Total Construction Materials 0.00% Concrete 0.00% 0.00% Gypsum board 0.00% 0.00% Soil, rock, or brick 0.00% 0.00% Category Total Mixed Residue HHW Total Sample Weight (lbs) 69.6 69.6



TABLE B-10 PAPER WASTE TOTALS

Paper (294.70) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples Cardboard 9.87% 2.54% Paper bags 1.87% 0.48% Newspaper 11.06% 2.85% Ledger/Office 3.90% 1.00% Magazines/Catalogs 11.57% 2.98% Miscellaneous paper 37.02% 9.52% Mix paper (non-recyclable) 24.70% 6.36% % of Total Waste --- 25.73%

TABLE B-11

GLASS WASTE TOTALS

Glass (38.80) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples Bottles/jars 99.48% 3.37% Other glass 0.52% 0.02% % of Total Waste --- 3.39%

TABLE B-12

METAL WASTE TOTALS

Metal (110.30) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples Ferrous containers 5.35% 0.52% Aluminum beverage cans 1.99% 0.19% Other aluminum 4.35% 0.42% Other ferrous 34.54% 3.33% Other non-ferrous 5.35% 0.52% Electronics 48.41% 4.66% % of Total Waste --- 9.63%

TABLE B-13

PLASTIC WASTE TOTALS

Plastic (190.20) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples PET/PETE bottles/jars 9.83% 1.63% HDPE bottles 9.46% 1.57% Other misc. containers 6.05% 1.00% Film plastic 59.52% 9.88% Miscellaneous plastic 15.14% 2.51% % of Total Waste --- 16.60%



TABLE B-14 ORGANIC MATERIAL WASTE TOTALS

Organic Materials (420.10) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples Food waste 24.23% 8.89% Yard waste 10.59% 3.88% Branches/woody material 2.62% 0.96% Other wood 10.66% 3.91% Textiles 17.35% 6.36% Manure 0.83% 0.31% Other organics 33.71% 12.36% % of Total Waste --- 36.67%

TABLE B-15

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WASTE TOTALS

Construction Materials (75.40) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples Concrete 9.28% 0.61% Gypsum board 37.27% 2.45% Soil, rock, or brick 53.45% 3.52% % of Total Waste --- 6.58%



B.3.1.4 Total By Waste Category When the information from each individual waste category is combined and reported as a whole, an overall illustration of the waste sampling can be seen. Below in Figure B-3 are the total percentages of each individual category of all 10 waste sheds.

FIGURE B-3 8/3/04 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF ALL BLACK CONTAINER WASTE

Glass3.4% Hazardous Waste


Metal9.6%

Plastic16.6%

Paper25.7%

Other Organic36.7%

Other organics, paper and plastic accounts for over 75% of the waste collected from the black containers in all areas. This value is similar to the Cascadia 2000 samples collected from single-family residences. B.4 CASCADIA MSW STUDY B.4.1 2000 Sample Data The categories and percentage of composition of those corresponding categories are shown in Figure B-4 below. The composition is of black container waste from single-family residences.



FIGURE B-4 CASCADIA 2000 SAMPLE OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES

Hazardous Waste0.2%

Special Waste0.5%

Glass2.1%

Mixed Residue3.5%Metal

4.8%

Other Organic46.7%

Construcion9.4%

Plastic10.0%

Paper22.7%

The most prevalent in family waste are the: other organics, paper, and plastics. Other organics includes: food waste, grass/leaves, yard trimmings, braches, and textiles, which are 46% of the total waste. B.5 2000 VS. 8/3/04 COMPARISON Overall, the results compare favorably with the Cascadia report from 2000. The 2000 sorts were averaged from a broader sample base are were completed over several seasons. The differences in the paper category are insignificant. Better recycling efforts may be the cause of reduction in some of the paper sub-categories, but overall, the numbers are quite similar. Glass, metal and plastic percentages rose from the previous sort. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are: • Normal fluctuations. Since both studies are based on percentages totaling 100, when one

category goes down, others will adjust accordingly.



• The market value for these items fluctuates.

• The use of consumer film plastic has increased dramatically since 2000. The Organics category is the most variable in accord with the season. Fluctuations can be 20%. The 2004 study was conducted in August an extremely dry month, so organics, like grass, brush, etc will be at their low point for the year. The oddest change in the Organics category is food waste. In 2000, the food waste was 26.9%, versus the 8.9% in the sampling program. The percentage in the sampling event appears to be valid, however, because the food percentage is consistent in each sub-region. This category was difficult to sort because food items were often mixed with grass and leaves. As a result, some food may have been counted in the Yard Waste or other Organics categories. The construction percentages are almost exactly the same as the 2000 report. The 8/4/04 sampling event has Lumber in the Organics category Other Wood), rather than the Construction category, since we are looking at the Btu value of organics. If the Other Wood category percentage is added to the Construction percentage, the results are very similar to the 2000 report.

APPENDIX B ATTACHMENT A

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc 1

RESIDENTIAL WASTE SORTING PROTOCOLS FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Introduction – The purpose of this study is to confirm or modify the residential waste composition that was characterized in 2000. The results of this study will enable the City’s contractor, URS, to recommend the most viable alternative waste technology for residential waste now received at Sunshine Canyon Landfill. This study is not meant for revision of the City of Los Angeles’ Waste Characterization Study, nor is it meant for California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) approval. It is not a seasonal or comprehensive study, but is a quick representation of the residential waste stream. The sampling will be done by obtaining a cross section of residential waste from the City of Los Angeles. The sampling will take place at Central Los Angeles Transfer Station, 2201 East Washington Boulevard, on Tuesday, August 3rd, 2004. Required Materials • Portable platform scale with a minimum of 200-pound capacity, accurate to ¼ pound

• Traffic cones

• Heavy duty plastic tarp, at least 20x20 and 10mm thick

• Pre-weighed plastic containers or 5 gallon buckets

• Data record forms or hand-held computer

• Personal protective equipment (mandatory)

� Steel toed boots

� Hard hats

� Gloves

� Safety glasses

� Orange safety vests

� Level B Hazmat wear – long pants and shirt sleeves (Heavy-duty coveralls may be provided.)

Health and Safety Protection – The sampling crew should have an established, on-going safety and training program. Before sampling at CLA Transfer Station, the crew will identify and discuss all of the unique hazards, emergency procedures, and operational restrictions that might be present. The contractor will have written safety procedures and conduct guidelines, including a Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Control Plan. Section 304, Article 6 of the



California Integrated Waste Management Board’s California Health and Safety Guidelines for Waste Characterization Studies may be used for safety training (see Appendix A). Selection Procedure – Vehicles from each of the six regions of the City of Los Angeles will be sampled. The number of vehicles to be sampled is based on the typical volume of refuse delivered to either Sunshine Canyon Landfill or the Central Los Angeles Transfer Station. Samples include two trucks from Valley East, two trucks from Valley West, four trucks from Western Los Angeles, two trucks South Los Angeles, four trucks from North Central Los Angeles, and one truck from Harbor for a total of 15 vehicles. Two trucks each from Valley East and Valley West and one truck from Harbor will be randomly directed by City crews to the Transfer Station for sorting. Drivers from every 3rd vehicle from the other three areas will be directed to the sorting area for offloading until all of the samples have been selected. The selection may be paused at any time during the day by the site manager whenever logistical or safety issues warrant change in procedure. The site manager will notify the scale house personnel when to stop and when to resume. Sorting Procedure – Sorting will begin first thing in the morning, and should take approximately 10 hours including set-up and break down. Sample loads will be dumped in an elongated pile. One sorting sample from each load will be selected by using an imaginary 16-cell grid superimposed over the dumped material. The Field Manager will randomly select and identify the cell to be extracted by using powdered chalk. A landfill loader operator will then move the selection section of the waste from the pile and place it on a tarp for sorting. If a loader is not available, samples can be moved from the pile by hand. The remainder of the pile will then landfilled along with the unsampled waste. Sorting Samples – Once the sample is placed on the tarp, the material will be sorted by hand into the prescribed component categories. Pre-weighted plastic containers or buckets will be used to contain the separated components. Sorting crew members typically specialize in groups of materials, such as papers or plastics, and sort from the baskets containing their specialty. The Field Manager will monitor the contents of the component baskets as they accumulate, insuring materials are properly classified. The Field Manager will record the net weight of each material type into the database or on field sheets (Appendix B) after verifying the purity of each component as it was weighed. Each sample will be recorded separately, with the time of delivery, driver and origination of waste for record keeping purposes. When the sample has been segregated, weighed and recorded, the baskets will be emptied into a “discard pile” for landfill disposal. Category Definitions – The categories of waste are based on the higher compositions and recyclable components of the CIWMB’s waste characterization material types. Based on the 2000 composition, this study will only look at seven major categories and 30 sub-categories,



all with an estimated percentage of 0.5 or higher or are commonly recycled products. Each category will have its own plastic container. I. PAPER A. Cardboard – includes uncoated cardboard with a wavy core, chipboard boxes not coated

with wax, plastic or metal and egg cartons.

• If the material is contaminated with other materials such as oil, paint, blood, food, or other organic material, or with permanently attached packing material, such as Styrofoam, it goes in the “Remainder” category.

B. Paper Bags or kraft paper typically used for wrapping C. Newspaper (ONP) – printed groundwood newsprint, including glossy advertisements

and inserts typically found in newspapers. D. Ledger/Office/Office Pack Paper – includes: high grade continuous form computer

paper, white paper, including bond, photocopy and notebook paper, colored ledger paper primarily found in offices, kraft envelopes, bond computer paper, index cards, computer cards, notebook paper, xerographic and typing paper, manila file folders, white register receipts, non-glossy fax.

• If high grade paper is wet, it should still go into this category because it is assumed to have become wet after being discarded.

E. Magazines/Catalogs – magazines, catalogs, promotional materials printed on glossy paper; does not include telephone directories or books.

F. Misc. Paper - telephone directories, books, brightly colored paper, calendars, and tablets with colored glue bindings.

G. Mixed Paper – non-recyclable – all paper that doesn’t fit into the categories specified above.

• It goes in this category if the sorter is 99% sure that the generator intended to reuse the paper in such a way that it became contaminated for recycling (e.g., paper used to dispose of chewing gum, paper sprayed with paint).

• If it would take an effort to make the paper recyclable, put it into this category (e.g., paper or boxboard coated with wax, plastic or metal, tissue papers, paper napkins, dishware, frozen food packaging).



II. GLASS A. Bottles and Jars – All clear and colored food and beverage containers

B. Other Glass - all glass that was not originally a food or beverage container, including plate glass, drinking glasses, cooking utensils, ash trays, mirrors, fragments; any glass containers not clear, green or brown.

• If the glass is broken and not 100% identifiable as food or beverage glass, it belongs in the Other Glass category.

III. METAL A. Ferrous Containers – steel food and beverage containers, including steel soft drink, beer

and other beverage containers, and steel pet food cans.

B. Aluminum Beverage Containers – aluminum beverage containers.

C. Other Aluminum – All aluminum except beverage containers, i.e., aluminum foil, aluminum pie plates, aluminum siding, aluminum lawn chairs.

D. Other Ferrous – Ferrous and alloyed ferrous scrap, to which a magnet is attracted, includes household, commercial and industrial materials, i.e., Clothes hangers, sheet metal products, pipes, metal scraps.

E. Other Non-Ferrous – all other non-magnetic metal, such as brass, copper, that are not recognized as aluminum.

F. Electronics – Computer components, radios, etc.

• If the material is not recognizable as aluminum and it is not attracted to a magnet, it belongs in the Other Non-Ferrous category.

IV. PLASTIC A. PET/PETE Bottles/Jars –plastic bottles and necked jars composed of polyethylene

terephthalate and are labeled #1.

• Look for the label “1” on the bottom.

• PET and PVC can be differentiated because PET containers have a nub or ‘belly button’ while PVC containers have a seam or ‘smile.’



• Items not clearly identified as PET go into Other Containers, i.e., beverage bottles, some bottles for detergent, liquor, toiletries and honey, jars for peanut butter and mayonnaise.

B. HDPE Bottles –high-density polyethylene plastic and are labeled #2

• Look for the label “2” on the bottom.

• Look for opaque or translucent matte finish.

C. Other Miscellaneous Containers – all plastic containers not included the categories specified above

• Containers other than “1” or “2” bottles with necks.

• Look for the label “4” or “5” or “6” or “7” on the container.

• Examples: Margarine tubs, yogurt cups, cottage cheese containers, pharmaceutical bottles, mustard bottles, some beverage containers.

D. Film Plastic – transport packaging – film plastic used for ‘stretch’ wrapping pallets of

Products and all other flexible plastic film regardless of resin type, including plastic bags labeled as HDPE, i.e., garbage bags, bread bags, snack bags, plastic grocery bags, food wrappings, sheet film.

E. Miscellaneous Plastic– anything plastic that is not identifiable as one of the categories

above, i.e., molded toys, clothes hangers, cleaning tools, plastic hoses, drinking straws, individual condiment containers, plastic cards, pens and mixed products consisting mostly of plastic.

V. ORGANIC MATERIALS A. Food Waste - Material capable of being decomposed by micro-organisms with sufficient

rapidity as to cause nuisances from odors and gases; putrescibles, i.e., food preparation waste, food scraps, spoiled food, kitchen wastes, waste parts from butchered animals, dead animals.

B. Yard Waste – Grass and Leaves and other trimmings – non-woody plant material, i.e., grass, leaves, weeds, cut flowers, twigs less than ¼” in diameter.

C. Branches and Woody Material – woody plant material such as twigs, brush and branches more than ¼” in diameter, pine cones.

D. Other Wood - treated and none treated, i.e., furniture, wood construction scraps, pallets.



E. Textiles – clothing, bedding, curtains, blankets, other cloth material, leather goods, carpet.

F. Manure

G. Other Organics – Includes diapers, including cotton balls, feminine hygiene products, hair, small organic fragments.

VI. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS A. Concrete

B. Gypsum Board

C. Soil, Rock, or Brick VII. MIXED RESIDUE Hazardous waste, batteries, ashes, and anything that cannot be identified in any of the above categories.

Appendix C

Europe Facilities Field Reports

rLJaa

LrcTaolhemt

TrramocrrtemcceIahrrt

I
LANDFILLING OUR RESOURCES IS A WASTE
by Councilman Greig Smith
‘ve written much in this space about endingthe outdated practice of landfilling our trashin the City of Los Angeles. Mayor Hahn hasindicated that the City will not dump our
esidential waste in the Sunshine Canyonandfill after our current contract expires inune of 2006. Since that date is fastpproaching, the City is closely examining shortnd long term alternatives.

ast week, the Bureau of Sanitation released aeport that ranked the proposals of otherompanies competing for our waste business.he report showed that there was a viablelternative that would allow us to stop dumpingur trash in residential landfills, and is actuallyess expensive than any future contract that BFIas proposed for Sunshine Canyon. This isxciting news for the short term of wasteanagement in our City, but we are also looking

oward the future.

he future of waste management is actuallyesource management. We already know thatecyclables such as cans, bottles and cardboardre valuable commodities, for which there is aarket. What is not as well known, is that much

f what we consider to be trash, can beonverted by clean, proven technologies intoenewable green fuels, compost and otheresources. When trash is thrown in a landfill,hat’s the end of its useful life and the start of annvironmentally hazardous process that requiresyriad pollution mitigation. When waste is

onverted into a resource, a commodity has beenreated that provides an economic andnvironmental benefit. recently had the opportunity to travel to Europend visit some waste conversion facilities thatave been on the forefront of creating andefining these technologies. I saw a goodepresentation of various thermal-recyclingechnologies, which produce clean fuel and raw

materials for manufacturing. I alsanaerobic digestion facilities, where hicompost and clean, renewable fuel are from waste.

One exciting feature of conversion techis the total environmental and economBy creating renewable fuel sourcesreducing pollution as well as depenfossil fuels and foreign oil. Highcompost is proven to regenerate soil bback the valuable nutrients that are tradepleted with every crop. Soils treatedcompost require 30% less water and much higher yield.

In the coming months, the City evaluating these technologies to detemost viable for the City of Los Angelmeantime, if you’d like to read a detaiabout the European facilities I visitevisit my website www.lacity.org/council/cd12. After ththe year, I will be releasing my own action plan to eliminate waste in the CAngeles. I am truly excited about the for resource management in Los Anlook forward to implementing the econenvironmental benefits of thesetechnologies to end our dependlandfilling.

November 2004

o visitedgh qualityconverted

nologies,ic benefit., we aredence on qualityy addingditionally with this

produce a

will bermine thees. In theled reportd, please

ate first oflong-termity of Losprospectsgeles andomic and

provenence on

jnishi

European Conversion Facilities Tour Report

jnishi

• MVR - Thermal Recycling Facility • MPA - Pyrolysis Facility • Thermoselect - Gasification/Pyrolysis Facility • Valorga - Anaerobic Digestion Facility • OWS Brecht II DRANCO - Anaerobic Digestion Facility

http://www.lacity.org/council/cd12/pdf/Landfilling_Resources_MVR_Thermal_Recycling_Facility.pdf

http://www.lacity.org/council/cd12/pdf/Landfilling_Resources_MPA_Pyrolysis_Facility.pdf

http://www.lacity.org/council/cd12/pdf/Landfilling_Resources_Thermoselect_Gasification_Facility.pdf

http://www.lacity.org/council/cd12/pdf/Landfilling_Resources_Valorga_Anaerobic_Digestion_Facility.pdf

http://www.lacity.org/council/cd12/pdf/Landfilling_Resources_OWS_Brecht_II_Dranco.pdf

http://www.lacity.org/council/cd12/pdf/Landfilling_Resources_OWS_Brecht_II_Dranco.pdf

jnishi

Appendix D

Life Cycle Analysis Report

APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE MSW DST

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix D.doc D-1

The MSW DST was developed through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. EPA’s Office of Research and Development and RTI’s Center for Environmental Analysis to assist communities and other waste planners in conducting cost and environmental modeling of MSW management systems. Users can evaluate the numerous MSW management strategies that are feasible within a community or region and identify the alternatives that are economically and environmentally efficient, making tradeoffs if necessary. The MSW DST allows users to analyze existing waste management systems and proposed future systems based on user-specified information (e.g., waste generation levels, waste composition, diversion rates, infrastructure). The current components included in the MSW DST are waste collection, transfer stations, material recovery facilities (MRFs), mixed MSW and yard waste composting, combustion and refuse-derived fuel production, and conventional or bioreactor landfills. Existing facilities and/or equipment can be incorporated as model constraints to ensure that previous capital expenditures are not negated by the model solution. As illustrated in Figure D-1, the MSW DST consists of several components, including process models, waste flow equations, an optimization module, and a graphic user interface (GUI). The process models consist of a set of spreadsheets developed in Microsoft Excel. These spreadsheets use a combination of default and user-supplied data to calculate the cost and life cycle coefficients on a per-unit mass basis for each of the 39 MSW components being modeled for each solid waste management unit process (collection, transfer, etc.). Each process model describes and represents the essential activities that take place during the processing of waste items. For example, the collection model includes parameters for waste collection frequency, collection vehicle type and capacity, number of crew members, and number of houses served at each stop. Although national average default values are included in the MSW DST for such parameters, users can override the default values with site-specific information. These operational details, which are input by the user to represent an MSW management system, are then synthesized in the process model to estimate the cost of processing as a function of the quantity and composition of the waste entering that process. The resulting cost coefficients from each waste management process model are then used to estimate the cost of that option. The MSW DST also contains models for ancillary processes that may be used by different waste management processes. These models calculate emissions for fuels and electrical energy production, materials production, and transportation. Electricity, for example, is used in every waste management process. Based on the user-specified design information and the emissions associated with generating electricity from each fuel type, the MSW DST calculates coefficients for emissions related to the use of a kilowatt hour of electricity. These emissions are then assigned to waste stream components for each facility that uses electricity



FIGURE D-1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE MSW DST

Input site-specific data inprocess models

Requirements:- Mass- Regulations- Targets

Alternative strategies

USER

Cost and life-sycleinventory coefficients

Optimizationmodule

and through which the mass flows. For example, MRFs use electricity for conveyors and facility lighting. The emissions associated with electricity generation would be assigned to the mass that flowed through that facility. Users can specify whether the emissions associated with generating electrical energy are based on a national, regional, or user-defined mix of fuel. The optimization module is implemented using a commercial linear programming solver called CPLEX. The model is constrained by mass flow equations that are based on the quantity and composition of waste entering each unit process and that intricately link the different unit processes in the waste management system (i.e., collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal options). These mass flow constraints preclude impossible or nonsensical model solutions. For example, these mass flow constraints will exclude the possibility of removing aluminum from the waste stream via a mixed waste MRF and then sending the recovered aluminum to a landfill. The optimization module uses linear programming techniques to determine the optimum solution consistent with the user-specified objective and mass flow, and user-specified constraints. Examples of user-specified constraints are the use of existing equipment/facilities and a minimum recycling percentage requirement.



The environmental aspects associated with a defined MSW management strategy are estimated in terms of annual net cost, energy consumption, and environmental releases (air, water, solid waste). For example, waste collection vehicles consume fuel and release several types of air pollutants in their exhaust. The collection process model of the MSW DST uses information about the quantity and composition of waste generated and a host of collection route parameters to estimate the amount of fuel consumed and air emissions by waste constituent collected. In addition, the environmental burdens associated with producing the fuel used in the collection vehicles are calculated and included in the collection results. All process modules in the MSW DST operate in a similar manner and express results as a function of the quantity and composition of the waste entering each process. In some waste management processes, cost, energy, and emission offsets may occur. For example, diverting recycling materials from the waste stream results in a revenue stream and can displace energy consumption and emissions associated with virgin materials production. Similarly, waste management processes that recover energy (e.g., Advanced Thermal Recycling (ATR), landfill gas utilization) will displace energy production in the utility sector and thereby avoid fossil fuel production- and combustion-related emissions. In applying the MSW DST, any materials or energy recovery-related benefits are netted out of the results for each process. Data for all air parameters that were tracked for the City of Los Angeles study for each of the scenarios analyzed are included in Tables D-1 through D-5.



TABLE D-1 SUMMARY LEVEL RESULTS FOR THE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AND

OTHER SCENARIO ANALYZED FOR LOS ANGELES (PER 1,000,000 TONS OF WASTE MANAGED)

Parameter Units Landfill ATR Gasification AD Energy Consumption MBTU 168,879 -7,979,688 -10,618,761 -4,698,885 Air Emissions Total Particulate Matter lb -7,576 -676,023 -1,440,538 -717,400 Nitrogen Oxides lb 1,063,535 -139,325 -2,487,030 156,285 Sulfur Oxides lb -1,721,492 -4,219,963 -7,291,912 -2,298,109 Carbon Monoxide lb 2,441,973 126,226 -3,575,318 -379,452 Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 5,070,517,344 1,138,815,930 2,152,959,115 93,993,304 Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -204,596,186 -104,837,901 -564,074,507 -298,483,160 Green House Equivalents1 MTCE 752,701 -18,279 -78,601 -41,945 Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -1,385 -518,674 -1,901,594 -674,831 Lead lb -8 33 208,862 27 Ammonia lb -1,054 -2,774 661,605 -956 Methane lb 272,590,657 -1,390,918 -1,452,926 -433,706 Hydrochloric Acid lb 29,895 237,525 -66,555 -16,544 Ancillary Solid Waste lb -37,981,941 -114,732,959 -157,048,321 -78,593,568

1 MTCE is based on carbon dioxide fossil and methane emissions. Carbon dioxide biomass is not included because it is considered to be part of the natural short-term carbon cycle.



TABLE D-2 LANDFILL SCENARIO RESULTS

Parameter Units Net Total Collection Transfer Transportation Disposal

Energy Consumption MBTU 168,879 427,670 6,765 17,989 -283,545

Air EmissionsTotal Particulate Matter lb -7,576 9,607 2,909 3,575 -23,667Nitrogen Oxides lb 1,063,535 713,598 38,355 24,826 286,757Sulfur Oxides lb -1,721,492 70,013 4,512 7,045 -1,803,061Carbon Monoxide lb 2,441,973 119,299 9,629 24,473 2,288,573Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 5,070,517,344 17,032 382 693 5,070,499,237Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -204,596,186 18,159,457 1,092,719 2,893,750 -226,742,112Green House Equivalents MTCE 752,701 2,508 150 396 749,648Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -1,385 147,924 4,790 9,989 -164,087Lead lb -8 1 0 0 -9Ammonia lb -1,054 0 2 5 -1,060Methane lb 272,590,657 11,037 194 460 272,578,965Hydrochloric Acid lb 29,895 71 2 3 29,820

Total Solid Waste lb -37,981,941 366,999 7,368 15,114 -38,371,421



TABLE D-3 ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING (ATR) SCENARIO RESULTS

Parameter Units Net Total Collection Transfer WTE Transport Disposal Recycling Offset

Energy Consumption MBTU -7,979,688 427,670 6,765 -4,757,194 32,267 20,246 -3,709,441

Air EmissionsTotal Particulate Matter lb -676,023 9,607 2,909 -480,198 6,413 1,256 -216,009Nitrogen Oxides lb -139,325 713,598 38,355 -913,369 44,532 13,682 -36,123Sulfur Oxides lb -4,219,963 70,013 4,512 -4,232,669 12,638 2,326 -76,783Carbon Monoxide lb 126,226 119,299 9,629 478,257 43,898 4,638 -529,495Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 1,138,815,930 17,032 382 1,138,797,042 1,243 230 0Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -104,837,901 18,159,457 1,092,719 -85,785,645 5,190,663 977,389 -44,472,484Green House Equivalents MTCE -18,279 2,508 150 -15,610 710 134 -6,170Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -518,674 147,924 4,790 -481,804 17,917 3,498 -210,999Lead lb 33 1 0 2 0 0 30Ammonia lb -2,774 0 2 -2,786 8 2 0Methane lb -1,390,918 11,037 194 -1,366,118 826 173 -37,030Hydrochloric Acid lb 237,525 71 2 236,666 5 1 781

Total Solid Waste lb -114,732,959 366,999 7,368 -104,177,624 27,110 7,017 -10,963,829

ATR



TABLE D-4 GASIFICATION SCENARIO RESULTS

Parameter Units Net Total Collection Transfer Gasification Transport Landfill Utility OffsetRecycling

Offset

Energy Consumption MBTU -10,618,761 427,670 6,765 141,796 39,221 65,218 -4,892,595 -6,406,836

Air EmissionsTotal Particulate Matter lb -1,440,538 9,607 2,909 4,554 7,795 1,305 -599,228 -867,480Nitrogen Oxides lb -2,487,030 713,598 38,355 707,856 54,129 14,966 -2,022,600 -1,993,334Sulfur Oxides lb -7,291,912 70,013 4,512 214,072 15,362 2,685 -4,277,928 -3,320,626Carbon Monoxide lb -3,575,318 119,299 9,629 8,676 53,359 5,539 -333,256 -3,438,564Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 2,152,959,115 17,032 382 1,831,338,025 1,511 906 -6,561,717 328,162,975Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -564,074,507 18,159,457 1,092,719 272,009,452 6,309,365 1,067,050 -533,986,502 -328,726,049Green House Equivalents MTCE -78,601 2,508 150 39,992 863 146 -76,295 -45,965Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -1,901,594 147,924 4,790 449 21,779 3,629 -426,989 -1,653,175Lead lb 208,862 1 0 208,986 0 0 -24 -100Ammonia lb 661,605 0 2 672,222 10 2 -2,451 -8,180Methane lb -1,452,926 11,037 194 147,049 1,003 242 -1,214,738 -397,713Hydrochloric Acid lb -66,555 71 2 116 6 2 -36,193 -30,558

Total Solid Waste lb -157,048,321 366,999 7,368 66,795 32,953 5,853 -92,546,311 -64,981,977



TABLE D-5 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION SCENARIO RESULTS

Parameter Units Net Total Collection TransferAnaerobic Digestion Transport Landfill Utility Offset

Recycling Offset

Energy Consumption MBTU -4,698,885 427,670 6,765 310,355 21,970 186,249 -397,712 -5,254,181

Air EmissionsTotal Particulate Matter lb -717,400 9,607 2,909 86,763 4,366 3,726 -149,571 -675,199Nitrogen Oxides lb 156,285 713,598 38,355 453,415 30,320 42,739 -504,852 -617,290Sulfur Oxides lb -2,298,109 70,013 4,512 26,425 8,605 7,667 -1,067,795 -1,347,534Carbon Monoxide lb -379,452 119,299 9,629 805,810 29,889 15,817 -83,183 -1,276,714Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 93,993,304 17,032 382 95,613,606 847 1,395 -1,637,842 -2,115Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -298,483,160 18,159,457 1,092,719 17,907,985 3,534,143 3,047,278 -133,286,092 -208,938,650Green House Equivalents MTCE -41,945 2,508 150 2,857 484 417 -19,044 -29,316Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -674,831 147,924 4,790 401 12,199 10,365 -106,579 -743,930Lead lb 27 1 0 4 0 0 -6 28Ammonia lb -956 0 2 9 6 5 -612 -366Methane lb -433,706 11,037 194 144,969 562 633 -303,205 -287,896Hydrochloric Acid lb -16,544 71 2 16,398 3 5 -9,034 -23,989

Total Solid Waste lb -78,593,568 366,999 7,368 56,720 18,458 16,713 -23,100,090 -55,959,737

Appendix E

Supplier Evaluations

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Section Page

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-i

E.1 THERMAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................E-1 E.1.1 Ebara .................................................................................................................E-1 E.1.2 Interstate Waste Technologies ........................................................................E-13 E.1.3 Omnifuel Technologies...................................................................................E-29 E.1.4 Primenergy/RRA.............................................................................................E-42 E.1.5 Taylor Biomass Recovery...............................................................................E-58 E.1.6 WasteGen Ltd .................................................................................................E-71 E.1.7 Whitten Group International ...........................................................................E-88 E.1.8 Pan American Resources, Inc. ......................................................................E-101 E.2 ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING ............................................................E-115 E.2.1 Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. ........................................................................E-115 E.2.2 Seghers-Keppel Technology, Inc..................................................................E-134 E.2.3 Covanta Energy Corporation ........................................................................E-144 E.3 BIOCONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES ..............................................................E-154 E.3.1 Arrow Ecology..............................................................................................E-154 E.3.2 Organic Waste Systems NV..........................................................................E-167 E.3.3 Waste Recovery Systems, Inc.......................................................................E-179 E.3.4 Canada Composting, Inc. ..............................................................................E-192 E.3.5 Wright Environmental Management, Inc. ....................................................E-207 E.3.6 Global Renewables .......................................................................................E-221 List of Tables Page Table E-1 Ebara Reference Facilities .............................................................................E-2 Table E-2 Ebara Summary Mass Balance ......................................................................E-6 Table E-3 Cost Analysis of Proposed Ebara Facility ...................................................E-11 Table E-4 Thermoselect Reference Facilities ...............................................................E-14 Table E-5 Thermoselect Facilities in Development .....................................................E-15 Table E-6 Thermoselect Summary Mass Balance 100,000 Tons/Year ........................E-20 Table E-7 Thermoselect Summary Mass Balance 990,000 Tons/Year ........................E-21 Table E-8 Chemical Additive Use ................................................................................E-21 Table E-9 Cost Analysis of Proposed IWT Facility 100,000 Tons/Year .....................E-27 Table E-10 Cost Analysis of Proposed IWT Facility 990,000 Tons/Year .....................E-28 Table E-12 Omnifuel Reference Facilities .....................................................................E-30

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS List of Tables Page

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-ii

Table E-13 Omnifuel Summary Mass Balance ..............................................................E-33 Table E-14 Cost Analysis of Proposed Omnifuel Facility .............................................E-39 Table E-15 Primenergy and RRA Reference Facilities ..................................................E-48 Table E-16 Primenergy-RRA Summary Mass Balance .................................................E-52 Table E-17 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility..............................................................E-57 Table E-18 Taylor Reference Facilities ..........................................................................E-61 Table E-19 Taylor Summary Mass Balance 195,750 Tons/Year ...................................E-64 Table E-20 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility..............................................................E-68 Table E-21 WasteGen Reference Facilities ....................................................................E-74 Table E-22 WasteGen Summary Mass Balance .............................................................E-77 Table E-23 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility..............................................................E-87 Table E-24 Entech Reference Facilities..........................................................................E-91 Table E-25 Entech Summary Mass Balance...................................................................E-92 Table E-26 Cost Analysis of Proposed Entech Facility..................................................E-99 Table E-27 Par Reference Facilities .............................................................................E-103 Table E-28 Summary Mass Balance.............................................................................E-106 Table E-29 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility............................................................E-112 Table E-30 Reference Facilities....................................................................................E-124 Table E-31 Summary Mass Balance.............................................................................E-125 Table E-32 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility............................................................E-133 Table E-33 Seghers Keppel Reference Facilities .........................................................E-136 Table E-34 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility............................................................E-142 Table E-35 Reference Facilities....................................................................................E-145 Table E-36 Cost Analysis of 329,000 Tons/Year Facility............................................E-152 Table E-37 Arrow Ecology Reference Facilities..........................................................E-155 Table E-38 Arrow Ecology Summary Mass Balance...................................................E-158 Table E-39 Cost Analysis of Arrow Ecology Conceptual Los Angeles Facility..........E-164 Table E-40 OWS Reference Facilities..........................................................................E-168 Table E-41 OWS Dranco Summary Mass Balance ......................................................E-171 Table E-42 Cost Analysis of OWS Conceptual Los Angeles Facility .........................E-176 Table E-43 Valorga Reference Facilities......................................................................E-181 Table E-44 WRSI/Valorga Summary Mass Balance....................................................E-184 Table E-45 Cost Analysis of WRSI/Valorga Conceptual Los Angeles Facility ..........E-190 Table E-46 CCI – BTA Reference Facilities > 10,000 TPY ........................................E-194 Table E-47 CCI BTA Summary Mass Balance ............................................................E-198 Table E-48 Combustion Emissions – Biogas ...............................................................E-202 Table E-49 Liquid Effluent Characteristics Example...................................................E-202 Table E-50 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison ...................................................E-203 Table E-51 Cost Analysis of CCI Conceptual Los Angeles Facility............................E-204

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS List of Tables Page

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-iii

Table E-52 Some Wright Environmental Reference Facilities ....................................E-209 Table E-53 Wright Environmental Summary Mass Balance........................................E-212 Table E-54 Cost Analysis of Wright Environmental Conceptual

Los Angeles Facility ..................................................................................E-217 Table E-55 Summary Mass Balance.............................................................................E-224 List of Figures Page Figure E-1 Ebara Reference Facilities .............................................................................E-2 Figure E-2 Schedule of Implementation, Ebara Facility..................................................E-4 Figure E-3 Layout of Proposed Facility...........................................................................E-5 Figure E-4 Process Flow Diagram ...................................................................................E-6 Figure E-5 Ebara Twin Rec System (Twin Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasification with Ash Melting) .....................................................................E-8 Figure E-6 Thermoselect Reference Facilities ...............................................................E-15 Figure E-7 Process Areas ...............................................................................................E-16 Figure E-8 Schedule of Implementation ........................................................................E-18 Figure E-9 Thermoselect Process Flow Diagram ..........................................................E-19 Figure E-10 Mass Balance – 100,000 Tons/Year Facility ...............................................E-19 Figure E-11 Mass Balance – 990,000 Tons/Year Facility ...............................................E-20 Figure E-12 Degassing Channel and Gasifier ..................................................................E-22 Figure E-13 Schedule of Implementation, Omnifuel Facility..........................................E-32 Figure E-14 Layout of Proposed Facility.........................................................................E-33 Figure E-15 Omnifuel Pre-Processing Subsystem...........................................................E-35 Figure E-16 Omnifuel Gasification Technology..............................................................E-36 Figure E-17 Site Layout ...................................................................................................E-45 Figure E-18 PRM Energy Systems, Inc. Gasification Technology .................................E-46 Figure E-19 Reference Facilities......................................................................................E-49 Figure E-20 Sample Project Schedule..............................................................................E-51 Figure E-21 Primenergy Gasifier .....................................................................................E-54 Figure E-22 Ferco Silvagas Process Flow Diagram ........................................................E-60 Figure E-23 Ferco Silvagas Reference Facility at McNeil Station, Burlington, VT .......E-62 Figure E-24 Overall WasteGen Process...........................................................................E-72 Figure E-25 WasteGen Reference Facilities ....................................................................E-74 Figure E-26 Site Layout ...................................................................................................E-76 Figure E-27 WasteGen Process Flow Diagram ...............................................................E-77 Figure E-28 Tipping Hall .................................................................................................E-79 Figure E-29 Shredder .......................................................................................................E-79 Figure E-30 Kiln Inlet ......................................................................................................E-80

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS List of Figures Page

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-iv

Figure E-31 Flue Gas Exits through Insulated Pipes .......................................................E-81 Figure E-32 Water Bath for Solids Removed ..................................................................E-82 Figure E-33 Wet Slag Removal Conveyor.......................................................................E-82 Figure E-34 Bottom Ash Removal Bins ..........................................................................E-83 Figure E-35 Hot Gas Cyclone ..........................................................................................E-83 Figure E-36 Double-Valve Arrangement.........................................................................E-84 Figure E-37 Combustion Chamber ..................................................................................E-85 Figure E-38 Entech Renewable Energy System ..............................................................E-90 Figure E-39 Entech Reference Facilities..........................................................................E-91 Figure E-40 Pyrolytic Gasification Chamber...................................................................E-95 Figure E-41 Thermal Reactor...........................................................................................E-95 Figure E-42 Energy Utilization Heat Exchanger (Boiler)................................................E-96 Figure E-43 Air Quality Control System .........................................................................E-97 Figure E-44 Reference Facility at Marcal Paper Mills (1982-84) .................................E-103 Figure E-45 Site Layout .................................................................................................E-105 Figure E-46 Process Flow Diagram ...............................................................................E-105 Figure E-47 Hydro-Sonic Scrubber ...............................................................................E-110 Figure E-48 MVR Thermal Recycling Process .............................................................E-116 Figure E-49 Tipping Hall ...............................................................................................E-117 Figure E-50 MSW Delivery Point..................................................................................E-118 Figure E-51 Grappling Hook Puts MSW into Shredder ................................................E-118 Figure E-52 Shredded MSW Bunker .............................................................................E-119 Figure E-53 Boiler and Steam Turbine Generator Housing...........................................E-119 Figure E-54 Steam Turbine-Generator...........................................................................E-120 Figure E-55 Bottom Ash Conveyor System...................................................................E-120 Figure E-56 Bottom Ash Storage Facility......................................................................E-121 Figure E-57 Emission Stacks .........................................................................................E-122 Figure E-58 Control Room.............................................................................................E-123 Figure E-59 MVR Plant .................................................................................................E-124 Figure E-60 Process Flow Diagram ...............................................................................E-126 Figure E-61 Boiler..........................................................................................................E-128 Figure E-62 Bottom Ash Processing in Furnace............................................................E-129 Figure E-63 Bottom Ash Processing..............................................................................E-129 Figure E-64 Emission Control System Flow Diagram ..................................................E-130 Figure E-65 HCl Rectification System ..........................................................................E-131 Figure E-66 Dano Drums ...............................................................................................E-135 Figure E-67 Thermal Recycling Facilities .....................................................................E-137 Figure E-68 Dano Drum Feed Separation......................................................................E-138 Figure E-69 Dano Drum.................................................................................................E-139

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS List of Figures Page

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-v

Figure E-70 Dano Drum Internals..................................................................................E-140 Figure E-71 Emission Control System...........................................................................E-141 Figure E-72 Typical Covanta Facility............................................................................E-145 Figure E-73 Reference Facilities....................................................................................E-146 Figure E-74 General Process Flow Diagram .................................................................E-147 Figure E-75 Martin Grate System..................................................................................E-149 Figure E-76 Action of Martin Grate System..................................................................E-149 Figure E-77 3-D Isometric View....................................................................................E-156 Figure E-78 Arrow Ecology Flow Diagram...................................................................E-157 Figure E-79 Preprocessing Subsystem...........................................................................E-160 Figure E-80 Conversion Subsystem...............................................................................E-161 Figure E-81 Brecht II Facility (Foreground); Brecht I is in the Background ................E-169 Figure E-82 Schedule of Implementation, OWS Dranco Facility .................................E-170 Figure E-83 Proposed OWS Facility: Process Flow......................................................E-170 Figure E-84 Dranco Digester .........................................................................................E-174 Figure E-85 Valorga Facility in Barcelona; View of Digesters, Buffer Gas Storage, and Flare.....................................................................................................E-182 Figure E-86 Valorga Barcelona Process Flow Overview ..............................................E-183 Figure E-87 Close-Up of Two of the Three Valorga Digesters in Barcelona................E-186 Figure E-88 Valorga Digester in Freiburg, Germany ....................................................E-189 Figure E-89 130,000 TPY CCI Facility in Newmarket, ON..........................................E-195 Figure E-90 Conceptual CCI Facility: Process Flow and Mass Balance.......................E-197 Figure E-91 CCI Digester, Pulp & Water Storage – Newmarket, ON ..........................E-201 Figure E-92 Kirkhill Treatment Plant (Mintlaw – Aberdeenshire, Scotland)................E-210 Figure E-93 Proposed Wright Environmental Facility: Process Flow and Mass Balance (Per Business Day).......................................................................E-211 Figure E-94 Biodryer Schematic....................................................................................E-213 Figure E-95 View of Biodryer Internals ........................................................................E-213 Figure E-96 190,000 TPD Eastern Creek UR-3R Facility, September 2004.................E-222 Figure E-97 Summary UR-3R Process Schematic.........................................................E-224 Figure E-98 ISKA Percolator.........................................................................................E-226

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Ebara Corporation

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-1

E.1 THERMAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES E.1.1 Ebara Corporation E.1.1.1 Technology Overview E.1.1.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Ebara Corporation, founded in 1912, is a large, global company involved in environmental engineering systems. Ebara also manufactures pumps, compressors, gas turbines, fans, and chillers. The company’s activities are divided into four primary areas: • Fluid Machinery & Systems Group

• Environmental Engineering Group

• Precision Machinery Group

• New and Renewable Energy Group Ebara has 15,200 employees, with annual sales of over $4.8 billion. The Environmental Engineering Group is the area of Ebara that supplies the MSW conversion technologies. Firm: Ebara Corporation

Technology: Twin Rec TIFG (Twin Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasification) with Ash Melting

Throughput: 100,000 tons/year

Principal Contact: Kaoru Shin, General Manager, Sales Division

Address: 1-6-27 Kohnan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8480, Japan

E.1.1.1.2 Technology Overview. Ebara has developed several different combustion and gasification technologies for a wide range of feedstocks. The Twin Rec technology is one of Ebara’s most advanced technologies for gasification MSW and other solid and liquid wastes. Twin Rec is a combination of fluid bed gasification, coupled with immediate combustion of the syngas in a high-temperature chamber. This gasification process converts the MSW to syngas, and combustion of the syngas in the high temperature combustion chamber causes the inorganic component of the MSW (ash) to be converted to a molten slag. The slag is quench-cooled to form a vitrified (glassy), non-hazardous material. The heat produced from the combustion of the syngas is used to make steam in a boiler. The steam drives a steam turbine generator for the generation of 5.5 net MW of electricity. The flue gases are treated in



an extensive air emission control system, and cleaned flue gases exist through a stack. Other than removal of large pieces of metal, i.e., car engines, the only preprocessing required for the Twin Rec process is shredding to a maximum 12-inch size. No recyclables are removed from the MSW. Metals and slag are recovered as byproducts from the gasification and ash melting portions of the process. Overall diversion from landfill is 91%. E.1.1.1.3 Reference Plants. In the proposal, Ebara listed the five reference plants shown below in Table E-1.

TABLE E-1 EBARA REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country Throughput, Tons/Year Feedstock

Asahi Clean Center Kawaguchi City Japan 168,000 MSW and bottom ash Sakata Area Refuse Disposal Union Sakata City Japan 70,000 MSW and night soil sludge Clean Plaza Chuno Seki City Japan 60,000 MSW Ube City Environmental Preservation Center Waste Disposal Plant

Ube City Japan 72,000 MSW, night soil sludge

Nagareyama Clean Center Nagareyama City Japan 75,000 MSW, night soil sludge

Ebara has a total of 12 plants in service, with one plant in development in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, sized for 1,500 tons/day of MSW. It is scheduled for operation in May 2006. Figure E-1 shows some of the reference facilities.

FIGURE E-1 EBARA REFERENCE FACILITIES

E.1.1.1.4 Commercial Status. With twelve plants in operation using the Twin Rec technology, this process is considered to be in full-scale development. Ebara has others



facilities in operation and development using other Ebara gasification processes, and is developing enhancements to its gasification technologies. The approximate total existing capacity for the Twin Rec process is just over 600,000 tons/year.

The processing lines proposed for this project are rated at 7.3 tons/hour. To date, the largest throughput in any Twin Rec facility is 6.4 tons/hour. This is a 14-15% scale-up, which is not seen as a significant concern. E.1.1.2 Detailed Technology Description E.1.1.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The proposed facility would be sized to process 100,000 tons/year of MSW. The MSW is delivered onto a tipping floor. No removal of recyclables or rejects is required. The MSW is conveyed into two shredders to reduce the size of the feedstock to 12 inches. From there, screw feeders are used to feed the MSW feedstock into the two gasifiers. Gasification of the MSW occurs at low temperatures, in the range of 1,022-1,166ºF, forming the syngas. The syngas exits the gasifier and immediately enters the ash melting furnace portion of the Twin Rec process. Combustion air is injected, and the syngas is combusted at a temperature of up to 2,542ºF. At this temperature, the entrained inorganic materials (ash) are converted to a molten form. The molten slag flows to the bottom of the ash melter and is drained into a water bath, where it is quench cooled, crystallizing into a vitrified (glassy), non-hazardous material. The hot flue gases then pass through the boiler, producing steam, which is used to drive a steam turbine generator, generating about 8 MW of electricity. After the flue gases are cooled to about 350ºF, diatomaceous earth is injected into the stream to help in the removal of particulates in a fabric filter. The gases then go through a Selective Catalytic Removal (SCR) system for the removal of nitrogen oxides (NOx), then through a wet scrubber for the removal of acid gases, such as HCl and SO2. The cleaned flue gases exit through a stack. Recovered slag and metals can be sold. Ebara provided an overall three-year schedule for implementation of the project, which is shown in Figure E-2. Site Layout. A proposed layout was provided, covering an area of 4.5 acres. It is shown in Figure E-3. Process Flow and Mass Balance. A process flow diagram is shown in Figure E-4. The process flow and mass balance is summarized in Table E-2.



FIGURE E-2 SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION, EBARA FACILITY



FIGURE E-3 LAYOUT OF PROPOSED FACILITY

Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per week. The preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 283 days per year. Staffing is based on two 12-hour shifts per day, with 7 employees per shift with 4 crews. In addition, a manager, two supervisors, weigh bridge operator, and two waste receiving platform operators will be required during the day shift. The total staff is 34. Utility Requirements. Electricity – The facility will produce 55.9 million kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, with an internal requirement of 18.4 million kWh per year, equivalent to a 33 percent internal power load.



FIGURE E-4 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

TABLE E-2 EBARA SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments Inlet MSW 100,000 No preprocessing Feedstock to each gasifier (2) 50,000 Shredded to <12 inches Metals recovered from gasifiers (marketable) 1,230 Marketable Non-combustibles from gasifiers 2,845 Unmarketable Slag produced in ash melters (marketable) 11,365 Marketable Boiler and fabric filter ash produced (unmarketable)

6,378 Unmarketable (includes ferrite, cement, and water added to produce stabilized material for landfill)

Water – The facility will use 167,618 gallons of potable water per day (283 days per year) for the flue gas cooling, ash conditioning, power generation, and emission control systems. Wastewater – The facility will recycle as much of the process water as possible, by utilizing it in the wet scrubber. The wet scrubber will have a discharge of wastewater of 39,312 gallons/day.



Natural gas – The gasifier will require the use of natural gas for start-up and shutdown of the gasifier, and on an as-needed in the ash melter when the slag does not flow readily. Total use of natural gas is 6.75 million cubic feet/year.

Chemicals – The emission control, power generation, ash conditioning, and wastewater treatment systems will require various chemicals, common for MSW and power generation systems, as follows: • Emission control systems: diatomaceous earth, ammonia solution, sodium hydroxide, and

liquid chelate

• Power generation (demineralizer and boiler): hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, boiler compound, deoxidizer, condensate treatment, corrosion inhibitor, anti-corrosive an scale protection agent, slime treatment agent

• Wastewater treatment: hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, ferric chloride, calcium hypochlorite, calcium chloride, polymer, dispersant, aluminum sulfate, liquid chelate

• Other: Deodorizer, insecticide, activated carbon, lubricants E.1.1.2.2 Pre-Processing Subsystem. Equipment Description. The delivered MSW is subjected to the following sequence of operations: • On the tipping floor, any very large pieces of metal, i.e., engines, are removed.

• From the tipping floor, the MSW is fed by conveyor to two 7.3 ton/hour shredders to reduce the maximum size to 12 inches. Each line has 1 operating/1 standby shredder, as this equipment is subjected to such severe service.

• The tipping room building is maintained at a negative pressure to reduce odor problems. The air is used for fluidizing (gasification) and secondary air ducts (combustion) in the Conversion Unit Subsystem. During times that the facility is shut down, the air stream will be ducted through a deodorant system and then exhausted.

Recovered Recyclables. No recyclables are removed from the inlet MSW stream. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No residues, other than very large pieces of metal, i.e., engines, are removed from the delivered MSW stream.



E.1.1.2.3 Conversion Unit Subsystem. Figure E-5 shows the Twin Rec gasification and ash melting technology. There are two complete processing lines, each with a feeder, gasifier, ash melting chamber, boiler, gas cooler, and emission control system.

FIGURE E-5 EBARA TWIN REC SYSTEM (TWIN INTERNALLY CIRCULATING

FLUIDIZED BED GASIFICATION WITH ASH MELTING)

Shredded MSW is feed by two 7.3 ton/hour twin screw feeders into the two 7.3 ton/hour gasifiers. Inside each gasifier, fluidizing (and gasifying) air is blown into a sand bed to accomplish the fluidizing of the MSW, providing additional turbulence to expose more surface area for enhanced gasification. Gasification occurs in the range of 1,022-1,166ºF, converting the organic components of the MSW into syngas. Inert components such as metals, ceramics, and glass, as well as some of the ash formed during the gasification process, are extracted through openings in the bed. They are mechanically separated from the sand, which is then returned to the fluid bed. The syngas, along with ash and unreacted organic particles, enter the coupled ash melting chamber. Air is blown into the chamber, and combustion occurs in the range of 2,372- 2,642ºF. Due to the high temperature, the ash particles form a molten slag, which flows out the bottom of the chamber into a water bath. There, it solidifies into a hard, glassy, non-hazardous material. The flue gas exits the combustion chamber and enters a boiler, where the hot gas is used to produce steam for the power generation system. The flue gases cool to 405ºF at the boiler exit, and then enter a gas cooler for further temperature reduction prior to the emission

Gasifier Ash Melter



control system. Water is sprayed into the gas cooler, reducing the gas temperature to 356ºF. Diatomaceous earth is injected into the flue gas stream, absorbing pollutants and helping to form larger particulates. The particulates are removed in a fabric filter. Following the fabric filter, the flue gases enter the SCR system, where ammonia is injected over the catalyst bed, converting NOx to nitrogen and water. At this point, the flue gas stream is about 354ºF. It then enters the wet scrubber, which uses chelate and sodium hydroxide to remove acid gases such as HCl and SO2. The blowdown stream from the wet scrubber is pumped to an extensive wastewater treatment system prior to discharge. An induced draft fan is used to pull the flue gases through the back end of the emission control system, and the flue gas exits a stack. Boiler ash and particulates collected in the fabric filter will be blended with ferrite, water, and cement, in order to condition the ash and form a non-leachable material. This material will be disposed of in a landfill. E.1.1.2.4 Power Generation Subsystem. Each line has a dedicated boiler. In the boiler, steam is produced at 752ºF and 580 psi. The steam from both boilers flows to a single steam turbine generator, rated at 8.23 MW gross. With an internal facility load of 2.705 MW, the net power output is 5.5 MW. Indicators of overall facility efficiency are: • 376 net kWh/ton of feedstock

• 18 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity E.1.1.2.5 Post-Processing. As part of the system, the boiler and fabric filter ash are conditioned with water, ferrite, and cement, in order to stabilize the ash and produce a non-leachable material for landfill disposal. Ebara has included this system on its other Twin Rec facilities. E.1.1.3 Byproduct Analysis E.1.1.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed Ebara facility would produce the following useful byproducts: • Electricity: 5.525 net MW, or 37.5 million kWh/year

• Slag: 11,350 tons/year

• Metals: 1,228 tons/year



E.1.1.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity. The slag can be readily sold for sand-blasting grit, asphalt filler, or for manufacture of cement and roofing tiles. The recycled ferrous and non-ferrous metals will be of sufficient purity to be marketable. E.1.1.4 Environmental Issues E.1.1.4.1 Air Emissions/Toxics. A slight negative pressure will be maintained in the tipping building in order to control odors. The air will be used in the gasification and combustion processes. Since gasification is a closed process, there is no emission point for the syngas. The only emission point is the stack, following removal of emissions in the emission control system. Ebara’s proposal states that all regulated emissions will be below the applicable EU emission limits. E.1.1.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The overall process would be designed to recycle and reuse water in the various subsystems. Recycled water is used for slag cooling, gasifier cooling water, in the gas cooler, and for conditioning the ash. Following treatment of the wet scrubber blowdown, a 27 gallon/minute stream would be discharged. E.1.1.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is 9,223 tons/year, or about 9% of the inlet MSW stream. This includes 2,845 tons/year of non-combustibles removed from the bottom of the gasifier, along with 6,378 tons/year of conditioned ash from the boiler and fabric filter. The ash is considered as “hazardous” in Japan, and is conditioned with water, ferrite, and cement to produce a stable, non-leachable material for landfill disposal. E.1.1.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. Although the slag is expected to be marketable, disposal in a landfill would be required if a market cannot be found. Visibility of the stack may be a viewshed issue. E.1.1.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the proposed Ebara facility is presented in Table E-3. E.1.1.6 Assessment Summary Ebara Corporation is a large, global company that can take on substantial projects. It has a dozen of its Twin Rec facilities in operation, with more in development. Concerns are listed below.



TABLE E-3 COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED EBARA FACILITY

Provided by

Ebara Evaluated

Cost Reason for Adjustment Capital Cost $73 million $73 million Capital Cost, $/TPY $730 $730 Annual O&M $9,000,000 $8,631,080 Separate landfilling of unmarketable ash Landfilling of Unmarketable Ash Not separated

out $368,920 Landfilling of 9,228 tons/year @ $40/ton

Annual Capital Recovery + Interest Costs

$5,990,000 $5,990,000

Total Annual Costs $14,990,000 $14,990,000 Revenues from Sale of Electricity $2,250,000 $2,251,548 5525 kW for 283 days at $0.06/kWh Revenues from Sale of Recyclables

$0 $118,150 11,350 tons/year slag @ $5/ton = $56,750 1,228 tons/year metals @$50/ton = $61,400

Total Annual Revenues $2,250,000 $2,369,698 Annual Revenues-Costs ($12,740,000) ($12,620,302) Tipping Fee $127.40/ton $126.20/ton . Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$127.91/ton Assume 11,350 tons/year slag cannot be marketed, transport slag @$10/ton to landfill for use as cover. Delete bottom ash revenues by $56,750. Add $113,500 to O&M costs.

Technical. The throughput of each line proposed for this project would be the largest that Ebara has designed. It would be a 14-15% scale-up of its largest facility to date, the Asahi Clan Center in Kawaguchi City, Japan. This is not seen as a significant concern. Cost. Table E-3 shows that the facility would cost $730/TPY of MSW. From Ebara’s proposal, the other facilities’ cost figures are: • Asahi Clean Center: $674/TPY

• Sakata: $1,116/TPY

• Clean Plaza Chuno: $941/TPY

• Ube City Environmental Preservation Center Waste Disposal Plant: $1,204/TPY

• Nagareyama Clean Center: $1,186/TPY Based on this cost data, the average facility cost point is $1,024/TPY. This value is 40% greater than the cost for the proposed facility. However, the cost of the proposed facility is



actually 8% higher than that for the Asahi Clean Center, which Ebara uses as their primary reference facility for design of the proposed facility. These cost issues were brought up with Ebara in a Request for Additional Information. Ebara responded that the major difference in cost is due to the “sophistication if the buildings customers want as well as local conditions”. This seems to be a very significant cost difference just for the building itself. This variability could have a significant impact on overall facility costs, which would then impact annual costs for capital recovery and interest expense. A specification included as part of the Request for Proposal would need to be very specific as to the design requirements for the building and infrastructure. Performance. Since no pre-processing is done, inorganic materials that enter the gasifier are heated to operating temperatures, and then cooled down, with irreversible losses. This reduces the heat energy available for producing steam and electricity. With a production of 376 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a very low “efficiency” rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Interstate Waste Technologies


E.1.2 Interstate Waste Technologies E.1.2.1 Technology Overview E.1.2.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Interstate Waste Technologies, Inc. (IWT) is an U.S. corporation. They are a part of Interstate General Company, and are a North American licensee for the Thermoselect Gasification Technology. IWT operates in Central America and the Caribbean as Caribe Waste Technologies, and is developing several projects there. Thermoselect, which developed the technology and licenses it, is a Swiss corporation. Thermoselect has developed its own facilities in Europe, and has acted as a licensor for facilities in Asia and the Americas. Firm: Interstate Waste Technologies, Inc.

Technology: Thermoselect Gasification Technology

Throughput: Base proposal: 100,000 tons/year, (370,000 and 990,000 – after receiving the response from the RFQ, additional information was requested for higher throughputs to examine economy of scale. This information is included in Section 5, Table 5-1)

Principal Contact: Francis C. (Frank) Campbell, President

Address: 17 Mystic Lane Malvern, PA 19355

In order to develop this project, IWT has formed the Interstate Waste Management Alliance, comprised of the following five companies:

• IWT (licenses technology and develops, finances, and manages the project)

• Thermoselect S.A. (provides the technology and proprietary equipment)

• HDR Inc. (permitting, and design of infrastructure and auxiliary systems)

• H.B. Zachry Company (construction of facility)

• Montenay Power Corporation (operation and maintenance of facility) IWT submitted a proposal for two different facilities, one processing 100,000 tons/year and the other 990,000 tons/year. Data for both is included in this report. E.1.2.1.2 Technology Overview. The Thermoselect technology requires no pre-processing, and no recyclables are removed from the MSW. Very large pieces of MSW, such as engines and white goods, are typically removed as rejects in the tipping hall. The Thermoselect technology is a combination of pyrolysis, followed by high temperature, oxygen-blown, fixed



bed gasification. A “plug” of MSW is fed into an externally heated “degassing” channel, where pyrolysis of the MSW occurs. Syngas is produced, leaving a char and ash material which is then gasified with oxygen in the directly coupled gasification portion of the process. The addition of oxygen and natural gas into the lower portion of the gasifier chamber results in extremely high temperatures, and the inorganic portion of the MSW (ash) is converted to a molten stream of metals and slag. The molten stream is quench-cooled, forming metal shot and a vitrified (glass), non-hazardous slag aggregate material. Following production of the syngas, the Thermoselect technology incorporates significant syngas clean-up, recovery of marketable byproducts, and process wastewater treatment and clean-up. The cleaned syngas is combusted in reciprocating engines for generation of 11 net MW of electricity for the 100,000 tons/year facility, and 124 net MW for the 990,000 tons/year facility. Metals and slag are recovered as byproducts from the gasification, and salts, zinc concentrate, and sulfur are recovered from the syngas and process water clean-up systems. Thermoselect has been able to market most or all of the byproducts at other facilities, and IWT expects to be able to market all of the byproducts generated at the proposed facility for the City of Los Angeles. Overall diversion from landfill is essentially 100%. E.1.2.1.3 Reference Plants. In the proposal, IWT listed the reference plants shown below in Table E-4.

TABLE E-4 THERMOSELECT REFERENCE FACILITIES


Thermoselect Sudwest Karlsruhe Germany 246,500 MSW Chiba Chiba Japan 103,500 MSW, and combinations of MSW and industrial waste Mutsu Facility Mutsu Japan 47,850 MSW

Thermoselect developed its first full-scale facility in Fondotoce, Italy in 1992, with a throughput of about 34,000 tons/year of MSW. This served as the design basis for commercial development of the Thermoselect technology. Figure E-6 shows some of the reference facilities. Kawasaki Steel Corporation (now JFE Holdings) signed a license agreement with Thermoselect in 1997, and developed the Chiba (1999) and Mutsu (2003) facilities. E.1.2.1.4 Commercial Status. With three commercial plants in operation using the Thermoselect gasification technology, this process is considered to be in full-scale development. The approximate total existing capacity for the Thermoselect process is almost



FIGURE E-6 THERMOSELECT REFERENCE FACILITIES

Karlsruhe Chiba Mutsu 400,000 tons/year. The Karlsruhe facility is owned and operated by Thermoselect Sudwest, which is a subsidiary of EnBW, the electric utility in the Karlsruhe area. Due to economic (but not technical) reasons, EnBW has decided to shut down the Karlsruhe facility by the end of 2004. Another company may acquire the facility and re-start it. JFE is developing five more facilities in Japan to be started up in 2005, as shown in Table E-5.

TABLE E-5 THERMOSELECT FACILITIES IN DEVELOPMENT


City of Nagasaki Nagasaki Japan 103,125 MSW Mizushima Eco Works Kurashiki Japan 191,250 MSW and industrial waste Yorii Orix Eco Service Yorii Japan 155,000 Industrial Waste City of Tokushima Tokushima Japan 47,000 MSW Kyokuto Kaihastsu Izumi Japan 32,800 Industrial waste

IWT is also developing a 220,000 tons/year facility in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and a 1 million tons/year facility in Puerto Rico. By the end of 2005, the Thermoselect technology will have over 900,000 tons/year of capacity in commercial operation. The processing lines proposed for this project are rated at: • 1 line @ 13.3 tons/hour or 320 tons/day for the 100,000 tons/year facility

• 8 lines @16.5 tons/hour each or 3,168 tons/day each for the 990,000 tons/year facility To date, the largest throughput in any operating Thermoselect facility is 11 tons/hour. This is a 50% scale-up, which is not seen as a significant concern. Individual lines at the Karlsruhe facility have been tested at throughputs of 16.5 tons/hour on a short basis, in order to



determine design enhancements for the 16.5 tons/hour module sized for the proposed facility and for other projects. E.1.2.2 Detailed Technology Description E.1.2.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The proposed base facility would be sized to process 100,000 tons/year of MSW, and the alternate proposal is for processing 990,000 tons/year. The overall Thermoselect technology consists of the process areas shown in Figure E-7.

FIGURE E-7 PROCESS AREAS

For the proposed facility, the MSW is delivered into the below grade waste bunkers. No removal of recyclables or rejects is included as part of the process, or is it required. The MSW is compacted in the bunker area, then picked up by a grapple hook crane and fed to the overhead degassing chamber feed hoppers. From there, a press is used to feed plugs of the



MSW into the degassing channel, and then into the gasifier chamber. Gasification of the MSW occurs at 2,190ºF in the gasifier, forming the syngas. In the lower portion of the gasifier, oxygen and natural gas are injected, resulting in a temperature over 3,600ºF, melting the metals and ash components of the MSW. The syngas exits the gasifier and enters the syngas quenching and scrubbing systems. The clean syngas is then combusted in reciprocating engines, producing electricity. The exhaust gases from the engines flow through vents at the top of the building. No stacks are required for this type of power generation. The syngas scrubbing system removes and recovers sulfur compounds in the MSW as sulfur. The process water treatment system removes the chlorine compounds in the MSW as a mixed sodium and potassium salt compound, and zinc and other heavy metals are recovered in a concentrated hydroxide form. IWT provided an overall two-year schedule for implementation of the 100,000 tons/year facility, and 27 months for the 990,000 tons/year facility. The schedule is shown in Figure E-8. Site Layout. The 100,000 tons/year facility would require a land are of 4.5 acres, with 15 acres for the larger 990,000 tons/year facility. IWT provided layouts of the Karlsruhe facility as an example. Process Flow and Mass Balance. An overall process flow diagram is shown in Figure E-9. The mass balances for the two cases are shown in Figures E-10 and E-11, with a summary mass balances in Tables E-6 and E-7. Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per week. The preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 312 days per year. Staffing is 19 for the 100,000 tons/year facility and 32 for the 990,000 tons/year facility. Utility Requirements. Electricity – The 100,000 tons/year facility will produce 120.9 million kWh per year, with an internal requirement of 37.83 million kWh, equivalent to a 31 percent internal power load. The 990,000 tons/year facility will produce 928.5 million kWh per year, with an internal requirement of 300.2 million kWh/year, equivalent to 32% internal power load.



FIGURE E-8 SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION



FIGURE E-9 THERMOSELECT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

FIGURE E-10 MASS BALANCE – 100,000 TONS/YEAR FACILITY



FIGURE E-11 MASS BALANCE – 990,000 TONS/YEAR FACILITY

TABLE E-6 THERMOSELECT SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

100,000 TONS/YEAR

Stream Tons/Year Comments Inlet MSW 100,000 No removal of recyclables Feedstock to gasifier 100,000 Metals recovered from gasifier 2,563 Marketable Slag recovered from gasifier 15,000 Marketable Sulfur produced in syngas treatment system 125 Marketable Zinc concentrate from process water treatment 844 Marketable

Water – The 100,000 tons/year facility will use 293,280 gallons/day of water for the flue gas cooling, ash conditioning, power generation and emission control systems. The 990,000 tons/day facility will require 2,826,720 gallons/day. Wastewater – The facility will recycle as much of the process water as possible, by utilizing it in the wet scrubber.



TABLE E-7 THERMOSELECT SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

990,000 TONS/YEAR

Stream Tons/Year Comments Inlet MSW 990,000 No removal of recyclables Feedstock to each gasifier (8) 123,750 Metals recovered from gasifiers 25,438 Marketable Slag produced in gasifiers 149,438 Marketable Sulfur produced in syngas treatment system 1,188 Marketable Zinc concentrate from process water treatment 8,469 Marketable

Natural gas – The 100,000 tons/year gasifier will require the use of 358,000 scf of natural gas for a cold start-up, i.e., following a maintenance outage. In addition, normal operation requires 350,000-400,000 scf/day of natural gas as a moderating fuel in the high temperature reactor. The 990,000 tons/year facility will require the same 358,000 scf per module for cold start-up, and 3.5-4.0 million scf/day for moderating fuel in the eight modules. Diesel fuel – About 5% of the energy input for each engine is in the form of diesel fuel for ignition. The 100,000 tons/year facility uses 600-700 gallons/day, and the larger 990,000 tons/year facility uses 6,000-7,000 gallons/day as ignition fuel for the eight engines. Chemicals – Table E-8 shows the chemical additives that are used in the syngas clean-up and process water treatment systems.

TABLE E-8 CHEMICAL ADDITIVE USE

Chemical 100,000 tons/year Facility

Tons/year gallons/year 990,000 tons/year Facility

Tons/year gallons/year Sodium Hydroxide 5,874 -- 58,153 -- Hydrochloric acid 998 -- 9,883 -- Iron – chelate 49 -- 490 -- Resin 6 -- 59 -- Hydrogen peroxide 34 -- 339 -- Sodium bicarbonate 94 -- 933 -- Urea (NOx control system) 98,438 973,750

Annual use is calculated from daily use figures provided in the proposal, times 312.5 days (7,500 hours) operation/year as noted by IWT. E.1.2.2.2 Pre-Processing Subsystem. Equipment Description. The delivered MSW is handled as follows:



• Trucks deliver the black bin MSW into the receiving pit. Any very large pieces of metal, i.e., engines and white goods, are removed. The receiving pit is designed for 3 days of storage. The receiving area is maintained under a slight negative pressure for odor control. The evacuated air is utilized in the gasification module. Any excess air is processed through carbon adsorption filter beds prior to discharge above the building roofline.

• Overhead cranes load the waste into the inlet hopper for each processing line. In-line scrap metal presses are used to compact the waste to increase its overall density and help remove moisture and air. The air forced out of the waste is exhausted through the receiving pit. Removal of air assures more complete pyrolysis in the degassing channel. From the hopper, a hydraulic ram is used to push the waste in a plug form into and through the degassing channel.

Recovered Recyclables. No recyclables are removed from the inlet MSW stream. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No residues, other than very large pieces of metal, i.e., engines and white goods, are removed from the delivered MSW stream. E.1.2.2.3 Conversion Unit Subsystem. Figure E-12 shows the degassing channel and gasifier.

FIGURE E-12 DEGASSING CHANNEL AND GASIFIER

The MSW plug moves down the degassing channel for about 60-90 minutes, where radiant heat from the gasifier raises the temperature in the channel, and pyrolysis occurs at about 570ºF. The organic fraction of the waste is thermally decomposed into syngas (CO and H2).



The waste plugs are continuously moved through the degassing channel by feeding new waste plugs into the degassing channel inlet. At the end of the degassing chamber, the mixture of char and inorganic materials enters the high-temperature (2,190ºF) gasification section of the reactor, where additional reactions (water gas and water gas shift reactions from the steam formed from the water in the MSW) form more syngas. Oxygen is injected around the circumference of the gasifier to initiate other gasification reactions. The oxygen required for the gasification process is provided by an on-site air separation unit. Residence time in the gasifier is at least 2 seconds. The overall syngas produced, from pyrolysis and gasification, is: • 25-42% H2

• 25-42% CO

• 10-25% CO2

• 0% CH4 Heating value of the syngas is about 250 Btu/scf. At the bottom of the gasifier, referred to as the homogenization chamber, natural gas is injected and combusted, raising the temperature to about 3,600ºF. The homogenization chamber sees hot, corrosive/erosive conditions. Inside the chamber are copper cooling coils which are lined with a refractory material. The refractory helps protect the cooling coils and gasifier from the erosive environment. High silica content in the MSW can lead to more wear of the refractory. At this high temperature, the metals and minerals melt. Due to their different densities, they form two separate layers. These two streams fall into a below grade water quench basin, where they cool and solidify into granules (see Figure E-12). The cooled slag/water mix is picked up with a bucket elevator and brought up to an underground conveyor that transports the slag to the slag storage pit. As the slag is conveyed, magnetic separators and eddy current separators are used to recover the metals. The dirty syngas then exits the gasification chamber, and flows into a jet quencher which quickly cools the syngas to below 203ºF. The quench system also removes carbon and mineral dusts formed during gasification, as well as SO2 and HCl. The quench water flows to a sedimentation vessel, where particulate matter settles out. This sediment is pumped to the process water treatment system. The syngas then flows to a demister to remove water droplets, then to an alkaline scrubber where remaining HCl and HF are removed in the packed bed which uses recirculating NaOH.



Next, the syngas flows through another demister, then to a particulate scrubber. After the scrubber, the syngas flows through another demister, then to the sulfur removal system. The H2S in the syngas is reduced to elemental sulfur, which is pumped out and processed further for sale. The syngas then flows through another demister, and then a gas dryer which uses tri-ethylene glycol for moisture removal. From there, the syngas flows through a final demister, and then to the power generation subsystem. The process water treatment system provides six separate steps to clean up the process water: • Pre-sedimentation

• Oxidation

• Precipitation and filtering of metal hydroxides

• Neutralization

• Ion exchange

• Salt separation by evaporation The concentrated byproduct from the process water treatment system contains zinc, lead, and other heavy metals. It is considered a hazardous waste; therefore, it is collected, contained, and shipped to a metals reclaimer for further use. The salts in the process water stream are concentrated by evaporation in a brine concentrator, then flow to a crystallizer. The salts are removed in a solid form in a centrifuge. The salts, primarily sodium and potassium chloride, may be marketable. E.1.2.2.4 Power Generation Subsystem. The cleaned syngas flows to B&V Pielstick, 4-stroke reciprocating engines. The 100,000 tons/year facility uses 2 engines, producing 16.125 gross MW/11.141 net MW. The 990,000 tons/year facility uses 20 engines, generating 163.84 gross MW/123.82 net MW. Approximately 5% of the energy input to each engine is diesel pilot fuel for ignition. Based on Thermoselect’s prior experience with integrating the overall system, and its work with combusting the syngas in reciprocating engines, the proposed facility is very well integrated. The proposed facilities would produce: • 100,000 tons/year facility:

��838 net kWh/ton of feedstock



��9 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity • 990,000 tons/year facility:

��938 net kWh/ton of feedstock

��8 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity These are very high values for pyrolysis and gasification systems. E.1.2.3 Byproducts Analysis E.1.2.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following useful byproducts: • 100,000 tons/year facility:

��Electricity: 11.141 net MW, or 83.6 million kWh/year

��Slag: 15,000 tons/year

��Metals: 2,563 tons/year

��Salts: 2,719 tons/year

��Sulfur: 125 tons/year

��Zinc concentrate: 844 tons/year • 990,000 tons/year facility:

��Electricity: 123.8 net MW, or 928.5 million kWh/year

��Slag: 149,438 tons/year

��Metals: 25,438 tons/year

��Salts: 27,063 tons/year

��Sulfur: 1,188 tons/year

��Zinc concentrate: 8,469 tons/year E.1.2.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity. The slag can be readily sold for sand-blasting grit, asphalt filler, or for manufacture of cement and roofing tiles. The metals can be sold for re-use, especially with steel prices continuing to rise. The zinc concentrate can be sold to metals reclaimers for re-use. At the Fondotoce and Chiba facilities, the salts have been sold to the



metallurgical industry. At the Karlsruhe facility, the salts are disposed of in an old salt mine. While there may not be existing markets for all of the byproducts, IWT has stated that they will guarantee that all can be marketed. E.1.2.4 Environmental Issues E.1.2.4.1 Air Emissions. A slight negative pressure will be maintained in the tipping building in order to control odors. The air will be used in the gasification module, with any excess air routed to a carbon adsorption process for odor removal prior to being exhausted to atmosphere. Since gasification is a closed process, there is no emission point for the syngas. The only emission points are the engine exhaust vents following combustion. NOx and CO control systems will be utilized with the reciprocating engines. Specific catalysts will be utilized in the emission control system to reduce emissions of NOx and CO. E.1.2.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The process incorporates an extensive process water treatment system, so that there is no wastewater discharge. E.1.2.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. According to IWT’s proposal, all byproducts will be marketable; they will provide a guarantee to back this up. E.1.2.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The mass of the post-source separated MSW required to be landfilled is reduced by essentially 100%. E.1.2.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the proposed 100,000 tons/year IWT facility is presented in Table E-9. Data for the 990,000 tons/year facility is presented in Table E-10. E.1.2.6 Assessment Summary As can be seen from the two different cost tables, there is a considerable economy of scale that can be realized by going from the 100,000 to the 990,000 tons/year throughput. On a $/ton/year basis, the larger facility is almost 40% lower in cost. The basic infrastructure for the 100,000 tons/year process and the associated building have a high initial cost. Adding additional modules can be done at relatively low incremental cost, with minor additions to the building. The same goes for construction, operation, maintenance, and administration costs for the larger facility. IWT is part of a large corporation, and has formed a significant alliance for development and implementation of this project. It has two large facilities in operation, with five more to be in operation by the end of 2005.



TABLE E-9 COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED IWT FACILITY

100,000 TONS/YEAR

Provided by

Thermoselect Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment Capital Cost $94.153 million $90.153 million Removed land costs Capital Cost, $/TPY $941.5 $900 Removed land costs Annual O&M $9,987,500 $9,987,500 Annual Capital Recovery + Interest Costs

$6,840,000 $6,709,690 Lower interest and amortization due to removal of land cost, but higher cost due to 20-year debt period (Thermoselect provided 30-year period)

Total Annual Costs $16,827,500 $16,697,190 Revenues from Sale of Electricity

$5,013,900 $5,013,900

Revenues from Sale of Recyclables

$549,238 $549,238

Total Annual Revenues $5,563,138 $5,563,138 Annual Revenues-Costs ($11,264,362) ($11,134,052) Tipping Fee $112.64/ton $111.34/ton Reduced annual costs Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$118.53/ton Assume 15,000 tons/year slag is transported to landfill as daily cover @ $10/ton and 3,668 tons/year of other byproducts (except metals) are sent to landfill for disposal at $40/ton. Reduce revenues by $421,088. Add $297,520/year to O&M.

IWT provided a very complete, comprehensive proposal. It was very well put together, with all spreadsheets filled out, and included back-up tables and detailed mass balances, process descriptions, equipment lists, and other information. IWT staff was able to provide most of the answers to the Request for Additional Information without going back to Thermoselect. This shows that IWT has extensive knowledge and understanding of the technology and how it works, especially when integrated with power generation. The proposal included detailed information on the process, photos and performance of other Thermoselect facilities, as well as environmental performance and emissions information. IWT included details on the alliance partners, along with descriptions of similar projects that the alliance partners have developed and/or operated/maintained. The proposal package even included samples of the slag aggregate and metal shot that are produced in Thermoselect facilities. Due to the use of engines, instead of a single steam turbine generator, for power generation, overall availability can be maximized should a single module be taken down for maintenance.



TABLE E-10 COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED IWT FACILITY

990,000 TONS/YEAR

Provided by

Thermoselect Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment Capital Cost $566.695 million $551.695 million Removed land costs Capital Cost, $/TPY $572.42 $557.27 Removed land costs Annual O&M $45,500,000 $45,500,000 Annual Capital Recovery + Interest Costs

$41,170,000 $40,181,000 Lower interest and amortization due to removal of land cost, but higher cost due to 20-year debt period (Thermoselect provided 30-year period)


$55,719,900 $55,719,900


$5,438,000 $5,438,000

Total Annual Revenues $61,157,900 $61,157,900 Annual Revenues-Costs ($25,512,100) ($24,523,100) Reduced annual costs Tipping Fee $25.51/ton $24.52/ton Reduced annual costs Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$31.65/ton Assume 149,438 tons/year slag is transported to landfill as daily cover @ $10/ton and 3,668 tons/year of other byproducts (except metals) are sent to landfill for disposal at $40/ton. Reduce revenues by $4,166,100. Add $2,963,180/year to O&M.

Issues and concerns are listed below: Technical. The throughput of the processing line for the 100,000 tons/year facility is proposed to be 13.3 tons/hour. The processing lines for the 990,000 tons/year facility are proposed to be 16.5 tons/hour. The largest Thermoselect modules in service are those at the Karlsruhe facility, designed for 11 tons/hour. The proposed facilities would utilize the largest modules that Thermoselect has designed, with a 21% scale-up for the 100,000 tons/year facility, and 50% scale-up for the 990,000 tons/year facility. IWT has provided information that shows that the Karlsruhe modules have been operated at times with a throughput of 16.5 tons/hour, and design enhancements have been incorporated into the basis of design that would be proposed for the City of Los Angeles facilities. Based on these factors, the scale-up is not considered a significant technical concern. Performance. With a production of 838 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a very high “efficiency” rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Omnifuel Technologies


E.1.3 Omnifuel Technologies E.1.3.1 Technology Overview E.1.3.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Omnifuel Technologies, Inc. was formed as an offshore corporation in 1994 to provide international consulting services. In 2001, Omnifuel formed a joint venture with Downstream Systems, Inc. to develop power generation projects based on fluidized bed and entrained bed gasifiers. The relationship with Downstream Systems, the supplier of the gasification technology, was formalized in 2003 with the incorporation of Omnifuel Technologies, Inc, in the U.S. It is a very small company with just three staff, although they have many years of experience with various forms of gasification technologies, and have developed over 50 recycling systems. Omnifuel is in discussions with Tri-gen Power Corporation to become part of a public company with wind and solar technologies, as well as Omnifuel’s gasification technology. This relationship would provide more capital for Omnifuel development projects. Firm: Omnifuel Technologies, Inc.

Technology: Fluidized bed gasification


Principal Contact: Bob McChesney

Address: 8421 Auburn Blvd., Suite 258 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 Omnifuel has determined that the following information is to be confidential: • Discussions regarding Tri-gen Power Corporation

• Information related to Omnifuel’s potential project to site a gasification system using biomass at an existing industrial facility in Los Angeles (noted in the proposal, but not discussed in this report)

• Use of olivine in the fluidized bed

• Use of addition of lime to the bed for removal of sulfur and chlorine contaminants

• Prices per ton for sale of recyclables, shown in Table 1 of the proposal

• Revenue from sale of recyclables, shown in Table 1 in the proposal



E.1.3.1.2 Technology Overview. Omnifuel proposes to incorporate an extensive, prefabricated pre-processing system for removal and recovery of recyclables. About 29% of the inlet MSW, including paper, metals, glass, and plastic, will be recovered for sale. Rejects from the pre-processing system will be disposed of in a landfill. The Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), shredded to 3 inch size, will be fed to a single 9.6 ton/hour bubbling fluidized bed gasifier. Lime is added to the RDF for removal of acid gases such as HCl and SO2. Gasification of the RDF occurs at 1,500ºF, producing syngas. The syngas will flow through a syngas cleaning system to remove particulate matter, mercury, and ammonia formed during gasification, and then burned in a boiler to make steam for generation of 4.4 net MW using a steam turbine generator. No post-combustion emission controls are proposed, although Omnifuel would plan to assess the need for additional controls during optimization engineering. Ash recovered in the hot gas cyclones will be disposed of in a landfill. Overall diversion from landfill is 85%. E.1.3.1.3 Reference Plants. In the proposal, Omnifuel listed the five reference plants shown in Table E-12 below. Four are thermal conversion technologies facilities, and one is a material recovery facility.

TABLE E-12 OMNIFUEL REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility Type of Process City Country Throughput, Tons/Year Feedstock

Levesque Plywood

Atmospheric fluidized bed gasification

Hearst, Ontario Canada 54,000 Plywood, veneer, sawdust, glues, plastics

Biosyn Oxygen-blown pressurized fluidized bed gasification

Ste. Juste de Bretenniere, Quebec

Canada 164,000 Wood waste and bark

Tricil Atmospheric fluidized bed gasification

Kingston, Ontario Canada 8,200 Mixed MSW and industrial waste

Castle Capital Ablative pyrolysis Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada 16,000 (demonstration)

Mixed MSW and industrial waste

Banyan-Dade Resource Recovery Ltd.

MRF for recovery of recyclables and RDF production

Miami, FL U.S. 164,000 MSW

In the proposal, Omnifuel notes that the Levesque Plywood facility is used as the reference plant for design of the proposed facility. It started up in 1981. The Banyan-Dade facility is a MRF that was designed by Omnifuel’s principals in the early 1980s. None of these facilities are still in operation.



E.1.3.1.4 Commercial Status. Omnifuel has developed its gasification technology at commercial scale, and is developing advanced pyrolysis technology at demonstration scale. It also has commercial scale MRF design and operation experience. Omnifuel facilities have a total of over 240,000 tons/year of throughput. However, Omnifuel has not developed a full-scale, commercial facility with power generation using its syngas. The processing line proposed for this project is rated at 9.6 tons/hour. To date, the largest throughput in any Omnifuel facility is about 21 tons/hour, so there is no scale-up concern. E.1.3.2 Detailed Technology Description E.1.3.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The proposed facility would be sized to process 100,000 tons/year of MSW. The MSW is delivered to the extensive pre-processing system, where 25% of the inlet MSW is removed for recycling. The system produces RDF, which is shredded to a maximum 3 inch size as feedstock for the gasifier. The RDF is fed to the single gasifier using a screw feeder. Lime is added to the RDF for absorption/removal of acid gases such as HCl and SO2. Further removal of acid gases is accomplished in the syngas cleaning system. The feedstock and air are mixed in a bubbling bed of olivine, which Omnifuel has selected for its hardness (low attrition rate), high melting temperature, and its catalytic activity in cracking tars formed during gasification. Gasification of the RDF occurs in the fluidized bed at a moderate temperature of 1,500ºF, forming the syngas. The syngas, containing some tars and ash, exits the gasifier and flows into the primary cyclone, where the ash, unreacted RDF, and olivine are removed and returned to the gasifier. The syngas then enters an air preheater, transferring heat to the air used for fluidizing the bubbling bed. The cooled syngas then enters a secondary cyclone, where most of the ash in the syngas is removed. From there, the syngas enters a gas heater, a mercury removal system, and a wet scrubber for removal of acid gases such as HCl and SO2. Ash from the secondary cyclone is collected in an ash hopper. Since the gasification process occurs at a moderate temperature, the ash remains below its melting point, and is collected in a solid form. Since the ash is neither sintered nor formed as a glassy slag, it is likely to be leachable, and will be disposed of in a landfill. The cleaned syngas is then combusted in a boiler at 2,300-2,600ºF, and steam is produced to drive a steam turbine generator for the production of 4.4 net MW of electricity. Although a low-NOx burner will be used, no other post-combustion emission controls are proposed, although Omnifuel notes that it would re-evaluate this need during the optimization engineering stage of the project.



Omnifuel provided an overall 16-month schedule for implementation of the project, which is shown in Figure E-13.

FIGURE E-13 SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION, OMNIFUEL FACILITY

Project Schedule – Resource Recovery/Gasifier/Power Plant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Tasks

1. Engineering Design

2. Procurement

3. Construction

4. Start-up

5. Testing

5. Acceptance

Tasks Schedule (months)

Site Layout. A proposed layout was provided, covering an area of 4 acres. It is shown in Figure E-14. Process Flow and Mass Balance. The mass balance is summarized in Table E-13. Operation and Maintenance. MSW would be delivered to the facility 5 days per week. The preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 253 days per year. Omnifuel proposes an average of 4.33 persons/shift for 4 shifts per week. Utility Requirements. Electricity – According to data provided in the proposal text and the spreadsheets, the facility will produce 29.7 million kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, with an internal requirement of 3.0 million kWh per year, equivalent to a 10 percent internal power load. This is based on operation for 253 days/year. Omnifuel’s cost table provided in response to a Request for Additional Information shows that the facility would actually use 4.32 million kWh per year, or 44% more. This was prepared on a basis of 360 days/year operation, which is not consistent with the technical data. Water – The facility will use 110,000 to 140,000 gallons of potable water per day (253 days per year), primarily for cooling tower operation.



FIGURE E-14 LAYOUT OF PROPOSED FACILITY

TABLE E-13 OMNIFUEL SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments Inlet MSW 100,000 Extensive pre-processing to recover recyclables and produce RDF Recyclables removed 29,143 Metals, glass, paper, plastics Rejects from pre-processing 12,677 To landfill Feedstock to gasifier 58,181 RDF shredded to <3 inches Hot cyclone ash 2,600 To landfill

Wastewater – The proposal states that blowdowns will be incorporated for the ammonia scrubber and the cooling tower. The cooling tower lowdown is expected to be 14,400-28,800 gallons/day. No value was provided for the ammonia scrubber blowdown. However,



Omnifuel states that “alternative processes are available which will eliminate scrubber blowdown” and would investigate these during detailed design. Natural gas – The gasifier will require the use of natural gas for heating up the system prior to start-up. Omnifuel states that this requirement will be 30 million Btu/start-up. Based on the cost information provided, this suggests two start-ups per year. Chemicals – Omnifuel did not provide any information on use of chemical additives, i.e., for emission control systems or power generation. The proposal states that this “depends on input MSW and water quality and will provide after detailed engineering”. E.1.3.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. Omnifuel proposes to incorporate an extensive, pre-fabricated pre-processing subsystem. Omnifuel’s proposal states the pre-processing subsystem is a prefabricated modular structure, 40’ long by 12’ wide by 30’ high. The system will recover the recyclables, remove contaminants and prepare a clean, uniform quality RDF. The RDF will be stored in a 1,000-ton storage bunker. Figure E-15 is a block flow diagram for the proposed pre-processing system. The in-feed conveyor (1) discharges the refuse onto the sizer (2), which separates it into a) fines, b) acceptables, and c) oversize components. The fines discharge onto the fines conveyor (3) where a separator (4) removes the ferrous materials. The remaining fines are rejects and will be disposed of in a landfill. The oversize component is discharged onto a picking conveyor (5) where recyclable, inert and contaminants are removed and placed in separate forklift bins. The remaining oversize materials are fed to a low speed shredder (6), which reduces it to minus 3 inch size. The shredder discharges onto the “accepts” conveyor (7) where a ferrous separator (8) and a non-ferrous separator (9) remove the ferrous and nonferrous metals, excluding stainless steel. The remainder is fed to the density separator (10), which discharges the light fraction (RDF) to the feedstock conveyor (11), which transfers it to the 1,000 ton RDF storage bin. The heavy fraction from the density separator is fed to the stainless and glass separator (12) where the stainless and flint, green and amber glass are recovered and the material remaining rejected. Recovered Recyclables. The mass flow table provided by Omnifuel shows that the following amounts of recyclables will be recovered for sale: • Paper: 6,856 tons/year



FIGURE E-15 OMNIFUEL PRE-PROCESSING SUBSYSTEM

• Glass: 2,866 tons/year


• Plastic: 10,496 tons/year



Omnifuel prepared an extensive table showing each type of recyclable, its expected recovery in tons/year, and the expected buyer/user. Total recovery is 29,143 tons/year. This is based on a 29% recovery of recyclables from the inlet MSW stream. Since the black bin contents are already subjected to source separation at curbside, it is expected that the post-source separated MSW would be more contaminated, precluding high recovery. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The pre-processing system creates a reject stream of 12,677 tons/year, which will be disposed of in a landfill. The rejects include glass, metals, plastics, organics (such as food and green wastes), construction and demolition wastes, and household hazardous materials. E.1.3.2.3 Conversion Unit System. Figure E-16 shows the proposed Omnifuel gasification technology.

FIGURE E-16 OMNIFUEL GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

Omnifuel proposes to utilize one gasification train, sized at approximately 9.6 tons/hour, operating 253 days per year. The RDF is transferred from storage to a small live-bottom surge bin before it is fed into the transfer bin by the pressurized feeding system. From the transfer bin, the RDF is conveyed to a water-cooled screw, which feeds it into the refractory-lined, ten-foot outer diameter gasifier vessel. Lime is added to the RDF for absorption and

Refuse Feed

Gasifier

PrimaryCyclone

TransferBin

SurgeBin

PressurisedFeeder

Ash Hopper

AirPreheater

SecondaryCyclone

Boiler

Scrubber

MercuryRemoval

Gas Heater

Air



removal of acid gases such as HCl and SO2. Based on prior experience, Omnifuel assumes that 50% of the HCl and SO2 will be present in inorganic form, and will end up in the ash instead of the syngas. Therefore, they expect that the lime addition will be sufficient for capture and removal of these contaminants. The RDF and air (preheated in a downstream step) are mixed in a bubbling bed of olivine, which is chosen for hardness, high melting temperature and its catalytic activity toward tar cracking. The RDF is converted to syngas at 1,500ºF. The syngas stream contains a small amount of tar and ash, with some residual, unconverted char. The syngas stream flows to a primary cyclone, where most of the particulate matter is removed and recycled back to the gasifier. The syngas leaves the primary gas cyclone and then is ducted to a secondary cyclone to remove the bulk of the ash from the syngas. The ash is cooled and discharged to a storage bin, while the syngas is cooled by preheating the gasifier inlet air. The syngas gas then flows through a bed of activated carbon for removal of mercury. In the gasification process, the nitrogen bound in the MSW is converted to ammonia, Omnifuel proposes to use a wet scrubber for removal of ammonia. E.1.3.2.4 Power Generation System. The cleaned syngas is then combusted in a boiler at 2,300-2,600ºF, and steam is produced at 850ºF and 750 psi to drive a steam turbine generator for the production of 4.4 net MW of electricity. Although a low-NOx burner will be used, no other post-combustion emission controls are proposed. Omnifuel notes that it would re-evaluate this need during the optimization engineering stage of the project. This could be a significant technical and cost addition to the project, if required. No other details on the power generation subsystem were provided. Indicators of overall facility efficiency are: • 459 net kWh/ton of feedstock

• 23 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity Both of these values show that the proposed facility has a low to moderate overall efficiency for electricity production. E.1.3.3 Byproducts Analysis E.1.3.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed Omnifuel facility would recover 29,143 tons/year of recyclables from the inlet MSW stream. This is a 29% recovery, which is unlikely from the black bin MSW stream. Omnifuel also expects to recover 93% of the



metals; 50% recovery is more likely. In addition to producing 26.7 million kWh for sale, the proposal lists the following amounts of recovered materials: • Paper: 6,856 tons/year



• Plastic: 10,496 tons/year The revenue values provided by Omnifuel have been adjusted to account for the lower recovery expected for this black bin MSW stream. E.1.3.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity. There is also a robust market for the paper, glass, metals, and plastic. As noted above, the proposed recovery (of high quality, marketable recyclables) of 29% from the post-source separated MSW is not likely to be achieved, and the proposal is evaluated based on an overall recovery of 16.5%, or 16,500 tons/year. Omnifuel expects to recover 93% of the metals; the evaluation is based on recovery of only 50% of the metals. The proposed 27% recovery of paper is considered to be achievable. E.1.3.4 Environmental Issues E.1.3.4.1 Air Emissions/Toxics. A slight negative pressure will be maintained in the tipping building in order to control odors. The air will be used in the gasifier or routed through a biological filer. Since gasification is a closed process, there is no emission point for the syngas. The only emissions point is the stack, which is part of the power generation module. Omnifuel’s submittal states that their facility “will meet all emission standards”. Since they have chosen not to include any post-combustion emission controls, this would be a significant technical, environmental, and cost issue if the lime addition and pre-combustion syngas cleaning system is not sufficient. Omnifuel did not provide an expected stack height. E.1.3.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. Blowdowns are expected from the ammonia scrubber and the cooling tower. The cooling tower blowdown is stated as 10-20 gallons/minute, or 14,400-28,800 gallons/day. E.1.3.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is 15,277 tons/year, or about 15% of the inlet MSW stream. This includes 12,677 tons/year of rejects from the pre-processing system, as well as 2,600 tons/year of ash from the hot cyclone.



Other Environmental Issues. Visibility of the stack may be a viewshed issue. E.1.3.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the proposed Omnifuel facility is presented in Table E-14.

TABLE E-14 COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED OMNIFUEL FACILITY

Provided by

Omnifuel Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment Capital Cost $15.735 million $15.735 million Capital Cost, $/TPY Inlet MSW

$157 $157

Annual O&M $2,724,866 $2,647,826 Internal electricity use is 3,036,000 kWh @$0.06/kWh, for 253 days/year operation, not 360 days/year.

Landfilling of Unmarketable Materials

$685,064 $611,080 Use $40/ton instead of $20/ton for waste disposal, and use 12,677 tons/year rejects and 2,600 tons/year cyclone ash.

Annual Capital Recovery and Interest Charges

$1,855,651 $1,855,651


$2,090,880 $1,603,008 4,400 kWh for 253 days/year @$0.06/kWh

Revenues from Sale of Byproducts

$3,982,438 $1,250,000 Assume recovery of 2% of all metals ($50/ton), 12% of all paper ($75/ton), and 2.5% of all plastics ($100/ton) in inlet stream. Total is 16,500 tons/year.

Total Annual Revenues $6,073,318 $2,853,008 Reduction in revenues from recyclables and electricity. Annual Revenues-Costs $807,737 ($2,261,549) Tipping Fee $0/ton $22.62/ton Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$40.17/ton Assume balance of recyclables not sold (29,143-16,500 tons/year) are sent to landfill @ $40/ton = $505,720 additional O&M. Should reduce revenues by $3,982,438-1,250,000 = $2,732,438, but this is almost same as total; therefore keep total revenues equal to those only from power sales = $1,603,008.

E.1.3.6 Assessment Summary Omnifuel is a very small corporation, with three principals. It has been many years since the two main principals have designed either a gasification or MSW pre-processing system. As stated in the proposal, Omnifuel is in discussion with a holding company of which it may become a part. The ability of Omnifuel to take on and complete the proposed facility is



presently questionable; this may change if it becomes part of the holding company. Other concerns are listed below. Technical. The submittal lacked sufficient technical detail for a complete evaluation. The original submittal mentioned potential use of a gas turbine and other alternatives for the generation of electricity. Following submittal of the Request for Additional Information to Omnifuel, they provided a significantly revised response. The following technical issues remain: • An overall mass balance including the ash material was not included. Data on other

potential streams such as scrubber blowdown was not provided. This is probably because Omnifuel has not developed a similar system before that includes the pre-processing, conversion, and power generation subsystems.

• Many data items on the spreadsheet for the proposed facility were not provided, and were left for engineering at a later stage of the project.

• The data presented in the proposal and spreadsheet for days of operation and net electricity generated differ significantly from that used in the cost table. The proposal text was based on operation 253 days/year (63% availability), but the costs and revenues were based on 360 days/year (99% availability). Based on the lack of technical clarification and subsystem integration, and the use of only one module, 99% availability is not likely.

• The pre-processing subsystem is described as achieving 29% recovery of recyclables from the inlet MSW stream, and obtaining a high recovery of individual recyclables. For this type of mixed, contaminated material in the post-source separated MSW, recovery of 16.5% is assumed.

• The pre-processing system is described as a prefabricated modular structure, 40’ long by 12’ wide by 30’ high, essentially sitting on 480 square feet. Based on the size and performance of commercially available MSW pre-processing equipment, it is unlikely that such a small facility would be able to process almost 400 tons/day of black bin MSW.

• No overall process flow diagram showing the three subsystems is provided. No overall integration of the subsystems was described.

• Omnifuel provided a rough facility layout not to scale. The overall concept for the proposed facility, with the integration of all three subsystems, is not yet well-developed by Omnifuel.

• The potential need for post-combustion controls may become a significant technical, environmental, and cost issue. If required, this would add significant process equipment,



internal load and additional landfill requirements for the facility for disposal of contaminated wastes.

Cost. Omnifuel’s original proposal only provided a range of capital costs. Since Omnifuel has not provided a conceptual design for an overall facility integrating the three subsystems, its revised cost estimates are questionable. Since Omnifuel has not designed an overall conversion technology facility integrating all three subsystems, the capital costs are questionable. If post-combustion emission controls are required, the costs (capital and O&M) would be increased significantly. Since revenues are based on significant recovery of recyclables, and a lower recovery is more likely, especially for metals, revenues are overstated. Performance. The performance indicators of 459 net kWh/ton feedstock and 23 tons/year/net kW show that the proposed Omnifuel facility would provide low to moderate overall efficiency. The availability of only 253 days per year (69%) is very low. This is less than the 261 days/year of delivery of black bin MSW.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Primenergy/RRA


E.1.4 Primenergy/RRA E.1.4.1 Technology Overview E.1.4.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. The two companies partnered for this proposal are Renewable Resources Alliance, LLC (RRA) and Primenergy, LLC (Primenergy). RRA would provide the pre-processing subsystem, and Primenergy would provide the gasification, emission control, and power generation subsystems, as well as the overall facility design and engineering. Firm: Renewable Resources Alliance, LLC

Technology: Material Recovery Facility


Principal Contact: Paul Relis, President

Address: 11292 Western Avenue Stanton, California 90680

Firm: Primenergy, LLC

Technology: PRM Energy Systems, Inc. gasification


Principal contact: Bill Scott

Address: 3172 North Toledo Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115 RRA is a partnership between CR&R Incorporated and Community Recycling. Both companies operate large mixed waste material recovery facilities that have a combined capacity of over 3,000 tons/day. They have been processing MSW similar to the post-source separated MSW from the Los Angeles region for over 20 years. CR&R Incorporated is in the process of designing a new state-of-the-art mixed MRF for installation at its Perris Facility in Riverside County. This facility will incorporate advanced mixed recovery technology, and will also be fully capable of producing an engineered fuel for gasification. The facility will have an operating capacity of 3,600 tons/day. Both company’s existing MRFs are capable of producing Post Recycled Municipal Biomass (PRMB), an engineered fuel specifically designed for the Primenergy gasification system.



RRA was created to combine the resources of both companies for the purpose of commercializing gasification. RRA has developed processes for refining MSW into PRMB for gasification. CR&R Incorporated holds more than 30 municipal franchise contracts and is one of the largest independently held waste and recycling firms in California. It has more than 1,000 employees, with four operating plants and extensive trucking routes, recycling, and its marketing of resources. Community Recycling operates the largest composting facility in California (3,600 tons/day) utilizing municipal green and food waste. It is also one of the largest C&D recyclers with an operating capacity of 2,000 tons/day. The company has developed proprietary sorting technology for mixed wastes from commercial sources. RRA’s partners, CR&R Incorporated and Community Recycling, are well capitalized. Provided that adequate returns of investment and an appropriate site and permits are obtainable, RRA states that it is capable of obtaining financing for this venture. RRA is also teamed with Nexant Corporation for technical support for gasification, Nixon Peabody, LLP of San Francisco as energy contracting and financing consultants, and Nolte Associates, for MRF engineering and construction. Paul Relis, Senior Vice President of CR&R, has an extensive regulatory and project development background. He is a former Member of the California Integrated Waste Management Board and has nearly seven years as an executive with CR&R. John Richardson, Vice President of Community, has a banking and finance background and extensive project development experience with Community Recycling’s composting and biomass energy projects. Mr. Relis and Mr. Richardson would be the principals for this project. Primenergy’s business is in the engineering, procurement and construction of turnkey, biomass fueled energy conversion and recovery facilities. They utilize the PRM Energy Systems, Inc. gasification process, along with proprietary gas cleaning processes that they have developed. At their Tulsa headquarters, Primenergy has a fully functional, commercially sized, gasification test facility complete with a low-pressure boiler and internal combustion engine generator. This demonstration complex has the capacity to gasify up to 30 tons/day of various feedstocks. They have tested the following feedstocks: PRMB, other RDF, rice straw, sugar cane bagasse, poultry litter, paper plant pulp sludge and sewage sludge (biosolids). For each new gasification test, Primenergy employs a third party testing company to conduct stack compliance testing in accordance with U.S. EPA test methods and reporting protocol.



The syngas produced in their systems has typically been combusted in a boiler, and the steam used for various processes; i.e., driving a steam turbine for power generation, rice parboiling and soybean processing. Primenergy has developed and patented the Particulate and Aerosol Removal System (PARS™), a process for cooling and cleaning syngas prior to use in an internal combustion engine or gas turbine. Primenergy will be undertaking an investigation into gas turbine usage under a program partially funded by the National Energy Technology Laboratories of the U.S. Department of Energy. Primenergy marked the following proposal documents as confidential or proprietary: • Proposed site layout

• Block flow diagram (process flow diagram)

• Portions of the response to the Request for Additional Information

• Plot Plan of Riceland Foods Facility

• Specific items within the spreadsheets specifically noted as confidential Primenergy noted in a follow-up communication that the site layout (Figure E-17) may be used, but not the entire process flow diagram (block flow diagram) or material/energy balance. Mass flow in, ash flow, and energy output can be disclosed. E.1.4.1.2 Technology Overview. RRA and its affiliates are in the material recovery facility business in California. Their technologies are utilized to recover and recycle materials from residential, commercial, industrial, and construction & demolition solid wastes. RRA has developed a proprietary system for processing MSW and post-source separated MSW into an “engineered” PRMB feedstock, specifically for use in gasification. The PRMB system includes mechanical and manual systems for removal of paper, glass, metals, and plastics. This equipment likely includes trommel screens, bag openers, air classifiers, shredders, dryers, and magnetic and eddy current separators. Materials that cannot be recycled, or are not appropriate for use in the PRMB feedstock, are removed as rejects for disposal in a landfill. Nonflammable or potentially hazardous materials are removed from the waste stream. The recyclable materials are marketed. The balance of the material is the PRMB feedstock. Primenergy licenses the fixed-bed gasification technology of PRM Energy Systems, Inc. PRM Energy Systems, Inc. was originally incorporated in 1973. Their gasification technology was developed and patented under the direction of Mr. Ron Bailey, Sr. while



FIGURE E-17 SITE LAYOUT

460'- 0"63'- 0"

550'

-0"

80'- 0"100'- 0" 60'- 0"220'- 0"

EMPLOYEE PARKING

TRUCK ACCESS EMPLOYEE ACCESS

TRUCK SCALES

SCALE HOUSE

PROCESSING BUILDINGTIPPING BUILDING

401'- 0"924'- 0"

464'- 0"

234'

-0"

256'

-0"

60'-

0"

130'

-0"

40'-

0"25

'-0"

25'-

0"

20'-

0"20

'-0"

LIME STORAGE

TOWERSCOOLING

TANKRAW WATER

SUBSTATIONTRANSFORMERS

PROCESSPIPEWAY

ADMINISTATIONBUILDING

TURBINE GENERATOR BUILLDING

BIO- FILTER

ASHSTORAGE

President of Producers Rice Mill Inc. The first two gasifiers were installed in 1982 to gasify rice husks to produce process heat and steam for a large rice parboiling facility. The energy from the gasification of rice husks in the PRME gasifier displaces natural gas typically used in the dryers and boiler. Mr. Bailey retired from Producers Rice Mill in 1988 and acquired PRM Energy Systems, Inc., along with the patents, technology, and trade secrets for the PRME reactor/gasifier system. The PRM Energy Systems technology includes a fuel metering bin, the reactor/gasifier, the combustion tube and chamber, the gasifier cooling water system, water cooled ash discharge conveyors, multi-zoned combustion air supply, rotary feeders and instrumentation required to provide automatic control over the process. The entire gasification/combustion process, from infeed to ash discharge, can be controlled manually or by computer. The PRM Energy Systems gasifier technology is shown in Figure E-18. As shown in Figure E-18, the gasifier is basically a vertical cylindrical steel shell, reduced in diameter in the upper portion and lined with a refractory. The cross sectional area of the upper portion of the gasifier is reduced to provide the turbulence required to insure proper



FIGURE E-18 PRM ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

mixing of the product gas and the combustion air introduced into the combustion tubes in this area of the gasifier. The feedstock is metered to the gasifier from the fuel metering bin. This bin is equipped with an infeed leveling conveyor and a variable speed outfeed conveyor that delivers fuel to the gasifier. The speed of the outfeed conveyor is automatically adjusted by the automatic control system to maintain a preset temperature in the first stage gasification zone. Discharge



from the outfeed conveyor is directed through an impact weigh metering device that provides precise indication and control of the fuel feed rate. Feedstock is introduced to the gasifier by a water-cooled screw conveyor that discharges into the drying and heating zone of the gasifier. The gasification process is controlled by the proportioned application of gasification and combustion air in a manner that supports efficient gasification. Residence time in the gasifier is varied by a residence control system that is adjusted to achieve a target carbon content of the ash residue. In the gasification zone of the gasifier, approximately 10-12% of the stoichiometric air requirement is admitted into the gasification air distribution area. The application of gasification air is multi-zoned and is controlled to maintain the proper temperature required to volatilize the feedstock and allow partial combustion of the fixed carbon. Temperatures in this zone are controlled in the range of 1,112-2,372ºF, depending on the particular feedstock and the required ash quality. A low gasification air flow rate (<0.3 feet/second) through the gasification zone, coupled with a low feedstock entry point and continuous ash discharge minimizes the amount of particulate matter entrained in the gasifier exhaust. Combustion of the gases starts in the combustion tube assembly where the temperature of the gases is increased to promote thermal cracking of tars and hydrocarbons that were liberated during gasification. Partial combustion of gases in the combustion tube assembly, the use of mechanical bed agitation and precise control of the zoning of gasification air produces a clean, low Btu content gas that can be burned in the combustion tube. On the PRM Energy Systems website, Primenergy is listed as a licensee of this technology for North America. E.1.4.1.2 Reference Plants. The proposal included descriptions of RRA and Primenergy reference plants. These are shown in Table E-15. Reference plants are depicted in Figure E-19. Primenergy is in the final design stages of a facility in Dalton, GA, that will use 25,000 tons/year of shredded carpet and medium density fiberboard dust to produce electricity. E.1.4.1.4 Commercial Status. Both Primenergy’s gasification technology and RRA’s pre-processing technology are proven at commercial scale at throughputs over 100,000 tons/year. Primenergy’s first commercial facility employing their gasification technology has operated continuously for over eighteen years. There are seventeen other Primenergy gasifiers in commercial operation worldwide, using a wide range of biomass feedstocks.



TABLE E-15 PRIMENERGY AND RRA REFERENCE FACILITIES


Riceland Foods (steam and power production)

Stuttgart, AR U.S. 195,000 Rice hulls

Rice processor Jonesboro, AR U.S. 115,000 Rice hulls Olive processing plant (olive wastes to syngas combusted in internal combustion engines for power)

Rossano Italy 35,000 Olive waste

Primenergy Demonstration Facility (steam and power production)

Tulsa, OK U.S. 24 to 30 tons/day

Wide range for testing

CR Transfer (recovers recyclables, construction and demolition materials, green waste, biomass fuel, inerts)

CA U.S. 500,000 Mixed waste from black bin collection

Community Recycling Transfer Station CA U.S. 450,000 Residential and commercial solid waste

The facility proposed for the City would have a throughput of 200 tons/day. The largest Primenergy gasification module in operation is also sized for a throughput of 200 tons/day, so there would be no scale-up issue. Only the feedstock would be different. Primenergy has not yet developed a full-scale facility based on PRMB or other MSW or RDF. However, Primenergy and RRA have tested RRA’s PRMB feedstock, and have prepared a preliminary design for an integrated system to process MSW, remove recyclables, gasify the MSW, and generate electricity. RRA and its affiliated companies have long-term commercial experience in materials recovery facility operation, along with marketing of recyclables, in southern California. The facility proposed for the City of Los Angeles would have a throughput of 1,000 tons/day, producing PRMB feedstock. Their existing facilities operate at throughput of 1,700 tons/day. They are in the design stages of a new MRF with a throughput of 3,600 tons/day in California. One of RRA’s affiliates has also built the largest biofilter in California, used for odor control. Overall, the proposed technologies are in operation at full-scale, commercial facilities. E.1.4.2 Detailed Technology Description E.1.4.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The post-source separated MSW is delivered to the site 5-1/2 days/week. Odor control will be accomplished by maintaining the pre-processing building under negative pressure, as well as using a biofilter. The pre-processing



FIGURE E-19 REFERENCE FACILITIES

DEMO FACILITY (TULSA) RICE HULL PROCESSING (STUTTGART, AR)

RICE HULLS PROCESSING OLIVE WASTE PROCESSING (GREENVILLE, MS) (ROSSANO, ITALY) subsystem operates 7 days/week to process 1,000 tons/day of inlet waste to produce the PRMB feedstock. The proprietary process includes pre-sorting, separation, shredding, sizing, and drying equipment. The feedstock is processed to a maximum size of ½ inch for feed to the three operating gasifiers. The subsystems will recover conventional recyclables, including fibers, ferrous metals, aluminum, glass, and plastics. Organic fines are removed for composting. Overall, forty percent of the inlet feed will be removed, about 2/3 as recyclables, and the balance as rejects for disposal in a landfill.



The PRMB is then fed into the gasifiers, where gasification occurs at just over 1,500ºF, producing syngas. The syngas from the gasifiers flows through a hot gas cyclone for removal of fly ash. The cleaned syngas is then combusted in a boiler, where steam is produced for generating 17.6 MW gross and 15 MW net in a steam turbine generator. The flue gases are treated in an extensive emission control system. Lime is injected into the flue gases for removal of acid gases, including SO2 and HCl. Activated carbon is injected for adsorption of heavy metals, including vaporized mercury. The reaction products and particulate matter in the flue gas stream are then removed in a fabric filter. NOx emissions are controlled by using Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). The cleaned flue gases are exhausted through a 100’ stack. Overall diversion from landfill is 85%. A construction schedule of 18 months is proposed. A sample, which presents a total 15-month schedule, is shown in Figure E-20. E.1.4.2.2 Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of 12 acres. A site layout is presented in Figure E-17. E.1.4.2.3 Process Flow and Mass Balance. The proposal included an overall process schematic, noted as confidential. A summary mass balance is presented in Table E-16. The process flow diagram and the mass balance are not shown because the supplier has indicated this information to be proprietary and confidential. E.1.4.2.4 Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5-1/2 days per week. The pre-processing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and electricity, for 360 days/year. This high reliability is based on the extensive operating experience of both RRA and Primenergy. Staffing is proposed to be a total of 47 people, including: • Manager, Assistant Manager and 20 operators for pre-processing system = 22

• Plant Manager and 24 operators for conversion and power generation subsystems = 25 E.1.4.2.5 Utility Requirements. • Electricity: The facility would produce 152 million kWh per year, with an internal

requirement of 22.5 million kWh, equivalent to 15 percent internal power load.

• Water: The proposed facility would use 7,500 gallons/day, or 2.7 million gallons/year.



FIGURE E-20 SAMPLE PROJECT SCHEDULE



TABLE E-16 PRIMENERGY-RRA SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments Inlet MSW 360,000 Pre-processing removes 40% Recyclables removed from inlet stream 92,304 25.6% of inlet; includes organic fines to composting Rejects to landfill 51,696 14.4% of inlet Feedstock to gasifier 216,000 PRMB prepared feedstock Fabric filter ash 1,008 To landfill Bottom ash 22,392 Marketable

• Wastewater: Boiler blowdown will be 5,000 gallons/day, or 1.8 million gallons/year.

• Natural gas: Requires 36 million Btu/hour for pre-heating and start-up.

• Chemicals: The emission control system will require the following chemicals:

��Lime: 648 tons/year

��Activated carbon: 216 tons/year

��Ammonia: 108 tons/year E.1.4.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. The post-source separated MSW will be delivered to the tipping building. The proposed 1,000 ton/day proprietary pre-processing system includes trommels, screens, floating devices, magnets, air classifiers, and manual sorting to produce the PRMB feedstock for the gasifiers. The PRMB is shredded to a maximum size of ½ inch for feed to the three operating gasifiers. The pre-processing subsystem will remove 40% of the inlet post-source separated MSW stream as follows: • 25.64% (of the total 40%) will be common recyclables, such as paper, metals, glass,

plastics, and fines for composting

• 14.36% (of the total 40%) will be non-processible rejects which will be disposed of in a landfill

Primenergy-RRA proposes that steel and aluminum will be recovered at nearly 100%, and paper, plastics, and organic materials will be sorted for recycling. Nonflammable or potentially hazardous materials will be removed from the inlet waste stream. The remaining 60% of the inlet stream, mostly marginal paper and mixed plastics, are refined and processed into the PRMB.



Recovered Recyclables. The proposal lists the following recyclables to be removed from the inlet stream: • Paper: 47,700 tons/year



• Plastics: 11,520 tons/year

• Compost: 9,144 tons/year This totals 92,304 tons/year, or a recovery of 25.6% of the inlet stream. Based on the characteristics of the post-source separated MSW, and contamination, only 16.5% recovery is assumed for this evaluation. Adjustments are made for lower revenues and for higher costs for landfill of additional non-recyclables in Section E.1.4.5. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The pre-processing system will also remove 51,696 tons/year of “non-processible” materials, which will be disposed of in a landfill. This will likely include construction and demolition materials that enter with the inlet stream, as well as recyclables that cannot be efficiently recovered or used in the PRMB. E.1.4.2.3 Conversion Unit System. An overall diagram of the gasifier is shown in Figure E-21. The PRMB will be stored in a concrete lined pit. Internal to the pit will be live-bottom screws that will transfer the PRMB to a belt conveyor that will deliver the feedstock to the gasifier metering bin. Each bin is equipped with variable speed discharge conveyors that deliver the feedstock at a controlled rate to each gasifier. The rate of feed is monitored by a flow meter that provides the indication of mass flow for the gasifier. The PRMB enters the fixed-bed gasifier, air is injected, and gasification of the PRMB occurs as about 1,500ºF, producing syngas. The syngas has a composition (volume basis) of: • CO - 17%

• H2 - 2%

• CH4 - 6%

• CO2 - 10%

• N2 - 42%

• H2O - 23% The heating value is 148 Btu/scf.



FIGURE E-21 PRIMENERGY GASIFIER

Bottom ash is removed from the bottom of the gasifier by an ash conveyor, and then lifted by a bucket conveyor for storage in a silo. The hot syngas flows through a two-stage, high efficiency, refractory-lined cyclone, where the fly ash is removed. After fly ash removal, the syngas is combusted in a multi-stage combustion chamber at 2,400ºF. The staged combustion of the syngas converts the feedstock-bound nitrogen into diatomic nitrogen (N2) instead of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The intermediate stage of the combustion chamber is vertically oriented, constructed of refractory-lined carbon steel. The partially oxidized syngas exits the intermediate combustion zone, and is ducted to a specially designed syngas burner for final oxidation. The burner delivers the final combustion and excess air to the syngas, providing flame stability over a large range of flows and heat input rates while promoting mixing to maximize combustion efficiency. The syngas burner fires into the furnace section of the waste heat recovery boiler, where final oxidation of combustible compounds occurs. The boiler produces steam at 900ºF and 850 psi. The steam is piped to the steam turbine generator for power generation. Lime and activated carbon are injected into the cooled flue gas stream for removal of acid gases (SO2 and HCl), unburned hydrocarbons, and heavy metals, such as vaporized mercury. The flue gases then flow through a fabric filter, where the reaction products and particulate matter are removed. Removed fly ash and other particulates fall into the dust collector



hopper, through the ash discharge valves at the bottom of the hoppers and are then transferred into the ash storage silo by a pneumatic conveyance system. The cleaned flue gases then flow through the SCR system, where ammonia is injected over the catalyst bed, converting NOx emissions to nitrogen and water. E.1.4.2.4 Power Generation System. The boiler package consists of an “A” style boiler with a furnace section that provides residence time for complete combustion of the syngas and an imbedded superheater and desuperheater to produce 900ºF, 850 psi superheated for the condensing, extraction steam turbine generator. Boiler accessories include a reverse osmosis water treatment system sized designed for 15% boiler feedwater makeup, a boiler feedwater deaerator and dual (one operating and one spare) boiler feedwater pumps. A chemical treatment package is included to provide necessary chemicals to the deaerator and boiler. The generator, rated at 20 MW, is expected to produce 17.6 gross MW. Internal load is 2.6 MW, for a net power output of 15 MW. The overall facility will produce: • 600 net kWh/ton of feedstock

• 24 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity E.1.4.3 Byproduct Analysis E.1.4.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following useful byproducts:

• Electricity: 15 net MW, or 129.6 million net kWh/year

• Paper: 47,700 tons/year



• Plastics: 11,520 tons/year

• Compost: 9,144 tons/year

• Bottom ash: 22,392 tons/year E.1.4.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity and for the recyclables. The bottom ash is likely to be marketable for construction materials or road base.



E.1.4.4 Environmental Issues E.1.4.4.1 Air Emissions. For odor control, the tipping building will be maintained under negative pressure. The air will be used in the gasification and/or combustion processes, destroying the odor-causing compounds. The facility will also use a biofilter for removing odors from other areas. Since gasification is a closed system, the only emission point will be the stack, following removal of contaminants in the emission control system. E.1.4.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The only wastewater stream identified is the 5,000 gallons/day boiler blowdown stream. E.1.4.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The pre-processing system will produce 143.6 tons/day (51,696 tons/year) of rejects. The conversion unit sub-system will produce 2.8 tons/day (1,008 tons/year) of contaminated fly ash from the emission control system. The rejects and the fly ash will be disposed of in a landfill. E.1.4.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The 100-foot stack may be a viewshed issue. The mass of the post-source separated MSW required to be landfilled is reduced by 85%. E.1.4.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the proposed facility is presented in Table E-17. E.1.4.6 Assessment Summary The Primenergy-RRA proposal was well put together, with considerable detail provided on the Primenergy conversion and power generation subsystems. Primenergy and RRA have worked together to provide a facility that includes overall integration of the three primary subsystems. Since RRA’s PRMB pre-preprocessing system is proprietary, no details were provided. However, since the proposed pre-processing system is based on RRA’s affiliates’ actual operating systems, there is little technical concern regarding the ability of the proposed subsystem to handle the inlet post-source separated MSW stream. Primenergy provided extensive back-up material, including filled-out spreadsheets, photos and data on existing facilities, diagrams of their gasification system, detailed process flow and heat and material balance diagrams (some noted as confidential), and a detailed site layout. Technical and financial questions were answered quickly and with sufficient detail. Both companies have large systems in operation, with more in development. The team has the engineering skills to design the overall facility. Based on implementation of prior and ongoing projects, the team likely has the financial capability to implement the project. Additional issues and concerns are as follows:



TABLE E-17 COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FACILITY

Provided by

Primenergy/RRA Evaluated

Cost Reason for Adjustment Capital Cost $49.2 million $49.2 million Capital Cost, $/TPY $137 $137 Annual O&M $7.25 million $5.14 million Separate out landfilling costs Landfilling of Unmarketable Materials

Not separated $2.11 million 51,696 tons/year of rejects and 1,008 tons/year of fabric filter ash @ $40/ton


Not provided $3.94 million Calculated over 20 years

Total Annual Costs $7.25 million $11.19 million Includes capital recovery and interest costs Revenues from Sale of Electricity

Not provided $7.8 million 15,000 kWh for 360 days/year @ $0.06/kWh

Revenues from Sale of Recyclables, Compost and Bottom Ash

Not provided $4.61 million Assume recovery of 2% of all metals ($50/ton), 12% of all paper ($75/ton), and 2.5% of all plastics ($100/ton) in inlet stream. Total is 59,400 tons/year. Assume bottom ash sold at $5/ton.

Total Annual Revenues Not provided $12.41 million Annual Revenues-Costs ($7.25 million) $1.22 million Tipping Fee $20.14 $0 Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$0.89/ton Assume 22,392 tons/year bottom ash transported to landfill @$10/ton. Assume balance of recyclables not sold (92,304-59,400 tons/year) are sent to landfill @ $40/ton = $1.54 million additional O&M. No reduction in revenues required.

Technical. Primenergy does not have a full-scale system in operation using the PRMB, but it has processed a wide range of difficult feedstocks at ranges up to 600 tons/day. Primenergy has also performed extensive tests of the RRA PRMB feedstock in its test gasifier at rates of about 24 tons/day. Data from those test runs was used to develop an overall preliminary design for an integrated facility. RRA has assumed a very high recovery of recyclables. Due to the contamination of the post-source separated MSW, it may not be technically feasible to obtain such high recovery. Cost. No pro-forma was provided, so capital recovery and interest costs were calculated. Performance. With a production of 600 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a moderate “efficiency” rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Taylor Biomass Recovery


E.1.5 Taylor Biomass Recovery E.1.5.1 Technology Overview E.1.5.1.1 Technology Supply Team. Taylor Biomass Recovery LA, LLC is a company established for the purposes of this proposal/project by the Taylor Group of Companies, which also owns Taylor Recycling Facility, LLC. Taylor’s primary business is in separation and recycling from: 1) construction and demolition waste, 2) land clearing debris, and 3) gypsum wallboard. Taylor proposes to license the SilvaGas technology from FERCO Enterprises, Inc., previously known as Future Energy Resources Company. Taylor has no prior experience in either MSW or RDF processing or in pyrolysis or gasification. Firm: Taylor Biomass Recovery LA, LLC

Technology: FERCO SilvaGas Fluidized Bed Pyrolysis


Principal Contact: James W. (Jim) Taylor, Jr. Chairman

Address: 350 Neelytown Road Montgomery, NY 12459

Originally, Taylor was in the tree service and land clearing businesses. Later, it became involved in construction and demolition debris, using enhancements to its separation technologies. Its primary facility is in Montgomery, New York. In 2001, the company built a gypsum recovery operation, selling the recovered material to U.S. Gypsum for their wallboard plant. During 2004, Taylor Recycling built a construction and demolition separation and recycling facility in Des Moines, Iowa, processing more than 300 tons/day of construction and demolition material. While the company has successful significant experience in processing construction and demolition debris, it has no experience with MSW or RDF. The SilvaGas technology was originally developed and tested at pilot scale by Battelle Memorial Institute in West Jefferson, Ohio. Enhancements to the process were made over a 20-year period. In 1992, after over 22,000 hours of operation of the 10 tons/day pilot unit, Future Energy Resources Corporation (FERCO) purchased the rights to the technology and continued the development efforts. Beginning in 1999, it was demonstrated at commercial scale at Burlington Electric Department’s McNeil Station in Burlington, Vermont. According to Taylor’s response to a Request or Additional Information, FERCO holds the rights to the technology and sells licenses to it; it does not want any involvement in project



development. Should Taylor be awarded a project by the City of Los Angeles, Taylor would hire the inventor of the SilvaGas process, Mark Paisley, as a Taylor employee. Taylor considers the following documents/items to be confidential: • Pro-forma

• Heat and material balance

• Pre-processing subsystem descriptions and drawings

• Details of byproducts of pre-processing subsystem E.1.5.1.2 Technology Overview. Taylor proposes to install an extensive pre-processing system to remove 40% of the materials in the inlet black bin MSW stream, and about 2/3rds of that will be recyclables. The balance of the materials (60% of the inlet stream) will be the feedstock for the conversion unit, which will process about 117,450 tons/year. Details of the mass balance are discussed later, as there were unresolved inconsistencies in the values. The FERCO SilvaGas technology utilizes two circulating fluidized bed reactors as the primary process vessels. It is a unique application of pyrolysis for converting MSW into syngas. Instead of disposing of the leftover pyrolysis char, as other pyrolysis processes do, the SilvaGas process separates the char from the syngas stream and combusts it in a combustion chamber. This provides the indirect heat needed for pyrolysis to occur, and the excess heat is used to make steam for the production of electricity. The syngas from the “gasifier” is combusted in a boiler, and the hot flue gas is used to produce more steam for power generation. FERCO provides the following basic description of their process. Refer to Figure E-22 for the areas of the process being described: 1. Wood chips or other biomass materials are fed into the gasifier.

2. In the gasifier, the biomass is mixed with hot sand (1,800ºF), turning it into SilvaGas and residual char.

3. The residual char and cooled sand (1,500ºF) are separated from the SilvaGas by a cyclone separator and discharged to the combustor.

4. The sand is reheated in the combustor by adding air and burning the residual char. The reheated sand is removed from the combustion gas by a cyclone separator and returned to the gasifier.



FIGURE E-22 FERCO SILVAGAS PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

5. The SilvaGas is cleaned and can be used for a variety of applications such as direct use in

gas turbines, fuel cells or the production of chemicals.

6. The flue gas is a valuable source of heat that can be recovered for uses such as biomass drying, steam production, or direct heating.

The overall process proposed for the City of Los Angeles is slightly different, due to the nature of the feedstock produced in the pre-processing subsystem. It is different and more heterogeneous than the biomass utilized in the Burlington demonstration facility. For example, expected process temperatures are slightly different. The syngas is cleaned of particulate matter and then combusted in a boiler. The steam is piped to a single 12.5 MW steam turbine generator. The cooled flue gas flows through a fabric filter for removal of particulates and condensable organics and a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system for NOx removal. The char and fluidizing sand removed from the syngas stream flow to the combustion chamber, where the char is combusted. The hot flue gases are ducted to a cyclone for ash removal, then to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Steam is produced, and is also piped to the single steam turbine generator for power production.



Ash removed from the ash cyclone is expected to be marketable. Ash removed from the fabric filter will include reaction products from the emission control system and will require disposal in a landfill. The recyclables are also expected to be marketable. Overall diversion from landfill is 99%. E.1.5.1.3 Reference Plants. Reference facilities are listed below in Table E-18.

TABLE E-18 TAYLOR REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country Throughput, Tons/Year Feedstock Taylor C&D Facility Montgomery,

NY U.S. 60,000 (based on recent month with

5,000 tons processed) C&D debris

Taylor C&D Facility Des Moines, IA

U.S. 60,000 (based on recent month with 5,000 tons processed)

C&D debris

Taylor Wallboard Recycling Facility

Montgomery, NY

U.S. Unknown (average is 15 tons/hour, but not known if operation is day only or 24/7)

Gypsum wallboard

Battelle Pilot Scale Facility

West Jefferson, OH

U.S. 10-15 tons/day pilot scale system operated for 22,000 hours over 20 years. Utilized 250 kW gas turbine to fire the syngas

Wood chips, pulp, bark, sawdust, hog fuel, wood waste. Tested 300 tons source-separated MSW over 1-year period.

Burlington Electric Department McNeil Station

Burlington, VT

U.S. Designed for about 300 tons/day, operated at up to 500 tons/day. Commercial-scale test program of the SilvaGas process. Syngas was co-fired in the 50 MW McNeil Station’s wood-fired boiler. The pyrolysis char was combusted to provide the indirect heat for the pyrolysis process.

Woody biomass and wood waste.

The demonstration project in Vermont had several participants, including FERCO, the U.S. Department of Energy, Battelle Columbus Laboratory, Burlington Electric Department, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Figure E-23 depicts reference facility at McNeil Station. E.1.5.1.4 Commercial Status. The throughput of the proposed facility is 195,750 tons/year of inlet post-source separated MSW, delivered and processed 261 days/year. The conversion unit itself will have a throughput of 117,450 tons/year, operating 310 days/year. This equates to 379 tons/day or about 16 tons/hour. The demonstration system at the McNeil Station was designed for 300 tons/day, and was able to operate at much larger throughputs. This is about the same size as proposed for the City of Los Angeles.



FIGURE E-23 FERCO SILVAGAS REFERENCE FACILITY AT MCNEIL STATION, BURLINGTON, VT

Neither the pilot facility nor the demonstration facility is in operation. The demonstration facility at McNeil Station was shut down in 2001. E.1.5.2 Detailed Technology Description E.1.5.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The proposed facility would be sized to process a throughput of 195,750 tons/year (750 wet tons/day) of post-source separated MSW. The post-source separated MSW will be delivered to the tipping room 261 days/year, and processed by the pre-processing subsystem. The pre-processing system (two lines) will remove 40% (78,300 tons/year) of the inlet post-source separated MSW stream. Of that amount, the majority will contain marketable recyclables. The balance of the inlet feed (117,450 tons/year) is an RDF product that is fed to the conversion unit. Taylor proposes to operate the conversion unit 310 days/year, for a throughput of 379 tons/day or about 15.8 tons/hour. The feedstock will enter the fluidized bed pyrolysis unit, which circulates a mix of feedstock and hot fluidizing sand. Pyrolysis occurs at 1,545ºF, decomposing the waste material and forming syngas. The syngas, pyrolysis char (leftover from pyrolysis of the waste), fluidizing sand, and particulate matter from the inorganic component of the waste, exit the pyrolysis reactor and enter a hot cyclone. The pyrolysis char and sand are separated from the syngas, and piped to the bottom of the



combustor. The syngas flows to the boiler, where it is combusted. Steam is produced in the boiler, and is piped to the steam turbine generator. In the combustion chamber, the char is combusted, heating the fluidizing sand, which is then returned to the pyrolysis reactor to provide the indirect heat needed for pyrolysis of the waste. The hot flue gases exiting the combustion chamber flow to a cyclone for particulate removal, and then to the HRSG, where additional steam is produced and piped to the steam turbine. The steam turbine generator produces about 12.5 gross MW. The combined flue gases from the combustion of the syngas and the char are treated in the emission control system, composed of a fabric filter and an SCR system. The gases are exhausted through a 110’ stack. The ash removed in the ash cyclone is expected to be marketable. The ash collected in the fabric filter will contain contaminants from the combustion of both the syngas and char, and will not be marketable. This small amount of ash will require disposal in a landfill. Taylor also proposes to generate 45ºF chilled water using on-site chillers. At this time, there is no known user for this chilled water. This can be investigated once a site is selected and preliminary design begins. The proposal spreadsheets state that the project will take 24-36 months to complete. No schedule was submitted. Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of 6 acres. No site layout was provided. Taylor had included some computer generated layouts of the site, but they included a gas turbine, which is no longer proposed. Taylor did not re-submit corrected drawings when the revision using a steam turbine generator option was submitted. Process Flow and Mass Balance. The mass balance is summarized in Table E-19, and includes corrections made following numerous RAIs to Taylor. Taylor has applied a margin of error for both the feedstock preparation and the feedstock use in the conversion unit, so that the values do not balance. For example, the feed to the conversion unit is shown as 17 tons/hour. However, in order to process 117,450 tons/year over 310 operating days, this would result in a throughput of 15.8 tons/hour. The summary table shows the expected mass balance values. Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per week. The preprocessing subsystem will be operated 10-12 hours/day, for 5-1/2 days/week. The preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 310 days per year.



TABLE E-19 TAYLOR SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

195,750 TONS/YEAR

Stream Tons/Year Comments Inlet MSW 195,750 Delivered 261 days/year Recyclables removed from inlet stream 48,938 Various, Marketable Feedstock to gasifier 117,450 Operates 310 days/year Hot cyclone ash 11,745 Marketable Fabric filter ash 372 To landfill disposal

Staffing is 109 for the pre-processing plant, since the recovery process is very labor intensive. This includes the following: • 3 equipment operators/shift on the tipping floor

• 1 supervisor/shift

• 18 laborers/processing line/shift (2 lines)

• 4 general laborers for the overall plant

• 6 mechanics per day

• Administrative support staff For the conversion unit and power generation subsystems, staffing is 12 people over two 12-hour shifts, as follows:

• 1 plant operator

• 1 mechanic

• 1 technician Utility Requirements. Electricity: The facility will produce 92.7 million kWh per year, with an internal requirement of 7.1 million kWh, equivalent to a 7 percent internal power load. Water: The facility will use 5,700 gallons/day of water (310 days per year).

Wastewater: No wastewater is identified in the proposal or mass balances. This data may not be available due to the preliminary nature of the facility design. Natural gas: The conversion unit will require 30 million Btu/hr of natural gas for 12 hours during each start-up.



Chemicals: No chemicals are identified in the proposal. This data may not be available due to the preliminary nature of the facility design. E.1.5.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per week. The preprocessing subsystem will be operated 10-12 hours/day, for 5-1/2 days/week. The MSW is delivered into a drive-through indoor tipping area, which leads to two processing lines. For odor control, Taylor will use four methods: 1) automatically engaged overhead doors, 2) negative pressure within the building, 3) ambient air pumped through biofilters, and 4) deodorizer misters. The air drawn from the tipping area will be used in the gasifier and air preheater, so odor-causing compounds will be destroyed in the conversion unit. Recovered Recyclables. Taylor provided a detailed table of all of the materials proposed to be recovered from the inlet MSW stream, however this information is omitted because the supplier has indicated it to be confidential. Taylor proposes to recover 25% of the inlet stream as recyclables. Based on the characteristics of the post-source separated MSW, and contamination, only 16.5% recovery is assumed for this evaluation. Adjustments are made for lower revenues and for higher costs for landfill of additional non-recyclables in Section 5.0. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. Taylor has not identified any reject material from the pre-processing subsystem. E.1.5.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The feedstock will be conveyed from the storage facility to the conversion unit by a drag chain conveyor. The feed system utilizes a rotary airlock (required to keep air out of the pyrolysis system) a metering bin with a live bottom, a screw conveyor, and another rotary airlock, prior to entering the pyrolysis reactor. Inside the reactor, the feedstock contacts hot circulating sand and steam, and pyrolysis occurs at 1,545ºF, forming syngas. The mixture of syngas, char, sand, and ash exits the reactor and enters the overhead cyclone. There, the sand, ash, and char are separated from the syngas and flow to the bottom of the combustion chamber. The syngas flows through a secondary cyclone for enhanced removal of fine sand and char. The syngas flows through a 2-step clean-up system, using a proprietary catalyst system to crack condensable organics from the syngas, and then an electrostatic precipitator to remove any remaining condensables and particulate matter. The syngas flows through a syngas cooler, and then is sent to the boiler for combustion. Steam from the boiler is piped to the steam turbine generator.



The char is combusted in the combustion chamber at 1,845ºF, producing hot flue gas. At the top of the chamber, the flue gas and ash enter the combustor cyclone for ash removal. The hot flue gas then flows to the HRSG for production of steam, which is piped to the steam turbine generator. An air compressor supplies the air needed for combustion. Ambient air is routed to the regenerative air heater and then the start-up burner and combustor. Some of the air is also routed through the make-up fluidizing sand storage silo to convey it to the reactor. Flue gases from the boiler and the HRSG enter a fabric filter for ash removal. Taylor’s response to the RAI shows that they expect that all of the sulfur compounds in the MSW will be captured in the ash. E.1.5.2.4 Power Generation System. Taylor proposes to use a package boiler and condensing steam turbine for power generation. No details on the power generation subsystem were provided. The overall facility will produce: • 728 net kWh/ton of feedstock

• 17 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity E.1.5.3 Byproducts Analysis E.1.5.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following useful byproducts: • Electricity: 11.5 net MW, or 85.6 million net kWh/year

• Hot cyclone ash: 11,745 tons/year

• Marketable recyclables were not included because the supplier has indicated that this information is confidential.

The values for the recyclables are based on 25% recovery in the pre-processing system. This may not be achievable. A total of 16.5 % recovery is assumed for the evaluation. E.1.5.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity and for the recyclables. Taylor expects to use the hot cyclone ash on-site for making stone products.

E.1.5.4 Environmental Issues E.1.5.4.1 Air Emissions/Toxics. For odor control, Taylor will use four methods: 1) automatically engaged overhead doors, 2) negative pressure within the building, 3) ambient



air pumped through biofilters, and 4) deodorizer misters. The air drawn from the tipping are will be used in the gasifier and air preheater, so odor-causing compounds will be destroyed in the conversion unit. Sulfur in the MSW will be captured in the ash as calcium sulfate (gypsum). A fabric filter will be used for removal of particulate matter, followed by the SCR system for NOx removal. No specific system for the removal of chlorides or HCl is noted. Since pyrolysis is a closed process, the only emission point is the stack, following removal of contaminants in the emission control system.

E.1.5.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. No specific wastewater streams are identified. This may be due to the preliminary nature of the data provided. E.1.5.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The combustor ash cyclone will remove 372 ton/year of ash for disposal in a landfill. E.1.5.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The lack of specific emission control equipment for mercury, sulfur, and chlorine compounds is a concern. Equipment for these purposes is commercially available. The 110’ stack may be a viewshed issue. The mass of the post-source separated MSW required to be landfilled is reduced by about 99%. E.1.5.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the proposed Taylor facility is presented in Table E-20. E.1.5.6 Assessment Summary During the review of Taylor’s original submittal, it became clear that Taylor was more of a construction and demolition recycling company than either a MSW processing or pyrolysis company. While the technical description of the pre-processing subsystem was quite extensive, the technical descriptions of the pyrolysis and power generation subsystems were inconsistent. For example, in some sections, the power generation proposal text discussed a gas turbine, and in others it did not. Taylor did not provide information in the spreadsheets (as required in the RFQ) in the original submittal; the only technical information available was what was described in sparse detail in the written proposal. After receiving the Request for Additional Information, they did supply the spreadsheets. The RAI questioned Taylor’s reason for selecting the throughput of 200,000 tons/year, instead of 100,000 tons/year as specified in the RFQ. In a conversation with Jim Taylor, we




Provided by Taylor Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment Capital Cost $107 million $107 million Capital Cost, $/TPY $547 $547 Annual O&M $14.424 million $14.295 million Separate out landfilling costs for

unmarketable materials Landfilling of Unmarketable Materials

Not provided $124,520 372 tons/year of filter ash and 2,741 tons/year of paints and hazardous wastes @$40/ton.


$6.35 million $6.35 million

Total Annual Costs $20.77 million $20.77 million Revenues from Sale of Electricity


Revenues from Sale of Recyclables and Ash

$1.47 million $2.5 million Assume recovery of 2% of all metals ($50/ton), 12% of all paper ($75/ton), and 2.5% of all plastics ($100/ton) in inlet stream. Total is 32,299 tons/year. Assume 11,745 tons/year hot cyclone ash sold at $5/ton.

Revenues from Management Fees

$2 million $2 million No adjustment, but source of fees not identified.

Revenues from Sale of Chilled Water

$1.04 million $0 No known user

Total Annual Revenues $9.65 million $9.64 million Annual Revenues-Costs ($11.12 million) ($11.13 million) Tipping Fee $56.81/ton $56.86/ton Lower cost Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$67.16/ton Assume 11,745 tons/year hot cyclone ash transported to landfill @$10/ton = $117,450. Assume balance of recyclables not sold (78,300-32,299 = 46,001tons/year) to landfill @ $40/ton = $1,840,040. Add total $1,957,490 to O&M. Reduce ash sales revenues by $58,725.

were told that the minimum “economic” throughput for the FERCO SilvaGas system is a 300 (dry) ton/day system. This equates to about 400 wet tons/day. Given that they remove 40% of the materials for recycling, the facility would require the delivery of about 200,000 tons/year, twice what is available per the RFQ. Mr. Taylor said that it would not be economical for them to try to design a facility using only 100,000 tons/year of raw MSW, which would only provide about 150 dry tons/day to the gasifier.



Taylor itself has no direct experience in processing of MSW or RDF, nor in conversion technologies such as pyrolysis or gasification. The proposal was lacking in technical detail, with many errors in the proposal and in the data spreadsheets. The initial mass balance did not add up. In the end, assumptions had to be made in order to make the mass balance work. Taylor did not seem to have an in-depth understanding of the SilvaGas process nor the critical knowledge nor experience required to efficiently integrate the pre-processing, conversion unit and power generation subsystems. Additional issues and concerns are as follows: Technical. Taylor is essentially a construction and demolition recovery company. They have no prior experience either in MSW pre-processing, conversion technology, or power generation. FERCO, the licensor of the technology, does have full-scale, commercial-sized experience with the SilvaGas process, primarily on biomass. Taylor states that if it is awarded this project, the owner of the technology would be hired by Taylor to do the process design. However, this still leaves out the proven ability to process the black bin MSW and to design the power generation subsystem, as well as the ability to integrate the overall three conversion facility subsystems. Taylor has not identified who would be responsible for overall facility design. This is a concern, especially in the overall integration of the three critical subsystems.

Taylor proposes that its pre-processing system will remove a total of 40% of the inlet stream, with 25 of the 40% as recyclables. Since the black bin MSW is considered to be mixed and contaminated, such a high recovery is not likely. Since a lower recovery is likely, either the total inlet throughput will need to be reduced, the amount of fines increased, or the gasifier throughput increased. Otherwise, should the proposed system fail to recovery the expected amounts, the gasifier would see an increased mass of feedstock, which it may or may not be able to process. Taylor states that it expects that the sulfur compounds in the MSW will be captured in the ash. The description of the emission control system lacks detail, and no specific controls for sulfur species, HCl, or mercury are proposed. Taylor may not have a full understanding of the significant difference between the contaminants in MSW, compared to biomass and construction and demolition debris. This could result in a significant technical (and environmental) issue. Cost. If additional emission controls are required, a significant amount of equipment would need to be added (during preliminary and/or detailed design). There was little discussion of overall facility integration; this may be because neither Taylor nor FERCO have not yet



developed the overall conceptual design for a conversion technology facility based on the FERCO SilvaGas, including pre-processing of MSW and power generation. Performance. The submittal shows an overall performance of 728 net kWh/ton of feedstock, with an internal load of only 7%. Internal load for a complete conversion technology facility is likely to be much greater. Again, this may be due to the lack of experience by both Taylor and FERCO in designing an integrated facility utilizing MSW pre-processing, MSW conversion, and power generation. It is expected that the actual overall performance would be considerably lower.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS WasteGen Ltd.


E.1.6 WasteGen Ltd. E.1.6.1 Technology Overview

E.1.6.1.1 Technology Supply Team. WasteGen (UK) Ltd. (WasteGen) has a primary business in developing facilities that use the TechTrade pyrolysis process for treating MSW. Their process is called the Materials & Energy Recovery Plant. WasteGen is partnering with several other companies, as follows:

• An exclusive agreement with TechTrade GmbH for its pyrolysis technology. TechTrade is a specialist engineering and design organization based in Cologne, Germany, with a design team of thermal treatment engineers. The company designs and engineers large-scale drying and rotary tube furnace equipment for the food, chemical and nuclear industries. TechTrade would be sub-contracted to design, supply and install the pyrolysis unit. The company’s Chief Executive and owner, Franz-Eicke von Christen, designed and installed the pyrolysis units at Burgau and Dortmund in Germany (see information below on reference facilities). He also serves as Technical Director of WasteGen UK, and would be responsible for all engineering from design to commissioning.

• An agreement with Shaw Stone & Webster to provide process guarantees and act as Engineer, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contractor. Stone & Webster concluded a detailed technical and financial due diligence which provided the basis for Shaw Group to authorize its role as EPC contractor. This enables WasteGen to present a bankable, commercially available technology.

• An agreement with Siemens for the exclusive joint development of combined cycle power plants using the TechTrade pyrolysis technology and Siemens’s Typhoon gas turbine (this was formerly the Alstom gas turbine technology).

Firm: WasteGen (UK) Ltd.

Technology: TechTrade Pyrolysis


Principal Contact: Colin Hygate, Managing Director

Address: Fort Lee, Rodborough Common, Stroud, Gloucestershire United Kingdom E.1.6.1.2 Technology Overview. The TechTrade pyrolysis technology used by WasteGen processes MSW, converts it to a usable syngas for power generation, and recovers ferrous and non-ferrous metals from the bottom ash byproduct for recycling. It incorporates the following steps:



• Shredding for size reduction

• Pyrolysis in a rotating kiln to produce the syngas

• Particulate removal

• Combustion of the syngas

• Heat recovery and steam generation in a boiler

• Power production using a steam turbine generator

• Recovery of metals from bottom ash byproduct

A general overview of the process is shown in Figure E-24.

FIGURE E-24 OVERALL WASTEGEN PROCESS

The incoming MSW is shredded to a 12-inch maximum size, and is then fed by screw feeder to the pyrolysis kilns. The system is sealed so as to prevent the entry of air, since pyrolysis is a thermal degradation process that occurs in the absence of air or oxygen. The indirect heat for pyrolysis is supplied by the recycling of a portion of the hot flue gases combusted downstream in the process. Some calcium hydroxide is added into the kiln to bind some of the acid gases such as SO2 and HCl. Pyrolysis occurs at about 935ºF, driving off the syngas and leaving behind the inorganic components of the MSW (ash), mixed with unconverted



carbon char. The ash/char solids are removed through a water bath system, and removed by a wet slag removal system. The mixture is then conveyed from the system, and metals are removed by magnetic and eddy current separators. In the Burgau facility, the ash/char byproduct is disposed of in a local landfill. At the Hamm-Uentrop facility, the char is burned along with the syngas in the power plant boiler for steam generation. WasteGen realizes that for modern MSW treatment, the production of a high carbon ash creates two concerns: • Energy in the carbon is lost if it is disposed of with the ash

• Disposal of the carbon char adds O&M cost

For the proposed facility, WasteGen plans to incorporate a carbon recovery system, which would process the carbon char/ash mixture in a coupled rotary kiln gasifier, producing more usable syngas and a potentially marketable bottom ash. Although WasteGen has not done this at full scale, it notes that such gasification technology is commercially available and would not be a technical concern. This issue is addressed later in this report. The syngas is then cleaned of most of its particulate matter, then combusted in the combustion chamber at 2,300°F. The hot flue gases flow through a boiler, where steam is produced. The steam is piped to a steam turbine generator for the generation of electricity. A portion of the hot flue gases are routed back to the outer jacket of the kiln, in order to provide the indirect heat needed for pyrolysis of the MSW. After the cooled flue gases leave the boiler, sodium bicarbonate and calcium hydroxide are injected into the flue gas stream to capture acid gases such as SO2 and HCl. Activated carbon is also injected, to adsorb heavy metals, such as vaporized mercury. The particulates and reaction products are removed in a fabric filter, and the cleaned flue gases are exhausted through a stack. Overall diversion from landfill is 99%. E.1.6.1.3 Reference Plants. There are two WasteGen plants in operation. Both are in Germany. Details are provided in Table E-21 and photos of selected facilities are depicted in Figure E-25. E.1.6.1.4 Commercial Status. The Burgau facility went into service in 1984, and has been in continuous operation for 20 years. Its kilns are rated at 2.6 tons/hour. Minor upgrades and process enhancements have been made to the facility over this period of time. The 100,000 tons/year facility at Hamm-Uentrop went into service in 2001. Its kilns are rated at 7.3 tons/hour each. The proposed facility would use two pyrolysis kilns each rated at 6.9 tons/hour, with a design similar to that used at Hamm-Uentrop. There is no scale-up issue. As



TABLE E-21 WASTEGEN REFERENCE FACILITIES


MPA Burgau (power generation from steam turbine)

Burgau Germany 35,000 MSW

VEW Energie power plant (syngas and char combusted in existing power plant boiler)

Hamm-Uentrop

Germany 100,000 Light fractions from MSW, industrial waste, auto shredder residue, plastics

FIGURE E-25

WASTEGEN REFERENCE FACILITIES

BURGAU PLANT KILN AT HAMM-UENTROP PLANT noted above, WasteGen proposes to incorporate a new carbon recovery process to gasify the carbon char to make additional syngas and produce a bottom ash byproduct that is free of carbon char. While WasteGen itself has not incorporated this additional process on a commercial scale, the technology is commercially available. The proposal states that the specific technology will be a kiln-based gasification; it may be a technology that TechTrade itself has developed or will develop. E.1.6.2 Detailed Technology Description E.1.6.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility. The MSW will be delivered 5-1/2 days/week to the tipping hall, which will be kept under negative pressure for odor control. The air will be utilized in the combustion process. No removal of recyclables is required for this process, other than removal of very large pieces of metal, i.e., engines and white goods.



The proposal states that a rotary screen would be used, with magnetic/eddy current separators and a picking belt, if required. The facility will process MSW and generate electricity 24/7 for 313 days/year. The MSW will be picked up by a grapple crane and delivered to a shredder to reduce the size to 12 inches. MSW with a moisture content over 20% will be routed to a dryer. From there, the shredded MSW will be fed to the pyrolysis kilns, where it will thermally decompose to syngas at 935ºF, leaving behind the inorganic components as ash, in a mixture with the unconverted carbon char. The ash/char mixture will enter the carbon recovery unit, a rotary gasification kiln, where the carbon char will be gasified, producing more syngas to be combusted. The proposal states that the carbon recovery process will be low temperature gasification, so that the byproduct will be bottom ash, not a vitrified slag byproduct. The bottom ash will be discharged through a water bath and then transferred onto a conveyor. Magnetic and eddy current separators will recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals for recycling. Since the hot gas cyclone ash will not be mixed with the bottom ash, the bottom ash byproduct is expected to be marketable. The syngas will be cleaned of much of the particulate matter in a hot gas cyclone, then combusted in the combustion chamber at 2,300ºF. A portion of the hot flue gas will be routed back to the outer annuli of both of the kilns, providing the indirect heat required for initiation of the pyrolysis reactions and thermal degradation of the MSW into syngas. In order to reduce NOx emissions, urea is injected to convert a portion of the NOx to nitrogen. The hot flue gases flow through the boiler, and steam is produced. The steam is piped to the single steam turbine generator, producing 12 MW gross, and 9 MW net of electricity. After leaving the boiler, the cooled flue gases are injected with calcium hydroxide and sodium bicarbonate slurries, alkaline compounds that react with the acid gases in the flue gases, including SO2 and HCl. Activated carbon is also injected to adsorb heavy metals, including vaporized mercury. The flue gases then flow through a fabric filter, where particulate matter and byproducts from reaction with the acid gasses are captured and removed. The cooled, cleaned flue gases are exhausted through a single 195’ high stack. WasteGen provided a Microsoft Project schedule for a representative project. Total time to implement the project from contract award to completion is just under 30 months. Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of 5 acres. The actual plant footprint would be approximately 400’ x 200’, or just under 2 acres. The proposed site layout is shown in Figure E-26.



Process Flow and Mass Balance. A general process flow diagram is shown in Figure E-27. A specific diagram was not provided for the proposed facility. A summary mass balance is provided in Table E-22.

FIGURE E-27 WASTEGEN PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

TABLE E-22 WASTEGEN SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments Inlet MSW 100,000 No recyclables removed Feedstock to pyrolysis kilns 100,000 Bottom ash recovered 20,000 May be marketable Metals recovered 1,210 Marketable Fabric filter dust 1,031 Disposed of in landfill

Operation and Maintenance. MSW deliveries will occur 5-1/2 days/week. The MSW pyrolysis and power generation subsystems will operate 24/7 for 313 days/year. Staffing will include 5 people on four shifts, with 5 management and administrative staff, for a total of 25. Design availability is 85%, based on the average 80-90+% availability of the Burgau facility.



Utility Requirements. Electricity: The facility will produce 90 million kWh per year, with an internal requirement of 22.5 million kWh, equivalent to a 25% internal power load. Water: The facility will use 16,000 gallons/day of water (313 days per year). Wastewater: No wastewater discharge is expected; none is identified in the proposal or mass balances. Fuel oil: On start-up, 8 gallons/hour of fuel oil is required. Total annual use would be based on the number of start-ups. Chemicals: The proposal included a table of chemical consumables for the Burgau facility. Adjusting the values for the higher throughput of the proposed facility, chemical additive use is: • Calcium hydroxide: 994 tons/year

• Sodium bicarbonate: 700

• Urea (made by mixing carbamide in water): 132,000 gallons/year

• Activated carbon: 23 tons/year

• Nitrogen: 22 tons/year E.1.6.2.2 Pre-Processing Subsystem. Equipment Description. Pictures from the Burgau and Hamm-Uentrop facilities will be utilized to show the type of equipment used in the pre-processing subsystem. The MSW will be delivered to the tipping hall. Below in Figure E-28 is a view of the tipping hall. A grapple crane will be used to transfer the MSW to the shredder inlet hopper. The two shredders, one for service and one stand-by, are a critical portion of the pre-processing for the pyrolysis kiln operation. The maximum particle size allowed to pass to the kiln is 12-inches. Figure E-29 below shows the shredders in the pre-processing system. Recovered Recyclables. Magnetic and eddy current separators, as well as a picking conveyor, may be utilized for pre-processing to remove metals and other recyclables. Further information on the post-source separated MSW would be required for WasteGen to determine if this equipment would be utilized.



FIGURE E-28 TIPPING HALL

FIGURE E-29 SHREDDER

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The proposal does not identify any specific residues or rejects as being separated from the inlet post-source separated MSW.



E.1.6.2.3 Conversion Unit System. Pictures from the Burgau and Hamm-Uentrop facilities will be utilized to show the type of equipment used in the conversion unit subsystem. A grappling hook is then used to feed the shredded waste into the pyrolysis kiln feed chutes. Calcium hydroxide is added for the removal of SO2 and HCl in the syngas and flue gas. Below in Figure E-30 is an illustration of the side gate used to feed the waste into the screw feeder, and to keep incoming air out of the oxygen out of the feed system. This provides a seal from outside air and a constant feed to the kiln.

FIGURE E-30 KILN INLET

The screw feeder moves the waste into the kiln inlet (but stays out of the hot syngas stream). The waste enters the two 6.9 tons/hour rotary pyrolysis kilns, which turn at 1.5 RPM. Each kiln measures 10’ diameter x 74’ long, with a wall thickness of 1 inch. The material of construction is heat resistant steel. The steel kiln rotates inside an insulated jacket clad in metal. Part of the hot flue gas from the combustion chamber (at about 2,300˚F) flows through the jacketed portion of the kiln. The outside walls of the kilns are then heated indirectly from the hot flue gas in the combustion chamber at. The outside of the kiln reaches 1,292˚F, and the inside of the kiln reaches 935˚F, resulting in pyrolysis of the organic portion of the MSW and producing the syngas. The residence time in the kiln is about 1 hour. The cooled flue gas exits at the top of the kiln through insulated pipes As shown in Figure E-31, and is returned to the top of the boiler, where it is mixed with the hot flue gas from the combustion chamber.



FIGURE E-31 FLUE GAS EXITS THROUGH INSULATED PIPES

At the kiln exit, syngas flows on to the next portion of the process, while the ash and char left over from pyrolysis are directed to a rotary gasification kiln. In this part of the process, the carbon char is gasified at low temperature, producing more syngas that is mixed with the syngas from the pyrolysis kiln. Solids (minerals and glass) from the kiln are discharged through a water bath (in Figure E-32), which provides a seal against air entering the kiln and a quench for the hot residues. The bottom ash is removed by a wet slag remover and transferred to a conveyor belt, as seen in Figures E-33 and E-34. Magnetic and eddy current separators are used to recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The metals are dumped into large bins for recycling. The syngas exits the kiln toward the hot gas cyclone. The syngas produced by pyrolysis of the MSW in the kiln is: • 15% H2

• 20% CO

• 39% CO2

• 12% CH4



FIGURE E-32 WATER BATH FOR SOLIDS REMOVAL

FIGURE E-33 WET SLAG REMOVAL CONVEYOR

• 13% Hydrocarbons The syngas has a heating value of 300-400 Btu/scf.



FIGURE E-34 BOTTOM ASH REMOVAL BINS

The hot, dirty syngas passes through a hot gas cyclone (pictured in Figure E-35), which removes the majority of particulate matter (PM).

FIGURE E-35 HOT GAS CYCLONE



The solids are removed through a double valve arrangement (illustrated below in Figure E-36), to assure that hot syngas is not released.

FIGURE E-36 DOUBLE-VALVE ARRANGEMENT

The syngas is combusted in the combustion chamber (seen below in Figure E-37) at about 2,300ºF. Combustion air is drawn from the tipping hall, as part of the odor control system. About 80% of the hot flue gas goes to the boiler. Urea is injected into the flue gas stream, reacting with NOx compounds to form nitrogen, reducing overall NOx emissions. The other 20% of the hot flue gas exits the combustion chamber and flows back to the pyrolysis kilns to provide indirect heat for pyrolysis, as discussed previously in this report. Calcium hydroxide and sodium bicarbonate are injected into the cooled flue gas stream in order to react with acid gases, including SO2 and HCl. Activated carbon is injected, adsorbing heavy metals such as vaporized mercury in the flue gas stream. The cooled flue gas then flows to a fabric filter that removes the reaction products and remaining particulate matter. Cooled, cleaned flue gases will be exhausted through a 195’ stack. E.1.6.2.4 Power Generation System. Steam from the boiler is piped to the 12 MW steam turbine generator. Internal load is 3 MW, so that net power output is 9 MW. No details on the



FIGURE E-37 COMBUSTION CHAMBER

steam turbine generator were provided in the proposal. Note that the proposal made significant mention of WasteGen’s partnership with Siemens for use of their Typhoon gas turbine with eth syngas. However, WasteGen is not proposing to use a gas turbine in this application. In a response to the Request for Additional Information, WasteGen noted that they will only install a gas turbine after they have built a full scale operating facility in the U.K. The overall facility will produce:

• 675 net kWh/ton of feedstock

• 11 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity E.1.6.3 Byproduct Analysis E.1.6.3.1 Byproducts Generated. Utilizing magnetic and eddy current separators on the inlet steam and on the bottom ash, essentially full recovery of metals is possible. Byproducts will be: • Metals: 1,210 tons/year



• Bottom ash: 20,000 tons/year E.1.6.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity and for recyclables recovered from the pre-processing and bottom ash processing systems. Metals will have a ready market. Bottom ash is likely to be marketable for use in construction materials. E.1.6.4 Environmental Issues E.1.6.4.1 Air Emissions. For odor control, WasteGen will maintain the tipping hall under slight negative pressure. The air drawn from that area will be used as combustion air in the combustion chamber. Calcium hydroxide will be injected into the kiln and into the flue gas for capture and reaction with SO2 and HCl. Urea is injected into the boiler (in a specific temperature region) to initiate non-catalytic reduction of NOx, forming inert nitrogen. Sodium bicarbonate is injected into the flue gas prior to the fabric filter for reaction with and capture of acid gases. Activated carbon is injected into the flue gas prior to the fabric filter for adsorption of heavy metals. E.1.6.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. No wastewater discharges are noted. E.1.6.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The only solid waste identified is the fabric filter ash. This will be disposed of in a landfill. E.1.6.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The 195’ stack may be a viewshed issue. Assuming that the bottom ash is marketable, the mass of the post-source separated MSW required to be landfilled is reduced by essentially 99%. E.1.6.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the proposed WasteGen facility is presented in Table E-23. E.1.6.6 Assessment Summary WasteGen provided a well-written response, but the original submittal did not include completed spreadsheets. It included numerous references to the existing Burgau facility for operating and maintenance histories, chemical usage, and emissions. A site layout was prepared for the proposed facility. A schedule from another project was used as a reference. However, WasteGen did respond quickly and with detail to the Request for Additional Information. Extensive information on the technical, operation, maintenance, and performance of its existing facilities has been provided and was sufficient to evaluate the




Provided by WasteGen Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment

Capital Cost $60.63 million $60.63 million Capital Cost, $/TPY $606 $606 Annual O&M $4.6 million $4.56 million Separate out landfilling of unmarketable

materials @$40/ton Landfilling of Unmarketable Materials

Not provided $41,240 1,031 tons/year filter ash @$40/ton


Not provided $4.8 million Calculated over 20 year period

Total Annual Costs $4.6 million $9.4 million Added capital recovery and interest costs Revenues from Sale of Electricity

Not provided $4,050,000 9,000 kW, 24/7 for 312.5 days/year, at $0.06/kWh

Revenues from Sale of Recyclables and Ash

Not provided $160,500 Assume 1,210 tons/year metals @ $50/ton and 20,000 tons/year bottom ash @ $5/ton

Total Annual Revenues Not provided $4,210,500 Recovery/sale of metals and bottom ash included

Annual Revenues-Costs ($4.6 million) ($5.2 million) Tipping Fee $46/ton $52/ton Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$54.90/ton Assume 20,000 tons/year bottom ash not marketable, and is transported @ $10/ton for use as landfill daily cover. Add $200,000 to costs. Reduce bottom ash sales revenues by $100,000.

submittal. In addition, a site visit to the Burgau facility also provided sufficient detail. WasteGen’s pyrolysis process is proven at commercial scale, with one facility in operation for 20 years. The project team that WasteGen proposes would be expected to implement the entire project. Guarantees from Shaw Stone & Webster add significant value to the project. Additional issues and concerns are as follows: Technical. WasteGen has not utilized its proposed carbon recovery unit (rotary kiln gasification) in a full-scale system. It is not likely that WasteGen has even tested this proposed subsystem on MSW at a pilot or demonstration scale. However, as previously discussed in this report, such gasification technology is commercially available, and may not be a significant technical concern. More detail on its development and integration with the TechTrade pyrolysis technology will be required from WasteGen. Performance. With a production of 675 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a moderate “efficiency” rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Whitten Group International


E.1.7 Whitten Group International E.1.7.1 Technology Overview E.1.7.1.1 Technology Supply Team. Whitten Group International (Whitten) is a project management and development company founded in 1984 to provide construction services to project developers worldwide. Whitten holds proprietary intellectual properties and equipment patents. Its clients and partners are international construction developers, gas & oil companies, and local and federal governments. Whitten provides the following services: • Consulting: engineering, architectural, and construction management

• Contracting: maintenance and logistical supervision

• Training, commissioning, inspection, and financial assistance

• Private investing for key projects

• Gas and oil processing plant design and construction

• Equipment: including oil and gas processing plants, tankers, trailers, barges, incinerators, gasification equipment and plants, drilling rigs, and construction equipment

For this project, Whitten is partnering with NTech Environmental to offer the ENTECH Renewable Energy System™ (ENTECH RES). Whitten will provide the project development and management services, while NTech Environmental will provide the engineering services for the ENTECH RES. The gasification technology is provided by ENTECH. NTech Environmental was established by bringing together 20 years experience of marketing gasification worldwide. Through major contractors with proven experience on project management, NTech Environmental offers turnkey projects using the ENTECH RES. ENTECH – Renewable Energy Technologies Pty. Ltd. (ENTECH) was formed in 1989 for the purpose of acquiring the technology and assets of Enquip - Energy Equipment, including a license association with Cleaver-Brooks, the world's largest producer of conventional and non-standard fuel fired industrial boiler plants. ENTECH is a company comprised of engineers and manufacturers of renewable energy systems for the conversion of biomass and waste into energy using their ENTECH Renewable Energy System gasification technology. They have and extensive background in biomass and waste gasification. ENTECH’s production facility and production staff are located at Armadale in Western Australia. ENTECH has representatives throughout the world to market the ENTECH Renewable Energy System. ENTECH supports the representatives by providing sales literature, sizing guides, specifications, and proposal formats.



Firm: Whitten Group International

Technology: Entech Renewable Energy System - Gasification

Throughput: 100,000 tons/year and (400,000 – after receiving the response from the RFQ, additional information was requested for higher throughputs to examine economy of scale. This information is included in Section 5 Table 5-1.)

Principal Contact: Ron Whitten, President

Address: 622 Lilac Street Longview, Washington 98632

E.1.7.1.2 Technology Overview. The ENTECH Renewable Energy System utilizes low temperature, fixed-bed gasification with very low amounts of air, nearing pyrolysis, to convert MSW to syngas. The specific sections of the process are: • Pyrolytic gasification stage – conversion of MSW to syngas

• Thermal reactor stage – combustion of syngas

• Energy utilization stage – heat recovery boiler for steam production

• Air quality control stage – emission controls

• Flow control stage – blowers to exhaust flue gases to stack Figure E-38 shows the overall Entech Renewable Energy System technology, without any pre-processing subsystem. The ENTECH system does not require mechanical presorting/pre-processing of the MSW. However, for this application, a pre-processing system is proposed in order to remove about 20% of the inlet MSW as recyclables, which reduces the overall cost of the gasification system and makes the energy recovery system more efficient. The MSW feedstock is fed into the refractory-lined Pyrolytic Gasification Chamber (PGC), which operates in with little air to initiate pyrolysis and then gasification reactions. The PGC uses a stepped hearth design, where the feedstock is moved by ram feeders or gravity fed down a series of steps in the PGC, providing mixing of the feedstock to ensure that all of it is subjected to sufficient thermal decomposition and gasification. The inorganic components of the feedstock become ash and move to the end of the PGC for collection. Metals and glass are recovered from the ash.



FIGURE E-38 ENTECH RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM

The syngas is then combusted immediately in the Thermal Reactor, a combustion chamber. The syngas is combusted at 2,200ºF, and the hot flue gases flow to the heat recovery boiler for generation of steam. The steam is piped to a steam turbine generator to produce electricity. Flue gases exit the boiler and enter the air quality control system, which includes lime injection to a spray dryer absorber, for removal of contaminants. Following the spray dryer absorber, activated carbon is injected to mix with the flue gas for the removal of heavy metals, such as mercury. The byproducts of the emission controls are captured in a fabric filter. Overall diversion from landfill is 98%. E.1.7.1.3 Reference Plants. Table E-24 shows the ENTECH reference plants listed in the proposal. Figure E-39 shows pictures of two of the operating systems. E.1.7.1.4 Commercial Status. The ENTECH’s partial user list shows 46 systems installed around the world, processing a wide range of wastes. ENTECH notes that they have over 100 installations, and some have been in operation for over 15 years. Ten of the installations process MSW, and 23 incorporate the entire renewable energy system to make steam and electricity. Four installations that process MSW use the renewable energy system. This technology is proven at commercial scale.



TABLE E-24 ENTECH REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country Throughput, Tons/Year Feedstock Genting Corporation Sri Layang Malaysia 22,000 MSW Singapore Food Industries Buroh Lane Singapore 26,000 Slaughterhouse waste P.T. Pertamina Maxus Island Indonesia 11,000 MSW City of Chung Gung Chung Gung Taiwan 11,000 MSW Government of Hong Kong Lantau Island Hong Kong 22,000 Industrial wastes

FIGURE E-39

ENTECH REFERENCE FACILITIES

CHUNG GUNG, TAIWAN SRI LAYANG, MALAYSIA The largest existing PGC processing MSW treats 67 ton/day; the largest on any waste treats 79 tons/day. The proposed facility would utilize two operating PGCs, and one stand-by, each rated at 122 tons/day. This is a PGC scale-up of 55%. The scale-up essentially adds more cells to the PGCs, allowing for more throughput and residence time. Therefore, this scale-up is not considered to be a significant technical concern. E.1.7.2 Detailed Technology Description E.1.7.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. The proposed facility would be sized to process 100,000 tons/year of MSW. MSW is delivered 5½ days/week to the facility, and processed by a mechanical system for removal of 18.1% of the post-source separated MSW. This produces a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) feedstock for the conversion unit subsystem. The feedstock is fed into the two operating PGCs, and gasification of the waste occurs at 1,100ºF, producing syngas. Throughput of each PGC module is 122.5 tons/day, or 245 tons/day for the facility. The



facility would operate approximately 334 days/year to process the 81,900 tons/year of RDF. Ash produced in the PGCs is collected for disposal. Additional processing with air classifiers, magnets, screens, and eddy current separators is included for recovery of metals and glass. The remaining ash will likely be marketable. The syngas is immediately combusted at 2,200ºF in the Thermal Reactor, and the hot flue gases are ducted to the heat recovery steam boiler. Steam is produced in the boiler, and it is piped to the steam turbine generator, producing 7.7 MW gross and 7 MW net of electricity. The cooled flue gases exiting the boiler are ducted to the air quality control system. This system will utilize a single emission control processing line. A lime spray dryer absorber will be used to capture the acid gases in the flue gas, such as SO2 and HCl. Following the spray dryer, activated carbon will be injected to adsorb/remove heavy metals, such as mercury that has been vaporized in the gasification process. The particulate matter in the flue gas, along with the reaction byproducts form the spray dryer and the spent activated carbon are captured in the fabric filter. This ash is not marketable, and will be disposed of in a landfill. An implementation schedule of 130 weeks (30 months) is proposed. Site Layout. A proposed layout was provided, covering an area of 4.5 acres. Mass Balance. A summarized mass balance for the proposed facility is presented in Table E-25.

TABLE E-25 ENTECH SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments Inlet MSW 100,000 Recyclables removed from inlet stream 18,100 Mechanical sorting Feedstock to gasifier 81,900 Bottom ash 4,195 May be marketable Fabric filter dust and ash 1,706 To landfill

Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5-1/2 days per week. The preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 334 days per year. Staffing is proposed as follows: • Weigh station: 1 person 40 hrs/week



• Manager: 1 person, 40 hours/week

• Supervisor: 2/shift for 5 shifts/week

• Operators: 2/shift for 5 shifts/week

• Additional for pre-processing – to be determined Based on this, the minimum number of staff is 22, with the number for the pre-processing system to be determined. Utility Requirements. Electricity – The 100,000 tons/year facility will produce 61.7 million kWh per year, with an internal requirement of 5.6 million kWh, equivalent to a 9.1% internal power load. This seems low for this type of technology, and may not be inclusive of the pre-processing subsystem. Water – The facility will use 13, 965 gallons/day of water (334 days per year). Wastewater – No specific wastewater discharge is noted. Natural gas – The PGCs and the heat recovery steam boiler each have natural gas burners for start-up. The proposal states that 330 cubic feet of natural gas is required, but the time period for use is not specified. Chemicals – The emission control and power generation systems will utilize the following chemical additives: • Lime: 1,202 tons/year

• Activated carbon: 321 tons/year

• Feedwater treatment chemical: 60 tons/year

E.1.7.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. The proposal provides very little information on the proposed pre-processing system. This is likely because the ENTECH RES typically does not require any pre-processing, and it was included in the proposed facility because: • It reduces the capital cost of the thermal treatment system

• It increases the thermal efficiency in the energy recovery process



It is likely that neither Whitten nor NTech Environmental has prior experience with MSW pre-processing at the proposed 18,100 tons/year. The proposal does state that for odor control, they would draw combustion air from the waste storage area. Recovered Recyclables. The proposal does address recovering the materials recovered in the pre-processing subsystem as being “suitable for recycling”. Whitten had planned for removal of all glass in the post-source separated MSW, as well as all metal and all construction materials. This totals 19,600 tons/year. Then, they assumed that the amount of fines (mixed residue) is actually 2.9% of the inlet, instead of 1.4% as noted in the waste characterization. Therefore, they would assume that they would only recover 19.6-1.5 = 18.1% of the inlet stream. Values listed in the proposal for the recyclables are: • Glass: 3,339 tons/year (should be 3,390 tons/year)


• Inert construction waste: 4,130 tons/year (should be 5,080 tons/year) Based on the characteristics of the post-source separated MSW, and contamination, only 16.5% recovery is assumed for this evaluation. In a response to the Request for Additional Information, Entech Environmental noted that it did not take any credit for sale of the recyclables in its cost estimate. Adjustments are made for revenues and for costs for landfill of additional non-recyclables in Section E.1.7.5. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No specific residues for disposal are noted in the submittal, spreadsheets, or mass balance. E.1.7.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The PGC is shown in Figure E-40. There will be 2 operating PGCs, with 1 for stand-by service. Each PGC is sized for a throughput of 5.1 tons/hour, or 122 tons/day. Either a top loader or ram feeder will be used to feed the waste into the PGCs at regular 15-minute intervals, 24 hours/day. The feeding device will inject the waste into the first part of the stepped hearth, refractory lined chamber. Upon entry to the chamber, the waste is gasified at 1,100ºF, with between 10% and 30% of the stoichiometric air requirement, forming syngas. The waste progresses along the chamber wall and will move down the steps. The residence time of the waste in the PGC is about 24 hours. The movement is assisted by a series of



churning and stoking rams. This agitation of the waste breaks up any surfaces insulated with ash and exposes fresh waste surface area to the gasification process.

FIGURE E-40 PYROLYTIC GASIFICATION CHAMBER

The non-combustible components, i.e., ash, are transferred to the rear of the PGC, where it is discharged automatically, into an ash receptacle or conveyor. Both the waste feed and ash removal of the stepped hearth system allow for continuous operation of the system without any shutdowns required for ash removal. The syngas generated in the PGCs is drawn by the induced draft fan, through refractory lined ductwork, and into a single Thermal Reactor, shown in Figure E-41.

FIGURE E-41 THERMAL REACTOR



Combustion of the syngas occurs using air drawn from the waste storage area (for odor control) at temperatures between 1,850ºF and 2,200ºF for a minimum of 2 seconds. The hot flue gases are rapidly cooled as they flow through the steam boiler, shown in Figure E-42.

FIGURE E-42 ENERGY UTILIZATION HEAT EXCHANGER (BOILER)

The boiler produces steam at 750ºF and 600 psi. The steam is piped to the steam turbine generator for production of electricity. The cooled flue gases are cleaned in the air quality control system, as shown in Figure E-43. Slurry passes down the center pipe of the head of the lance, with atomizing air down the outside of the annulus. A fine mist is produced at the outlet, and the slurry mist enters the flue gas stream, reacting with acid gases such as SO2 and HCl. The flue gases then exit the SDA and flow through a venturi mixer chamber, where activated carbon is injected. The activated carbon adsorbs heavy metals, such as vaporized mercury in the flue gas. The flue gases and semi-reacted byproducts from the SDA and mixing chamber then enter the fabric filter, where particulate matter is captured on the surface of the filter media. Further reaction of the lime slurry with the acid gases continues as the flue gas permeates the filter cake.



FIGURE E-43 AIR QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM

E.1.7.2.4 Power Generation System. The proposal provides little detail on the power generation system. Power generation performance is calculated as: • 686 net kWh/ton of feedstock

• 14 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity E.1.7.2.5 Post Processing. The ash residue is sorted to segregate metals and glass for recycling using a system of air classifiers, eddy current separators, screens, and magnets. The remaining ash is crushed and utilized in construction materials. E.1.7.3 Byproduct Analysis E.1.7.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following useful byproducts:

• Electricity: 7 net MW, or 56.1 million kWh/year





• Inert construction waste: 5,080 tons/year

• Bottom ash: 4,195 tons/year E.1.7.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity. There are existing markets for metals and glass. The inert construction waste and the bottom ash can likely be marketed for use in construction materials. E.1.7.4 Environmental Issues E.1.7.4.1 Air Emissions. For odor control, the proposed system will draw air form the waste storage area for combustion in the Thermal Reactor, destroying odor-causing compounds. Since gasification is a closed process, there is no emission point for the syngas. The only emission point is the stack that is part of the power generation module. E.1.7.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The proposal does not identify any wastewater discharges. It states that “There is zero liquid effluent discharge”. E.1.7.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The proposal states that no credit has been taken for income from the sale of the recyclables or other byproducts. It is expected that the only solid waste that will require landfill disposal is the ash from the fabric filter, produced at a rate of 1,706 tons/year. E.1.7.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The mass of the post-source separated MSW required to be landfilled is reduced by over 98%. E.1.7.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the proposed facility is presented in Table E-26. E.1.7.6 Assessment Summary The proposal provided by Whitten and Ntech Environmental was very complete. The submittal also included detailed equipment lists, pictures of existing facilities, clear process flow and mass balance diagrams, and emission tables. All of the questions in the Request for Additional Information and follow-up questions were handled by NTech Environmental. Whitten was not involved except by copy of e-mail



TABLE E-26 COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ENTECH FACILITY

Provided by Whitten/NTech Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment Capital Cost $56 million $56 million Capital Cost, $/TPY $560 $560 Annual O&M $3.2 million $3.13 million Separate out landfilling costs Landfilling of Unmarketable Materials

Not separated out $68,420 1,706 tons/year filter ash @ $40/ton




$3,880,800 $3.37 million 7,000 kW for 334 days/year @ $0.06/kWh


$0 $1.29 million Assume recovery of 2% of all metals ($50/ton), 12% of all paper ($75/ton), and 2.5% of all plastics ($100/ton) in inlet stream. Total is 16,500 tons/year. Assume 4,195 tons/year bottom ash sold at $5/ton.

Total Annual Revenues $3,880,800 $4.61 million Revenues from sale of recyclables; lower revenues from sale of electricity

Annual Revenues-Costs ($5.02 million) ($4.29 million) Tipping Fee $50.20/ton $42.90/ton Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$44.17/ton Assume 4,195 tons/year bottom ash transported to landfill @$10/ton = $41,950. Assume balance of recyclables not sold (18,100-16,500 tons/year) are sent to landfill @ $40/ton = $64,000. Total is $105,950 additional O&M. Reduce bottom ash revenues by $20,975.

messages. NTech’s responses (they are located in the U.K.) were always very quick and detailed. The original submittal addressed a throughput of 100,000 metric tons/year of MSW. After submittal of the Request for Additional Information, NTech provided a revised response in short tons.



The following issues and concerns are noted: Technical. The throughout for the proposed facility will be the largest ENTECH RES system ever designed. The scale-up for the proposed PGC will be about 55% larger than its largest operating PGC. As noted previously in this report, the increased throughput is accomplished by adding more steps to the hearth design. The additional throughput could also be addressed through a combination of more PGCs, with a smaller scale-up. This could be discussed more with the Whitten team at a later time. At the present time, a 143 tons/day system for MSW is being developed in Malaysia, and NTech Environmental notes that it has other facilities in development with throughput values of 60,000 to 100,000 tons/year. The design features incorporated in those projects may apply to the proposed facility, alleviating any remaining technical concerns. Neither Whitten, ENTECH, nor NTech Environmental provided descriptions of any prior experience with pre-processing a similar MSW at the throughput considered for this project. The high recovery rates of some of the recyclables are not considered likely. There is little detail on the pre-processing or post-processing equipment, but it is all commercially available. The proposal provides detailed descriptions of the emission control system, but little for the power generation system. Overall, the Whitten team seems very strong in conversion unit technology, with considerably less experience in MSW pre-processing and power generation. This would be expected to affect the overall integration of the three primary subsystems, and therefore the overall facility efficiency. Additional engineering expertise on the team, in MSW pre-processing and power generation, would likely address this concern.

Cost. Due to the lack of experience in MSW pre-processing, the costs for this subsystem may be understated for the expected recovery. Since the Whitten team did not take credit for sale of recyclables, the overall tipping fee was reduced by providing a credit for some recyclables in the cost analysis. Performance. With a production of 686 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a moderate “efficiency” rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Pan American Resources, Inc.


E.1.8 Pan American Resources, Inc.

E.1.8.1 Technology Overview

E.1.8.1.1 Technology Supplier Team.

Pan American Resources, Inc. (PAR) has a primary business in developing facilities that use the “Destructive Distillation” process, utilizing the Lantz Converter. This is essentially a pyrolysis process, in that it provides indirectly-applied heat, in the absence of free air or oxygen, to the feedstock to thermally decompose it into a syngas, leaving behind a carbon char. PAR is partnering with several other companies, as follows: • M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, which would provide all facility design and

construction services

• Schuff Steel Corporation, which would fabricate the Lantz converters and associated equipment

• Oxford Research Institute, a firm which specializes in risk analysis and ergonomic solutions for complicated industrial facilities

• Members of the Lantz family who are descendants of Dae Lantz, the inventor of the Lantz Converter and founder of the corporation

Firm: Pan American Resources, Inc.

Technology: Destructive Distillation (Pyrolysis), using the Lantz Converter


Principal Contact: John Toman, Chairman and CEO

Address: 4222 Bevilacqua Court Pleasanton, CA 94566 Mr. Toman is the only full-time employee of PAR. The others mentioned in the submittal are either part-time employees or consultants; they would be brought in as required to implement the project. PAR notes in their proposal that they have not had operating capital since 1989. They state that a “put-or-pay contract” (for the MSW) and a power sales agreement for 20 years would satisfy the collateral needs of financial institutions to finance the project. E.1.8.1.2 Technology Overview. The “Destructive Distillation” technology was developed by Dae C. Lantz, Sr. in the 1930s. Mr. Lantz also formed PAR during that timeframe. While



PAR refers to its technology as “Destructive Distillation”, this process is more accurately defined as pyrolysis. The Lantz Converter uses indirectly applied heat, in the absence of free air or oxygen, to thermally decompose the feedstock into a syngas, leaving behind a carbon char in a mixture of the inorganic components (ash). This is equivalent to the technical definition of pyrolysis. The original Lantz Converter was a batch processing unit, developed to produce usable gas for farms and ranches. The user would gather up dried horse and cow dung, hay stack bottoms, and other organic material, place it in the converter, and bolt on the door (to provide an oxygen-free atmosphere). The converter would be indirectly heated by a burner, thermally decomposing the dried dung into syngas and carbon char. The syngas was piped to a storage tank which had water seals that could expand to keep the gas at pressures slightly above atmospheric. The syngas was piped to the residence and used for cooking, heating, and lighting. When liquid propane was introduced, the application for the Lantz Converter was no longer needed and the market for it disappeared. When using MSW or industrial wastes, a continuous (not batch) process is used. The MSW is first pre-processed to remove metals, shred it to less than 1-inch size, and dry it to less than 10% moisture. The syngas produced is combusted in a boiler, and the steam produced is piped to a steam turbine to generate electricity. The flue gases from the boiler are cleaned in an emission control system, and the clean gases are exhausted through a stack. The byproducts of the conversion unit are a char/ash mixture, typical of pyrolysis processes. This may be usable as landfill daily cover. Overall diversion from landfill is estimated to be 74%. E.1.8.1.3 Reference Plants. Table E-27 presents the facilities where the Lantz Converters have been installed. Several were full-scale facilities, and one was a demonstration unit. None of these are still in operation. E.1.8.1.4 Commercial Status. None of the Lantz Converters noted in Table E-27 are still in operation. The largest converter that PAR designed was rated at 50 tons/day, or 18,250 tons/year. The proposed facility would utilize converters sized at just over 100 tons/day, or twice what PAR has provided for commercial use. A scale-up of two times is not, in itself, considered to be a significant technical concern. Of the facilities noted in Table E-27, only the Marcal Paper Mills facility (example presented in Figure E-44) used a dryer for the inlet waste. It was also the only facility where MSW was used as the feedstock, and where the syngas was combusted in a boiler to make steam. The steam was used locally, but not for power generation. PAR has not incorporated the pre-



TABLE E-27 PAR REFERENCE FACILITIES


Marcal Paper Mills (used 50 ton/day converter tested at Ford Motor Company– see below)

Elmwood Park, NJ (1982-84) DOE demonstration

U.S. 18,250 MSW

Ford Motor Company (used 50 ton/day converter tested at Naval Ammunition Depot- see below)

Milpitas, CA (1968)

U.S. 18,250 Industrial waste

Plum Creek Lumber Pablo, MT (1964)

U.S. No data Wood chips

Whiting Brothers Land & Timber Company

Eager, AZ (1963)

U.S. 36,500 Wood

Naval Ammunition Depot Concord, CA (1962-64)

U.S. 18,250 Industrial waste, wood scraps

R&D Facility (equipment is stored at Schuff Steel)

Upland, CA (1961-91)

U.S. Demonstration Mixed and hazardous wastes

FIGURE E-44

REFERENCE FACILITY AT MARCAL PAPER MILLS (1982-84)



processing, conversion and power generation sub-systems in pilot, demonstration, or full-scale size. E.1.8.2 Detailed Technology Description E.1.8.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. The MSW will be delivered 5 days/week to the tipping hall, which will be kept under negative pressure for odor control. The facility is designed to process 500 tons/day of post-source separated MSW, or 182,500 tons/year. Since the deliveries of MSW will be on a 5 day/week basis, this will require 700 tons/day of post-source separated MSW to be delivered over those 5 days. Of that amount, 500 tons/day are processed, and 200 tons/day are stored for 5 days, so that a total of 1,000 tons will be available for operation on the two weekend days. The waste is shredded and dried, then fed to the three Lantz converters for pyrolysis. The syngas is produced at a temperature of 1,200ºF, and combusted in three separate boilers (one/ converter). The steam produced is piped to a single steam turbine generator for production of 8.9 MW gross/6.5 MW net of electricity. PAR provided sample schedule data from a prior proposal for a 500 tons/day facility. The submittal states that the total time to implement the project from contract award to completion is 18 months. Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of up to 5 acres. A conceptual layout drawing (from a prior proposal for a 500 tons/day facility) is shown in Figure E-45. Process Flow and Mass Balance. A general process flow diagram is shown in Figure E-46. It is very similar to the diagram provided in the DOE report, which is publicly available. A specific diagram for the proposed facility was not provided. A summary mass balance is provided in Table E-28. Operation and Maintenance. MSW deliveries will occur 5 days/week, with the thermal conversion and power generation subsystems in operation 24/7, for 365 days/year. PAR has proposed the following staff: • Operations: 1 head operator (1 shift), 2 operators (4 shifts)

• Maintenance: 1 mechanic (4 shifts), 1 electrical/instrumentation (1 shift)

• Waste Handlers: 1 forklift operator (4 shifts); 1 forklift operator (2 shifts)

• Waste Separators: 4 separators (2 shifts)



TABLE E-28 SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/year Comments Inlet MSW 182,500 PAR assumes 365 day/year operation (see comments on

this in report) Recyclables Removed 8,139 PAR assumes 100% recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous

metals (see comments on this assumption in report) Other Inorganics Picked from Inlet Stream 8,651 These are rejects which would be sent to a landfill Waste Delivered to Dryers 165,710 Shredded to 1 inch size Water Removed in Dryers 39,493 This moisture is condensed, filtered and reclaimed for

storage and re-use Solids Removed from Water Vapor Stream in Dyers

2,409 Removed in cyclone, thickened, and sent to boilers

Dried Waste Fed To Converters 123,808 At 5% moisture Char/ash Mixture Removed from Converters 38,143 To landfill (21% of inlet stream)

• Administrator: 1

• Secretary: 1 This is a total of 30 personnel. Utility Requirements. Electricity – Based on PAR’s assumption of 365 day-per-year operation, the facility would produce 77.9 million kWh per year, with an internal requirement of 20.6 million kWh, equivalent to a 26% internal power load. As discussed later in this report, it is unlikely that the facility would be able to operate at 100% throughput, producing 100% net power output, for 365 days/year. Water – Since the process incorporates condensation/recovery of moisture from the dryer exhaust, the facility would not (theoretically) need to supplement its water requirements after initial fill. Natural gas or propane – Less than 4 million Btu/hour (per converter) are required for heating the converter to 1,200°F for start-up. After start-up, 12.7% of the syngas that is produced is combusted in order to provide the indirect heat need for pyrolysis. Chemicals – 158 tons/year of sodium hydroxide is required in the Hydro-Sonic scrubber for removal of acid gases. No other chemical requirements are noted, although some chemical additives would be required for the boiler feedwater and condensate systems.



E.1.8.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. PAR plans to take delivery of the MSW 5 days/week, and operate the overall facility 24/7. For the 500 tons/day facility, this would require deliveries of 700 tons/day of MSW, over the 5-day delivery period. The post-source separated MSW would be delivered to the tipping floor and loaded onto a conveyor belt by a front-end loader. Plastic bags would be opened and any undesirable objects would be hand picked from the conveyor belt. An electromagnet would be used to recover ferrous metals, with an eddy current system to recover non-ferrous metals, prior to entering the shear shredder. Based on the waste characterization, PAR assumes that they will be able to recover all of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Their estimate shows this as 19.25 tons per day of ferrous metals and 3.05 tons/day of non-ferrous metals, plus 23.7 tons/day of other inorganic materials, for a total of 46 tons/day removed from the 500 tons/day inlet post-source separated MSW stream. The waste stream (454 tons/day) then enters the shear shredders, where it is shredded to less than 1-inch size. The waste stream is moved by conveyor belts to the dryers and the remaining 200 tons of wet shredded waste (of the original 700 tons/day delivered) is moved back to the storage area on the tipping floor. At the end of the 5-day week, there would be 1,000 tons of MSW on the tipping floor, which would be processed (500 tons/day) over the next 2 weekend days. The three 5.6 tons/hour rotating dryers use waste heat from the combustion of syngas used for producing indirect heat for the converters to dry the shredded waste to a moisture content of 5%. The outlet gases from the dryers are passed through a cyclone separator, where the moisture is condensed and then purified through a carbon filter (using activated carbon separated from the char/ash mixture produced in the converters). PAR assumes that 108 tons/day (26,000 gallons/day) of water and 6.6 tons/day of solids will be removed during the drying process. The water would be stored in a 180,000 gallon storage tank and used for makeup water for the process. The solids are recovered in a thickener and sent to the boilers, where they become part of the flue gas stream, which is then cleaned of particulate matter in the emission control system. The dried waste exiting the dryers is moved to the hydraulic rams, which feed the three converters. Recovered Recyclables. PAR states that they make a special effort to ensure that no ash is generated, so that the char/ash mixture consists mainly of sterilized broken glass, and geologic materials such as gravel, sand, and dirt. In order to accomplish this, PAR proposes to remove and recover all of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals in the inlet post-source separated MSW stream. However, it is unlikely that this will be achievable. Based on the



characteristics and contamination of the waste, it is more likely that only 50% of the metals would be able to be recovered in pre-processing. The un-recovered metals would in fact end up in the char/ash mixture and be sent to the landfill.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. PAR proposes to remove 23.7 tons/day (8,651 tons/year) of inorganics from the inlet post-source separated MSW stream, mostly by hand-picking. These rejects would be disposed of in a landfill.

E.1.8.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The Lantz Converter consists of a retort and oven. The retort is the key element in the process; it is a rotating stainless steel cylinder approximately 5 feet in diameter and 40 feet long, within each converter. The retort is enclosed in an insulated oven, which has an outside width of 7.5 feet. The retort is heated by burners contained in the oven, which continuously provide indirect heat by the combustion of up to 15% of the syngas.

The burner system consists of a pre-heater system and a main operating system. The pre-heater system is fueled by natural gas or propane and is used to start the system and pre-heat the converter to an initial temperature of 1,200ºF. The main burner system is located inside the oven housing and combusts the syngas. The pre-heater burner system automatically shuts down when the converter is producing enough syngas to sustain the process. The interior temperature of the converter is continuously monitored to insure that the process temperature is maintained and to regulate the burner system. The shredded and dried feedstock is fed continuously into the retort using a ram injection system, without breaking the air seals. The action of the ram forcing feedstock into the revolving converter compresses the material into a semi-solid plug, which creates an air-tight seal. Interlocking seals are located on both ends of the converter to insure that no air enters the converter (for pyrolysis to occur). Each converter is sized for processing 113 tons/day of feedstock. Pyrolysis occurs at 1,200ºF, and the organic material in the feedstock is thermally decomposed, producing syngas and leaving behind a solid carbon char/ash mixture. Residence time in the converter is about 15 minutes. The syngas has the following analysis: • 42% CH4

• 35% CO

• 14.8% CO2



• 7% H2O

• 0.12% H2 PAR states that the heating value of the syngas is 10,611 Btu/lb. PAR did not specify whether this was on an LHV or HHV basis, or on an as received or dry basis, although this question was asked in the Request for Additional Information. Heating value on a Btu/scf basis was requested, but not provided. An 18-inch diameter flare stack is an integral part of each converter. The flare stack is a safety feature through which syngas will be flared to the atmosphere if needed. This could occur during start-ups and shut-downs. Char is also removed without breaking the air seals. Auto-ignition of the activated char would normally occur if the char were removed at this temperature and exposed to air. This combustion is precluded by using a Holo-Flite Tube, which consists of a screw feed system inside a cool water heat exchanger. Volatile carbon within the retort forms an onionskin like coating around the small metal particles in the ash, and encapsulates them into the char. As a consequence, heavy metals are not easily leached from the char. From the DOE demonstration testing at the Marcal Paper facility, PAR learned that about 90% of the chlorine (produced mostly from plastics) and 30% of sulfur compounds are chemically bound to the char and are not emitted in the flue gases. The syngas exits each of the three converters and is combusted in each of the three boilers at 3,000ºF. The hot flue gases are used to produce steam for power generation. The cooled flue gases exiting the boilers are cleaned in a Hydro-Sonic scrubber. The Hydro-Sonic wet scrubber is a free jet scrubber using a specifically designed water spray pattern around the periphery of a gas flow nozzle housed within a cylindrical shell. A diagram of the scrubber is shown in Figure E-47. The scrubber provides a turbulent mixing zone downstream of the initial contact zone in which particulate matter and acid gases (SO2 and HCl) are captured by coalescing liquid droplets, which are removed in the disengagement section. The acid gases react with the sodium hydroxide reagent added in the scrubber. The major equipment consists of an upstream quench chamber, the scrubber itself, a downstream liquid droplet disengagement section, an induced draft fan, a 33 foot stack, ducting, a water recirculation and treatment system, and a sludge disposal system. Non-condensable vapors generated in the drying process will also be routed through the Hydro-Sonic scrubbers after other vapors have been condensed into water, as described



FIGURE E-47 HYDRO-SONIC SCRUBBER

above in the pre-processing subsystem section. The Hydro-Sonic scrubber has demonstrated the following removal levels for specific emissions: • NO2: 85%

• SO2: 95%

• HCl: 99.9%

• PM: 98.9% E.1.8.2.4 Power Generation System. The hot flue gases from each converter are routed to three separate boilers. Steam is produced at 650°F and 400 psi. PAR proposes to combine the steam produced in the three separate boilers and pipe it to a steam turbine-generator, to produce 8.9 gross MW and 6.5 net MW, with an internal load of 2.4 MW. No details on the power generation system were provided. PAR has no prior experience with the utilization of steam produced in its facilities for power generation; this may be the reason for the lack of detail on this sub-system.

The overall facility would produce: • 463 net kWh/ton of feedstock

• 28 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity



E.1.8.3 Byproducts Analysis

E.1.8.3.1 Byproducts Generated.

• Electricity: 6546 kW, or 57.3 million kWh/year


• Char/ash mixture: 38,143 tons/year Since the recovery of metals is likely to be only half of the proposed amount, the amount of the char ash mixture would be increased by 4,070 tons/year.

E.1.8.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity and for the metals removed in the pre-processing system. The submittal states that in the future, they would plan to centrifuge the char/ash mixture to remove the ash portion, and crush and pelletize the char for use in commercial filtering systems such as paint spray operations. The 5% water in the stream is expected to be sufficient to activate the carbon for these filtering purposes. The ash materials removed may be usable as road base or construction materials. E.1.8.4 Environmental Issues E.1.8.4.1 Air Emissions. The tipping floor building will be maintained under a negative pressure, with the air processed through a deodorizing system. The Hydro-Sonic scrubber will be used to treat the flue gases from the boilers and the non-condensable vapors removed from the dryer exhaust. From there, the cleaned gases are routed to a 33’ stack. Since pyrolysis is a closed system, the only emission point would be the stack, after removal of contaminants in the emission control system. However, PAR notes that each of the converters will also have a flare stack as a safety feature. The raw syngas would be flared (combusted) during infrequent instances, such as when the syngas was not of sufficient heating value to be combusted in the boiler, or when the boiler and/or emission control system tripped off or were not available. E.1.8.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. In the spreadsheet, PAR identified a wet discharge from the scrubber of about 30 lbs/day. This stream is not identified on the process flow diagram. PAR has not identified where this discharge would go or if it would require additional treatment. E.1.8.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The facility would produce 8,651 tons/year of hand-picked inorganics from the inlet black bin MSW stream, as well as 38,143 tons/year of



char/ash mixture. All of this would require disposal in a landfill (see note above on potential separation of char from ash). E.1.8.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The mass of the post-source separated MSW required to be landfilled is reduced by about 74%. E.1.8.5 Cost and Revenues M3 Engineering & Technology provided a very detailed equipment list and cost analysis of the proposed facility. An overall economic summary is provided in Table E-29.


Provided by PAR Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment Capital Cost $29,808,500 $29,808,500 Capital Cost, $/TPY $163 $163 Annual O&M $2,380,681 $2,380,681 Landfilling of Unmarketable Materials

$146,000 $1,525,720 Assume disposal in landfill of 38,143 tons/year of char/ash @$40/ton


$2,579,148 $2,579,148


$3,393,444 $3,440,578 6,546 kW for 8760 hours/year at $0.06/kWh


$687,600 $203,475 Recovery of only half of metals, @ $50/ton

Total Annual Revenues $4,081,044 $3,644,053 Annual Revenues-Costs ($1,024,785) ($2,841,496) Tipping Fee $5.62/ton* $15.57ton* Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$16.46/ton* Assume half of metals not recovered end up in char/ash mixture and are disposed of in landfill @ $40/ton = $162,780 for landfilling.

* See discussion on cost concerns in Section E.1.8.6, which would replace this value with a $40/ton processing fee or royalty payment.

E.1.8.6 Assessment Summary There are significant concerns with the technical and economic portions of PAR’s submittal. The submittal incorporated data from different sources and/or proposals, all put together in one binder. Electronic copies were not in the requested format, and could not be cleanly converted (especially diagrams and tables). PAR did not provide drawings and other documents in the requested formats.



While PAR did provide spreadsheet information on the proposed facility, there were no spreadsheet data for a reference facility, as requested in the RFQ. The submittal provided detailed information on the founders of the corporation, the initial development of the Lantz converter, and the facilities that were in operation years ago. There was also significant information on the proposed partners, including M3 Engineering and Schuff Steel. However, the fact remains that PAR has only one full-time employee, and no operating capital. The process flow diagram was essentially the same one provided in the 1985 DOE report. No project-specific process flow diagram was provided. All of the mass balance data was provided from M3’s METSIM code. When questioned about specific information from the mass balance in the Request for Additional Information, PAR’s response was invariably that they had to use what was in M3’s METSIM results, and that it would take a major effort to provide some of the basic data requested in the spreadsheets. They were not able to provide information such as the volume (in scfh) of syngas produced or its heating value in Btu/scf. This is a significant concern as to how the process equipment would be properly sized. There were inconsistencies between different sections of the proposal relating to inputs and outputs and power generation system data, and differences in this same data between the proposal text and the spreadsheet values. The Request for Additional Information was required to validate (or correct) basic input and output data. PAR’s assumption of 100% recovery of all metals is questionable; they provided no information on experience in pre-processing MSW in order to back this claim. There was very little detail provided on the power generation system; PAR provided no information to show that they (or any of their partners) have any experience with power generation or with integrating the pre-processing, conversion, and power generation sub-systems in similar facilities using the PAR technology. In the spreadsheets, PAR stated that it assumed operation 24 hours/day, for 365 days/year, and that it could operate without a reduction in throughput or power production with one converter down. PAR provided no availability information on any of its prior facilities to back this claim. When questioned on this assumption, PAR noted that with one converter out, the throughput would actually be reduced by 13% and that the net power production “may be made up by a reduction in the internal use of power”. How such a reduction in internal power usage could be achieved, in order to maintain full power output, was not described. PAR stated that the “facility should never be totally shut down”. It is unlikely that such operation could ever be achieved, especially since the one steam turbine generator would



occasionally require routine maintenance. If the steam turbine generator were shut down for maintenance, the overall “facility” would have to be shutdown. PAR states that the proposed facility would incorporate “off the shelf” equipment, but they have provided no description of their experience in integrating a complete facility using such equipment, especially at the proposed scale. The cost implications of this are discussed below. Additional issues and concerns are as follows: Cost. The cost information was provided from a prior proposal for a 500 tons/day facility, in 2001 dollars. This is a concern, particularly due to the significant increases in commodity prices since 2001 for steel, alloys, and concrete. As discussed above, PAR claims to be able to operate the facility 365 days/year. While this is unlikely for the reasons previously noted, the cost analysis was prepared on that basis. All of the inputs and outputs are all provided on the same (365 days/year) basis; a reduction in throughput or lower availability would result in a reduction in output; this would have little or no cost impact on a per-ton basis. When questioned about its actual experience with pre-processing and power generation equipment and systems, PAR only noted that this is typically “off the shelf” equipment, and that they would “evaluate all of the “off the shelf” equipment during the detailed design period of an approved project and select the most suitable based on performance and cost.” However, the DOE report notes that “As the R&D advanced, it was soon apparent that because of the varying characteristics and properties of the MSW as well as the resultant produced gas and char, unique solutions were required. Therefore, costly modification or redesign of much of the “off the shelf equipment” supplied to the project had to be made to meet project requirements. “ Because of this issue during the DOE project, and other technical issues noted above, there is a significant concern regarding PAR’s ability to properly size and cost the “off the shelf” equipment and design an integrated facility. A more significant concern is that PAR assumes that the City would pay PAR a “tipping fee” of $40/ton for each ton of post-source separated MSW processed, if PAR owns/operates the facility, or a per-ton royalty payment if the City owns/operates it. This would essentially replace the evaluated and worst case break even tipping fee values noted in the cost analysis with a value of $40/ton. Performance. With a production of 463 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a low “efficiency” rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


E.2 ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING E.2.1 Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. E.2.1.1 Technology Overview E.2.1.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. (WRSI) is the U.S. representative for the thermal recycling technology utilized by MVR Müllverwertung Rugenberger Damm GmbH & Company KG (MVR), a company owned by Vattenfall, GmbH, the Swedish energy corporation, in a joint venture with the city/state of Hamburg and EWE, a utility company in lower Saxony in Germany. The technology includes the MSW handling, feeding grate boiler, emission controls, bottom ash conditioning, and production of recyclable byproducts from the emission control and water treatment systems. Firm: Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.

Technology: Thermal Recycling


Principal Contact: Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann

Address: 12623 SE 83rd Court Newcastle, WA 98056 WRSI was formed in 1999 by Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann. He has been involved in the thermal recycling of MSW for over seven years. His father, Dr. Ing-W. Schmidt-Pathmann, developed a company for the marketing and use of the bottom ash produced by the MVR plant, first as a road-base material for the new container ship unloading and container handling facility at the port in Hamburg, Germany. Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann’s partner is Douglas Gilmore, who has directed major, international marketing programs for large corporations. Vattenfall generates electricity and heat, delivering energy to approximately 6 million consumers in Northern Europe. Vattenfall is a wholly owned by the Swedish state and is the fifth largest energy company in Europe. Their main markets are industrial customers and energy companies in Finland, Germany, and Poland. They have over 35,000 employees, with annual sales of over $15 billion. The WRSI proposal provided information for a base facility and two alternatives, as follows: • A single 380,000 tons/year facility



• A single 1,000,000 tons/year facility

• A 400,000 tons/year and a 600,000 tons/year facility at two separate sites The single 1,000,000 tons/year facility was proposed in case the City of Los Angeles is interested in a large throughput facility. Since the single large facility requires an extensive land area, WRSI proposed the smaller, split facilities, which may be easier to site and permit than the larger facility. Only the base 380,000 tons/year facility is discussed in this report. E.2.1.1.2 Technology Overview. The proposed facility would have the same basic throughput and design parameters as the MVR facility, which processes 380,000 tons/year of raw MSW. An overall diagram of the facility is shown in Figure E-48.

FIGURE E-48 MVR THERMAL RECYCLING PROCESS

WASTE WASTE BOILER EMISSION CONTROL LAB STACK DELIVERY BUNKER SYSTEM The MVR facility was visited in October, 2004. Portions of the trip report, including photos, are used in this report. The MSW is delivered to the tipping hall (pictured in Figure E-49) by truck. No pre-processing of the MSW is required for this thermal recycling technology.



FIGURE E-49 TIPPING HALL

The MSW is dumped into the waste bunkers in the tipping hall seen in Figure E-50, and then is picked up by a grapple hook and placed in a shredder, as illustrated in Figure E-51. Shredded waste is stored in an adjacent bunker as seen in Figure E-52 and fed into the furnace. The plant has two production lines, each with a forward feeding grate boiler sized at 24 tons/hour. Figure E-53 shows the boilers and steam turbine generator are enclosed in a building. The furnaces operate at about 1,560°F, with a residence time of about 2 seconds. Acoustic monitoring is used to measure the speed of sound in the flue gases, which is directly converted to flue gas temperature. Steam is used for district heating and for power generation in a 30 MW steam turbine-generator, pictured in Figure E-54. Bottom ash is created as a byproduct of the thermal processing, at about 80,000 tons/year or roughly 25% of the inlet MSW stream. It is removed through a water bath seal and then sent through a crusher. The crushed bottom ash is transferred onto a conveyor (as shown in Figure E-55), screened and washed with water to lower the chloride content (wastewater is treated prior to disposal). Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are removed from the bottom ash stream using magnets and eddy current separators.



FIGURE E-50 MSW DELIVERY POINT

FIGURE E-51 GRAPPLING HOOK PUTS MSW INTO SHREDDER



FIGURE E-52 SHREDDED MSW BUNKER

FIGURE E-53 BOILER AND STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR HOUSING



FIGURE E-54 STEAM TURBINE-GENERATOR

FIGURE E-55 BOTTOM ASH CONVEYOR SYSTEM



The bottom ash is sprayed with water and then stored in an enclosed facility (see Figure E-56) for about 3 months. During that period of time, the bottom ash “cures”, forming more acceptable metallic oxides, as it stabilizes and becomes harder.

FIGURE E-56 BOTTOM ASH STORAGE FACILITY

After the 90-day period, MVR sells 90,000 TPY for road base/road construction. About 330,000 tons of bottom ash (4 years of production) were used as a base layer for the new Altenwerder Container Terminal at the port of Hamburg, near the MVR plant. For NOx control, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system, using urea injection, is used. The flue gases then enter a 4-stage flue gas cleaning system, including: • Initial bag house with activated carbon injection for removal of mercury and other heavy

metals

• Acid scrubber to remove hydrochloric acid

• Lime scrubber to remove SO2

• Secondary bag house using fresh activated carbon to remove heavy metals and dioxins/ furans



Mercury removal is greater than 90% in the first fabric filter and greater than 90% on the second fabric filter, enabling mercury emissions to be below the detection limit. Cleaned flue gases exit the stack with water vapor visible on cold days, seen in Figure E-57.

FIGURE E-57 EMISSION STACKS

All operations are controlled from a central control room depicted in Figure E-58. The facility produces steam for district heating and electricity (30 MW) for sale. They also produce: • Bottom ash: About 80,000 tons/year of bottom ash are sold for road base/road

construction. The MVR technology is unique in that the bottom ash is kept separate from contaminated fly ash.

• Hydrochloric acid from acid scrubber: 3,800 tons/year of 30% HCl produced, with 1,100 tons/year used in the plant for water treatment, and the balance sold primarily to other power plants for water treatment.

• Gypsum from the lime scrubber (marketable for cement and wallboard – about 1,000 tons/year sold locally for about $10/ton).



FIGURE E-58 CONTROL ROOM

• Fly ash is about 3% of the inlet MSW stream. Presently, the fly ash, along with spent

activated carbon, is transported about 120 miles to a deep salt mine for disposal. MVR is working on marketing the fly ash (heavy metals and dioxins/furans concentrate in fly ash). If dioxins and furans are reduced to <100 ng/kg, the fly ash is acceptable for placement even in playgrounds.

• Scrap iron - over 8,000 tons/year removed from the bottom ash by magnets.

• Non-ferrous metals – about 700 tons/year removed from the bottom ash using eddy current separators.

E.2.1.1.3 Reference Plants. The MVR facility has a throughput of 380,000 tons/year of MSW. It began operation in 1999. It is the second facility to use the specific thermal recycling technology proposed for the City of Los Angeles. The first facility was the Müllverwertung Borsigstrasse Damm (MVB), also located in Hamburg. The MVB plant began operation in 1994, and produces only steam for district heating (no power generation). The MVR design was based on the technology designed and proven in operation at MVB. Table E-30 lists the two reference facilities provided by WRSI, and Figure E-59 is an aerial photo of the Hamburg facility.



TABLE E-30 REFERENCE FACILITIES


MVR Hamburg Germany 380,000 MSW MVB Hamburg Germany 320,000 MSW

FIGURE E-59 MVR PLANT

E.2.1.1.4 Commercial Status. The MVR technology is proven in two full-scale, commercial facilities at a throughput of 320,000 to 380,000 tons/year. The proposed facility would have a throughput of 380,000 tons/year, with each of the two processing lines sized at the same basic design points as the MVR facility. There would be no scale-up of the processing lines. There would likely be some differences in MSW characteristics that would result in minor changes in handling systems and in the emission control system requirements.



E.2.1.2 Detailed Technology Description E.2.1.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. The post-source separated MSW is delivered to the site 5-1/2 days/week. The proposed facility would be very similar to the MVR facility. Descriptions of that facility are included in Section 1of this report. Overall diversion from landfill is 98%. An overall project schedule of 30 months is proposed. Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of 16 acres, including bottom ash storage. Process Flow and Mass Balance. A summary mass balance is presented in Table E-31. An overall process flow diagram is presented in Figure E-60.


Stream Tons/Year Comments Inlet MSW 380,000 No pre-processing required MSW to furnace 380,000 Bottom ash 76,000 Metals 10,450 Removed from bottom ash Hydrochloric acid 4,950 From emission control system Gypsum 1,221 From emission control system Filter and fly ash 7,590 From emission control system,

disposed of in landfill. Mixed salts 413 From process water treatment system,

disposed of in landfill.

Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5-1/2 days per week. The pre-processing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and electricity, for 330 days/year. Staffing is proposed to be a total of 70 people, including: • Operations and maintenance: 45

• Maintenance: 20

• Monitoring/QA: 10




• Administration: 15 Utility Requirements. Electricity: the facility will generate 230 million kWh/year, with an internal use of 31.7 million kWh, or an internal load of 13.8%. Water: 100,000 gallons/day Wastewater: With the recycling and reuse of water, and the extensive process water treatment system, the process is considered closed loop, with no discharge. Fuel oil: 1,200 tons/year (about 355,000 gallons/year) Chemicals: the following chemicals are used in the facility: • Ammonia (25% solution) – 1,650 tons/year

• Activated carbon (hearth furnace coke) – 644 ton/year

• Aluminum chloride – 185 tons/year



• Lime – 512 tons/year E.2.1.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. No pre-processing is required, other than removal of very large items as waste is unloaded. This includes propane tanks, refrigerators, and “bulky wastes” such as concrete and steel bars too large to pass through the system. Due to the nature of the post-source separated MSW, this would be a negligible amount. For odor control, the waste delivery area is maintained under a negative pressure, with the air flow channeled to the emission control system for removal of odor-causing compounds. Recovered Recyclables. No recyclables are recovered from the inlet MSW stream. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No residues are removed from the inlet MSW stream. E.2.1.2.3 Conversion Unit Subsystem. In this process, the conversion unit is a two-line, thermal recycling technology, including: • Feed bunkers

• Cranes and grappling hooks

• Grates

• Furnace/boiler

• Emission control system

• Bottom ash and fly ash handling systems

• Bottom ash storage area Each of the two processing lines is sized to process 24 tons/hour (580 tons/day) of post-source separated MSW. The waste is fed into the furnace, with combustion occurring at about 1,562°F. The boiler extracts heat from the hot flue gases, producing steam at 788°F and 660 psi. The steam from both boilers is piped to a single steam turbine generator. A diagram of the boiler is shown in Figure E-61. The bottom ash collects in a water bath at the bottom of the furnace. The bottom ash is sieved and crushed, after it leaves the ash removal system, with magnets and eddy current separators used for removal of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Riddlings and floating and suspended solids are returned to the waste storage bunker and mixed with the incoming waste. Soluble



FIGURE E-61 BOILER

salts left in the wash water are pumped to the process water treatment system for cleaning. The washed, processed bottom ash is then conveyed to the storage area. Figure E-62 shows the bottom ash processing system in the furnace bottom. Following removal and washing, the bottom ash is crushed, screened, and conveyed to the storage area. This process is shown in Figure E-63. The emission control system is shown as part of the overall process flow diagram, shown again in Figure E-64. Urea is injected into a specific temperature area of the boiler, to initiate Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to convert NOx emissions to nitrogen and water. The hot flue gases exit the boiler and enter the emission control system. Ash and slightly spent absorbent from the second fabric filter is injected into the flue gas stream. The materials react with acid gases, such as SO2 and HCl. The reaction products and particulate matter in the flue gas stream are removed in the first fabric filter. This ash is combined with boiler ash and disposed of in a landfill. The flue gases then enter the HCl wet scrubber, which uses water to remove highly soluble HCl from the flue gas stream. A 10-12% HCl solution is formed in the recirculating stream.



FIGURE E-62 BOTTOM ASH PROCESSING IN FURNACE

FIGURE E-63 BOTTOM ASH PROCESSING



FIGURE E-64 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM

The HCl scrubber blowdown is further treated in the HCl rectification system, which cleans and concentrates the HCl to a 30% solution for sale. The HCl rectification system is shown in Figure E-65. The flue gases then enter the SO2 scrubber, which uses lime to react with and remove SO2 from the flue gas. The reaction of lime and SO2, with the oxygen in the process, forms calcium sulfate, or gypsum. The gypsum is washed and dewatered in a centrifuge to meet a specified solids content (<10%) for sale to the cement and wallboard industries. Activated carbon is injected into the flue gas stream to adsorb heavy metals, such as vaporized mercury, in the flue gas stream. The cleaned flue gases then enter the second fabric filter, where remaining reaction products from the emission control system, particulate matter, and spent activated carbon are removed. The flue gases are exhausted through a 250’ stack. E.2.1.2.4 Power Generation System. High pressure steam from the two boilers is piped to a single steam turbine generator, rated at 29 MW gross and 25 MW net. The overall facility will produce:



FIGURE E-65 HCl RECTIFICATION SYSTEM

• 521 net kWh/ton of feedstock

• 15 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity E.2.1.3 Byproduct Analysis E.2.1.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following useful byproducts: • Electricity - 198 million kWh/year

• Bottom ash – 76,000 tons/year

• Metals – 10,450 tons/year

• HCl – 4,950 tons/year

• Gypsum – 1,221 tons/year E.2.1.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity and for the metals. The bottom ash is likely to be marketable



for construction materials or road base. The HCl and gypsum can be sold for the same uses as they are in the MVR facility. E.2.1.4.1 Air Emissions. For odor control, the tipping building will be maintained under negative pressure. The cleaned flue gases are exhausted through a 250’ stack. E.2.1.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The process wastewater treatment system precludes the discharge of wastewater stream. E.2.1.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The proposed facility produces 7,590 tons/year of boiler and fabric filter fly ash, and 413 tons/year of mixed salts, all of which will be disposed of in a landfill. E.2.1.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The thermal recycling technology processes 380,000 tons/year of post-source separated MSW, producing electricity and usable byproducts. It reduces the mass of post-source separated MSW required to be landfilled 98%. E.2.1.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the proposed facility is presented in Table E-32. E.2.1.6 Assessment Summary The WRSI proposal was very complete. It included extensive details on the MVR plant, including process flow diagrams and mass balances of the individual subsystems, actual environmental emissions data charts and graphs, and photos of the facilities and equipment. WRSI also included technical papers on the MVR facility and the integrated processes for producing the various marketable byproducts, especially the bottom ash. Detailed pro formas were also included.

Much of the proposal was provided by WRSI. Some of the data on the spreadsheets were provided by Dr. Zwahr, the Technical Director of the MVR plant. There were some inconsistencies on the appendices that presented chemical use and byproduct production, but these were quickly resolved. The overall thermal recycling technology is well-proven at the scale proposed for the City of Los Angeles. Since WRSI serves as the U.S. representative for this technology, details on who would actually provide the design and engineering services would require additional discussion, i.e., would Dr. Zwahr lead the design team of MVR and/or Vattenfall staff, or would an outside engineering firm be brought in to implement the project?




Provided by WRSI Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment Capital Cost $180 million $180 million Capital Cost, $/TPY $474 $474 Annual O&M $15 million $14.68 million Separate out landfilling of

unmarketable materials Landfilling of Unmarketable Materials

Not separated out $320,120 7,590 tons/year of boiler and fly ash and 413 tons/year of mixed salts to landfill @$40/ton




$12.1 million $11.88 million 25,000 kW for 330 days

Revenues from Sale of Recyclables, Bottom Ash, and Other Byproducts

$1.9 million $2.1 million Adjust bottom ash to $5/ton, instead of $2.80/ton. Adds $167,200.

Total Annual Revenues

$14 million $13.98 million

Annual Revenues-Costs

($21.1 million) ($21.12 million)

Tipping Fee $55.53/ton $55.58/ton Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$58.76/ton Assume 76,000 tons/year bottom ash transported @$10/ton to landfill as cover. Assume 1,221 tons/year gypsum is not saleable, and is disposed of in landfill at $40/ton. Reduce bottom ash sales revenues by $380,000/year and gypsum revenues by $18,315 and add $808,840/year to O&M costs.

Additional issues and concerns are as follows: Technical. No additional issues or concerns. Cost. No additional issues or concerns. Performance. With a production of 521 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a moderate “efficiency” rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


E.2.2 Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc. E.2.2.1 Technology Overview E.2.2.1.1 Description of the Technology Supplier Team. Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc. (SKT) is part of the Keppel Corporation, a large global company involved in three main businesses: • Offshore and Marine

• Property

• Infrastructure SKT is part of Seghers Keppel Technology Group NV, which operates in the Environmental Engineering division of the Infrastructure Group. SKT was incorporated in the U.S. in 1986, and is supported by the Seghers Keppel organization in Europe, which has 225 employees; 40% are engineers. Seghers Keppel develops, owns, and implements proprietary technologies in the fields of wastewater treatment and thermal treatment of biosolids and solid waste. Firm: Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.

Technology: DANO Drum and Thermal Recycling Technologies

Principal Contact: Dirk Eeraerts

Address: 1235-F Kennestone Circle Marietta, GA 30066

SKT has marked its entire submission “This document contains confidential information. It is intended for internal use by URS Corporation and the City of Los Angeles; only for the on the cover mentioned project.” Section 5 of the SOQ (attachment) is not confidential.

Therefore, all of the information submitted, except the Section 5 information, is to be treated as confidential. Section 5 includes:

• DANO drum reference list and information

• Energy-from-waste reference list and information

• Air pollution control system reference list and information

• Pelletizer reference list and information

• Article on the Rapid City, SD facility



• Paper on the Öreboro, Sweden facility

• Letter from W.L. Gore & Associates on its composting system

• Brochures on SKT technologies (figures and photos from these documents have been incorporated into this report, as they are publicly available information)

E.2.2.1.2 Technology Overview. SKT proposes to utilize two of its technologies for this application. They are: • The Seghers DANO drum preprocessing of the black bin MSW into a Refuse-Derived

Fuel (RDF), compost, and recyclables

• The Seghers water-cooled grate for thermal recycling of the RDF into electricity The DANO drum provides mechanical pre-processing of MSW. It is a horizontally-mounted, rotating steel cylinder which automatically shreds, mixes, conditions, and sorts MSW into components for recycling, composting, or thermal treatment. The rotation of the drum (3.6 rpm) leads to breakdown of the softer components of the MSW by constant collision and attrition as they repeatedly contact the drum wall and the harder elements in the MSW. This mechanical operation typically produces separated streams of recovered metals, organics, and high Btu RDF for use in thermal recycling. The organic stream is often used for making compost. A picture of a pair of DANO drums is shown in Figure E-66.

FIGURE E-66 DANO DRUMS



SKT also provides a system for thermal recycling of the RDF, utilizing its own water-cooled grate technology integrated with a boiler, emission control system, power generation system, and ash handling equipment. E.2.2.1.3 Reference Plants. In the proposal, SKT provided an extensive list of facilities that use its DANO drums and its thermal recycling technologies. The list shows DANO drums in 17 installations around the world, with 23 thermal recycling facilities worldwide. Table E-33 lists some of the most applicable facilities for each technology.

TABLE E-33 SEGHERS KEPPEL REFERENCE FACILITIES


City of Rapid City, Solid Waste Dept.

Rapid City, SD U.S. 80,000 DANO drums for MSW Reduces volume for landfill; fines used for compost; oversize to landfill.

Greater Manchester Waste Ltd.

Manchester U.K. 624,000 (4 plants) DANO drums for MSW Fines used for compost; rejects to thermal recycling; metals recovered

Municipality of Rosignano Marittimo

Livorno Italy 100,000 DANO drums for MSW Fines used for composting

INDAVER Antwerp Belgium 425,000 MSW – thermal recycling ISVAG Antwerp Belgium 135,000 MSW – thermal recycling SAKAB Kumla Sweden 100,000 MSW – thermal recycling

Photos of two recent thermal recycling plants are shown in Figure E-67. E.2.2.1.4 Commercial Status of the Technology. Both the DANO drums and the thermal recycling technologies have been installed at full scale. The DANO drums are designed for operation at 23 tons/hour. Some of the DANO drums began operation in 1958. The drums in Rapid City, SD are designed for 23 tons/hour, but are only operated a few hours per day (operating philosophy) at a rate of 18.75 tons/hour. SKT thermal recycling plants have operated at capacities up to 660 tons/day, with single lines operating at 660 tons/day. One of the SKT thermal recycling plants has been in operation since 1982. The proposed equipment has been operated at commercial scale. There are facilities where DANO drums a reused to produce RDF for use in off-site thermal recycling facilities. However, SKT has no facilities where both the DANO drum and thermal recycling technologies are integrated on the same site.



FIGURE E-67 THERMAL RECYCLING FACILITIES

Indaver Isvag Antwerp, Belgium Antwerp, Belgium While the proposal addresses pre-processing and thermal conversion of the black bin MSW, it does not include the equipment (or related costs) necessary for processing the organic fines into compost. The impact of the additional equipment and the related costs is addressed in Section 5.0, Costs and Revenues.

E.2.2.2 Detailed Technology Description E.2.2.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. The black bin MSW will be delivered to the tipping hall and storage bunkers. Cranes will be used to transfer the MSW into the DANO drum inlets. The drums separate the stream into three fractions: • RDF for the thermal recycling subsystem

• Organic fines (putrescibles) for composting

• Metals for recycling This separation process is shown in Figure E-68. Water is added to the DANO drum to assist in the mechanical separation process. Site Layout. SKT provided a layout for the DANO drum pre-processing facility and one for the thermal recycling facility. These figures have been omitted because the company considers this information to be proprietary and confidential.



FIGURE E-68 DANO DRUM FEED SEPARATION

Process Flow and Mass Balance. This information has been considered confidential by the company and been omitted from the report. Utility Requirements. E.2.2.2.2 Pre-Processing Subsystem. Equipment Description. The black bin MSW will be delivered to the tipping building, and into storage bunkers. Water is added to the inlet to assist in the mechanical processing and breakdown of the material. The DANO drums are horizontally mounted, rotating steel cylinders which automatically shred, mix, condition and sort the waste into three separate streams, as follows: • RDF for the thermal recycling system (largest materials)

• Metals for recycling (medium fraction)

• Organic materials for composting (fines)

The rotation of the drum (3.6 rpm) imparts a tumbling action, leading to breakdown of the softer components by collision and attrition as they repeatedly contact the drum wall and harder elements in the waste. The physical breakdown of the soft organic material (green



waste, food residues, paper and cardboard) in the DANO drum creates a material with a very large surface area. This assists in biological degradation and makes it easy to screen and separate the organic fines from the higher heating value (and harder) waste components. Part of the paper and cardboard reports to the finer fraction, thereby increasing the biodegradable content for later composting. Added moisture helps to soften and break down the paper and cardboard. The residence time of the waste in the drum is between 6 and 12 hours. The DANO drum is shown in Figure E-69. Internal components are shown in Figure E-70.

FIGURE E-69 DANO DRUM

E.2.2.2.3 Conversion Unit System. Figure E-71 is a photograph of the emission controls system. E.2.2.2.3 Power Generation System. This information has been omitted because the company considers it to be proprietary and confidential. E.2.2.3 Byproduct Analysis E.2.2.3.1 Summary of Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following useful byproducts: • This information has been omitted for confidentiality reasons.



FIGURE E-70 DANO DRUM INTERNALS

FIGURE E-71 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM



E.2.2.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity. There are existing markets for metals and compost, although further assessment would be required to determine if all of the compost can be utilized. E.2.2.4 Environmental Issues E.2.2.4.1 Air Emissions. This information is considered confidential and has been omitted. E.2.2.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. This information is considered confidential and has been omitted. E.2.2.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. This information is considered confidential and has been omitted. E.2.2.4.3 Other Environmental Issues. This information is considered confidential and has been omitted. E.2.2.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the proposed facility is presented in Table E-34. E.2.2.4 Assessment Summary The SKT proposal for the DANO drums and thermal conversion facilities was well prepared and included significant detail on equipment, processes, and existing facilities. Copies of technical papers describing several of their key installations were also included. Detailed process flow diagrams and mass balances were provided for all portions of the overall process. The original proposal was in metric tons, and was revised to the required U.S. standard units. Minor corrections in the mass balance were required to address the water added to the DANO drum for processing. The SKT DANO drum and the thermal recycling technologies are proven at commercial scale, with some installations in operation for over 40 years. SKT has extensive global experience with both of its technologies. As noted below, the greatest concern with the proposal is that SKT’s proposal was incomplete, in that it did not include a subsystem for processing the organic fines for compost (almost half of the inlet stream). The proposal is considered to be incomplete on this basis. The specific concerns and issues in the technical, cost, and performance areas are noted below. The following issues and concerns are noted:




Provided by Seghers Keppel Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment

Capital Cost confidential $179 million Note: no compost processing included in submittal. Add $54 million for processing system to handle ***** of organic fines.

Capital Cost, $/TPY confidential $486 Includes composting system capital costs. Annual O&M confidential $15.01 million Note: includes composting system O&M of $3.6

million/year Disposal of Bottom Ash, Fly Ash, and Boiler Ash

confidential $1.14 million confidential


confidential $15.72 million Note: includes additional $4.68 million/year for capital recovery/interest on composting system.

Total Annual Costs confidential $31.87 million Lower disposal costs, plus higher O&M for composting system added in.

Revenues from Sale of Electricity

confidential $10.61 million Add $1.74 million revenues from sale of generation from biogas produced in composting system.


confidential $1.7 million Sale of ****tons/year metals @ $50/ton. Compost sold at $10/ton, assuming 50% conversion of fines to compost, or $904,000/year.

Total Annual Revenues confidential $12.3 million Annual Revenues-Costs confidential ($19.57 million) Tipping Fee confidential $53.17/ton Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$64.19/ton Assume compost is not marketable and is disposed of in landfill @$40/ton = $3.62 million additional O&M costs. Assume only 2% of metals in inlet are recovered, at $50/ton = (confidential -7,360 tons/year) = $431,200 lower revenues, and balance is sent to landfill @$40/ton = $344,960. Total Revenues – Costs = ($ million).

Technical. The proposed DANO drums will have a capacity of *** (omitted due to confidentiality). Although the DANO drum is designed for this capacity, there are none that are actually operated 24/7 at that rate. However, this is not considered to be a significant technical issue. However, SKT did not provide the actual equipment to process the fines into compost. While SKT does work with composting companies, they did not partner with one to provide a complete system to process the entire MSW stream. In addition, the facility could benefit from the generation of additional electricity from biogas produced from the composting process.



Cost. The SKT proposal does not include any capital, O&M, capital recovery, or interest costs for a compost processing subsystem. This is expected to be a significant addition to each of these cost areas, as well as increasing the overall tipping fee and worst case break even tipping fee. Adjustments were made to the economics, and are presented in Section 5.0 above. Performance. This technology has a moderate “efficiency” rating compared to other evaluated thermal technologies, but somewhat higher than the “average” thermal recycling facility in the U.S. This value would be adjusted by the increase in generation from using the biogas from a composting system.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Covanta Energy Corporation


E.2.3 Covanta Energy Corporation E.2.3.1 Technology Overview E.2.3.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Covanta Energy Corporation (Covanta) has a primary business in the development and operation of thermal recycling facilities. Covanta, formerly Ogden Corporation, was formed in 1983. Today, it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danielson Holding Corporation. Covanta maintains the core engineering, project management, business development and O&M personnel and skills developed over 20 years in this business. Presently, Covanta operates 25 facilities in 14 states, treating 10 million tons/year of MSW, typically under long-term O&M service agreements with local governments. Covanta was initially concerned with the RFQ’s requirement for processing only 100,000 tons/year of black bin MSW. The average Covanta facility processes 400,000 tons/year of MSW, and a 100,000 tons/year plant was considered to be un-economical. Following the guidance to the advanced thermal recycling suppliers to provide information for larger facilities, Covanta submitted their information based on a facility with a throughput of up to 3,000 tons/day, or 1 million tons/year, of black bin MSW. Some cost information was provided for a 329,000 tons/year facility; this was used in the economic analysis.

Firm: Covanta Energy Corporation (Covanta)

Technology: Martin GmbH combustion technology

Throughput: Up to 1.3 million tons/year

Principal Contact: John Phillips

Address: 40 Lane Road Fairfield, NJ 07004 E.2.3.1.2 Technology Overview. The Covanta technology processes as-delivered MSW in their facility. The MSW is combusted in a furnace, and the heat generated at over 1,800ºF is used to generate steam in a boiler. The steam is piped to a steam turbine generator for generation of electricity. The hot flue gases flow through an extensive emission control system, for removal/reduction of emissions of NOx, mercury, acid gases, and particulate matter. Magnetic and eddy current separators are utilized to recover metals from the bottom ash. The bottom ash is then mixed with the fly ash, and the mixture is disposed of in a landfill. The total mass of inlet MSW is reduced by about 80% (including recovery of metals). A typical Covanta facility is shown in Figure E-72.



FIGURE E-72 TYPICAL COVANTA FACILITY

E.2.3.1.3 Reference Plants. Covanta provided information on the following reference facilities as listed in Table E-35.

TABLE E-35 REFERENCE FACILITIES


Bristol Resource Recovery Facility Bristol, CT U.S. 215,000 MSW Fairfax County I-95 Energy/Resource Recovery Facility

Lorton, VA U.S. 1 million MSW

Hillsborough County Solid Waste Energy Recovery Facility

Tampa, FL U.S. 400,000 MSW

Lee County Resource Recovery Facility

Ft. Myers, FL U.S. 400,000 MSW

Stanislaus County Resource Recovery Facility

Crows Landing, CA (25 miles from Modesto)

U.S. 260,000 MSW

Photos of three of their facilities are shown in Figure E-73.



FIGURE E-73 REFERENCE FACILITIES

FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA LEE COUNTY, FL MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD E.2.3.1.4 Commercial Status. Covanta has 25 full-scale facilities in operation, some for more than 20 years. Throughputs of existing facilities range from 325-4,000 tons/day (106,000-1.3 million tons/year) of MSW. Since the technology is modular and expandable, Covanta could design a facility to handle a throughput in the range envisioned by the City. E.2.3.2 Detailed Technology Description E.2.3.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. Covanta did not propose a specific facility. However, they did provide detailed information on its process. Since the equipment is modular, the desired throughput can be achieved by incorporating a sufficient number of modules. A project implementation schedule of 30-34 months is typical. Site Layout. No specific site layout was provided. Depending on throughput, an area of 6-20 acres would be required. Process Flow and Mass Balance. An overall process diagram is shown in Figure E-74. Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per week. Depending on the size of the facility, 35-60 staff, on four shifts, is required. Utility Requirements.

• Electricity – About 5% of the power output is required for internal requirements

• Water – no specific information



FIGURE E-74 GENERAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

1. Tipping Floor 2. Refuse Holding Pit 3. Grapple Feed Chute 4. Feed Chute 5. Martin Stoker Grate 6. Combustion Air Fan��

7. Martin Ash Discharger 8. Combustion Chamber 9. Radiant Zone (furnace) 10. Convection Zone 11. Superheater 12. Economizer

12. Dry Scrubber 13. Baghouse 14. Fly Ash Handling System 15. Induced Draft Air Fan 16. Stack��

• Wastewater – Covanta notes that its facilities are zero discharge

• Natural gas – required during start-up and shutdown E.2.3.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. The facility processes MSW as delivered, excluding hazardous waste and any recycled material previously separated from the MSW. The tipping area has multiple tipping bays, where the MSW is off-loaded from trucks. The storage area is sized to provide sufficient MSW for operation over the weekend. Typically, three days of storage are provided. The facility is designed to draw combustion air from above the storage pit. This maintains a negative pressure in the tipping building in order to control the release of odor-causing compounds and dust. The odor-causing compounds are then destroyed in the combustion process. MSW is transferred by one of two overhead cranes (one is used for peak delivery periods and as a stand-by) to the feed hoppers and chutes of the furnace, as described below.



Recovered Recyclables. No recyclables are removed or recovered from the inlet MSW. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No residue is removed from the delivered MSW. E.2.3.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The facility typically incorporates 2-4 identical, parallel combustion/emission control trains to process the MSW. Individual trains are designed to process from 150-1,000 tons/day of MSW, by widening the train to accept more stoker grate runs. Covanta facilities larger than 1,200-1,300 tons/day use at least three trains. Facilities larger than 3,000 tons/day (1 million tons/year) require at least four trains. Systems are designed to process as-delivered MSW with differing moisture contents ranging from 3,000 Btu/lb to over 6,000 Btu/lb. On average, the MSW they process has a heating value of 3,000-6,000 Btu/lb. An overhead crane mixes the waste in the pit and lifts it up into a feed chute leading to the furnace. From the feed chute, waste is pushed by hydraulic ram feeders onto a stoker grate. The grate is sloped downward and is composed of alternate rows of fixed and moving grate bars. The grate is comprised of individual grate runs across its width, with each grate run having a separate hydraulic feed ram, gate actuation system, residue discharge roller and combustion air distribution system. The grate bars are made from wear-resistant and heat-proof cast steel with a high chromium content. The reverse-reciprocating action of the Martin grate pushes the MSW upward against the natural downward movement of the MSW at a rate of 30 to 50 strokes/hour. This agitates the fuel bed continuously in a manner that causes the MSW to burn from the bottom of the MSW bed, to ensure complete burnout of combustible matter. A photo of the grate system is shown in Figure E-75. In longitudinal direction, the grate is subdivided into several zones, which are individually supplied with primary combustion air. This system forms a high air resistance thus ensuring uniform distribution of the combustion air over the surface of each grate zone. This results in consistent low emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and complex organic compounds. Secondary (overfire) combustion air (about 35% of the total combustion air) is injected at high pressure at the front and rear wails of the combustion chamber, providing intense mixing, turbulence and burn-out, with combustion gases at a temperature greater than 1,830ºF above the burning MSW. In order to ensure burnout of low-Btu or high moisture MSW, steam-heat combustion air heaters are provided, preheating the combustion air up to 300ºF.



FIGURE E-75 MARTIN GRATE SYSTEM

The action of the grate system is shown in Figure E-76.

FIGURE E-76 ACTION OF MARTIN GRATE SYSTEM

Each stoker is provided with two Martin ash dischargers. Bottom ash slowly moves to the end of the grate where it falls into the water quench trough of the ash discharger. A hydraulic ram pushes the ash up an inclined chute fitted with a vibrator. This action serves to drain the water from the bottom ash. The bottom ash falls onto the main conveyor, where it flows through a grizzly to remove large materials, which are then conveyed separately to the



bottom ash storage area. Magnetic and eddy current separators are used for recovery of metals. Fly ash from the boiler and economizer, and emission control system reaction products, are mixed with the bottom ash for co-disposal in a landfill. Combined fly ash and bottom ash typically account for 10% of the volume and 25% of the weight of the inlet MSW. In the furnace, the residence time of the gases is at least one second at 1,800ºF. The heat from the combustion process converts water inside the steel tubes that form the furnace walls and boilers, to steam. The superheater further heats the steam to 825ºF and 865 psi before it is sent to a steam turbine generator to produce electricity. Furnace walls above the grate surface are protected from high temperature corrosion by application of silicon carbide tile and gunite refractory coating to a height of about 30 feet. This reduces furnace wall temperatures and fouling. In the convection and superheater sections of the boiler, stainless steel tube shields are used on the initial tube rows that face the gas flow. This protects the tubes from corrosion and/or erosion. An extensive emission control system is provided for removal/reduction of air emissions. Processes and equipment include: • Injection of ammonia into a specific temperature region in the boiler for initiation of

Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) for reduction of NOx emissions

• Injection of activated carbon to control mercury emissions

• A dry scrubber, with lime slurry injection, for removal of acid gases such as SO2 and HCl

• A fabric filter (baghouse) for removal of the reaction products from the scrubber, as well as particulate matter in the flue gas

In the SNCR system, aqueous ammonia is injected into the first pass of the boiler, converting NOx to nitrogen and water. Activated carbon is then injected into the flue gas, after the economizer, for removal of vaporized mercury. The flue gases then enter the dry scrubber, where the flue gases are contacted with a spray of lime slurry droplets. The acid gases are neutralized as the droplets dry, leaving a particulate for collection in the high-efficiency fabric filter. More than 99% of the particulate matter is removed. Captured fly ash falls into hoppers and is transported by an enclosed conveyor system to the ash discharger where it is wetted to prevent dust, and mixed with the bottom ash. The ash mixture is disposed of in a landfill. Overall diversion from landfill is typically 80%, including the recovery of metals from the bottom ash.



E.2.3.2.4 Power Generation System. The power generation system incorporates the boiler, as described above, and a steam turbine generator. In the submittal, Covanta provided basic cost information on a 329,000 tons/year facility. Using the information provided by Covanta on its existing facilities, this would likely have a power output of about 24 gross MW/23 net MW. The facility would be expected to provide the following performance: • 550 net kWh/ton of feedstock

• 14 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity E.2.3.3 Product Analysis E.2.3.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The facility would produce electricity and recovered metals. Bottom ash, fly ash, and reaction products from the emission control system would be mixed and disposed of in a landfill. E.2.3.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-produced renewable electricity, as well as for recovered metals. E.2.3.4 Environmental Issues E.2.3.4.1 Air Emissions. Odor control is accomplished by drawing combustion air from the tipping area, and the odor-causing compounds are destroyed in the furnace. The emission control system reduces emissions of NOx, mercury, acid gases, and particulate matter through the use of: • Aqueous ammonia injection for SNCR, reducing NOx emissions

• Activated carbon injection for removal of vaporized mercury

• Lime spray dryer for removal of acid gases, such as SO2 and HCl

• Fabric filter, for removal of particulate matter, including fly ash and reaction products from the spray dryer

E.2.3.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. Covanta notes that its facilities are zero discharge. E.2.3.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. Bottom ash, fly ash, and reaction products from the emission control system are mixed together and disposed of in a landfill. E.2.3.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The 275’ stack would likely be a viewshed issue. The Covanta technology coverts the post-source separated MSW into renewable electricity,



and reduces the overall mass of the MSW going to landfill by 80%, including the metals recovered from the bottom ash E.2.3.5 Costs and Revenues The submittal notes that Covanta did not price a small capacity facility. They would provide more detailed information if given more specific data in the context of an RFP. Once debt service is fixed, Covanta guarantees a fixed O&M fee. Since Covanta did not propose a specific-sized facility, no cost data is available for a thorough economic evaluation. Covanta did note that:

“If for example, a 1,000 TPD/329,000 TPY plant costs $20 million a year in debt service and $10 million a year in operating costs, the $30 million in costs is offset by approximately $5 million if electricity is purchased at 3 cents/kwh. This nets to approximately $25 million in disposal fees, or roughly $75 per ton of waste processed. Every penny of additional energy revenues will reduce the tipping fee approximately $5/ton, by this example.” Using this basic data, a cost analysis for this size facility is presented in Table E-36.

TABLE E-36 COST ANALYSIS OF 329,000 TONS/YEAR FACILITY

Provided by Covanta Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment

Capital Cost Not provided Not provided Capital Cost, $/TPY Not provided Not provided Annual O&M $10 million $10 million Disposal of Bottom Ash and Fly Ash

No data No data


$20 million $20 million

Total Annual Costs $30 million $30 million Revenues from Sale of Electricity

Not provided $10.86 million At 550 net kWh/ton @ $0.06/kWh


Not provided $792,068 Assume 50% recovery of metals, at 9.63% of inlet MSW, at $50/ton

Total Annual Revenues Not provided $11.65 million Annual Revenues-Costs Not provided ($18.35 million) Tipping Fee Not provided $55.78/ton Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee

$55.78/ton Assumes all costs already considered.



E.2.3.6 Assessment Summary As noted previously, Covanta did not submit complete information for a specific-sized facility. However, with 25 full-scale facilities in operation, they were able to provide detailed information on their process, and basic cost information. Given this successful, long-term operation, there are no significant technical issues. Since Covanta presently mixes the bottom ash with the fly ash and emission control system residues, the bottom ash becomes contaminated. The submittal notes that, if desired, the bottom ash could be isolated. This may allow for its recovery and re-use as a road base or construction material, as is done in Europe. In that case, the diversion from landfill could be further increased. Performance. With a production of 550 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a moderate “efficiency” rating compared to other evaluated thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Arrow Ecology


E.3 BIOCONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES E.3.1 Arrow Ecology E.3.1.1 Technology Overview E.3.1.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. The company was founded in 1975 as Hydro-Power Services Ltd., and the name changed to Arrow Ecology, Ltd. in 1991. The specific respondent firm, Arrow Ecology & Engineering Overseas (1999) Ltd., like its parent Arrow Ecology, is a privately held for-profit corporation headquartered in Haifa, Israel. The companies are represented in the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Spain, Australia, Mexico, and other countries. The parent company web site is: www.arrowecology.com; the web site specifically for the ArrowBio Process is: www.arrowbio.com. Arrow Ecology Ltd. (Certified ISO 2002) is a professional environmental services and contracting/implementation company providing a comprehensive full service approach to environmental problems and regulatory compliance. The company offers a wide range of environmental and industrial services. The company’s financial condition is good; a supportive statement from Bank Leumi was provided. Firm: Arrow Ecology and Engineering Overseas (1999) Ltd.

Technology: The ArrowBio Process

Principal Contact: Melvin S. Finstein

Address: Arrow Ecology, Ltd. 105 Carmel Road Wheeling, WV 26003-1505 USA E.3.1.1.2 Technology Overview. Arrow Ecology has patented the ArrowBio process for anaerobic digestion of solid waste. The waste is first subjected to a wet preprocessing chain to remove recyclables and undesirable compounds. In fact, the first preprocessing step consists of submerging the waste. The conversion feed resulting from this process goes into an acetogenic reactor for a brief time. The dissolved and suspended effluent from that reactor is led to a wastewater digester, of the UASB type (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket). Liquid effluent can be cleaned up to high quality irrigation water.



E.3.1.1.3 Reference Plants. The existing and planned Arrow Ecology plants as of October 2004 are shown in Table E-37.

TABLE E-37 ARROW ECOLOGY REFERENCE FACILITIES

Throughput

City Country Metric

ktons/yr US short tons/yr

US short tons/day * Feed Startup

Hadera 1 Israel <6 <7 Up to 33 MSW Early 1990’s Tel Aviv Israel 20 23,500 90 MSW Dec. 2003 Tel Aviv (planned) Israel 63 70,000 268 MSW Future

* 261 days/year. 1 This was the technology development facility; it was closed in 2002.

E.3.1.1.4 Commercial Status. The first and only commercial facility has been in operation since January 2003. Its conversion module is sized for 70,000 tpy MSW delivered, but the facility is only operating a 24,000 tpy because the available footprint only leaves room for one preprocessing module at this time. Considering this, we feel that the technology has passed the demonstration stage, but is still in the early commercialization stages. E.3.1.2 Detailed Technology Description E.3.1.2.1 Description of Conceptual Facility. Facility Overview. The post-source separated MSW is dropped onto a tipping floor, from where it is pushed into a vat of recirculated water. MSW components are separated gravitationally in the vat. From then on, most of the preprocessing occurs in water. During preprocessing, some recyclables are recovered, and undesirable residue is removed. The resulting conversion feed is introduced into an acidogenic reactor where it spends a few hours. From there, it is pumped to the UASB digesters to be biogasified. The digester operates at approximately 4% dry matter. A large inventory of water is recirculated between the various processes. Recovered solids will be marketed as compost.

Arrow Ecology estimates that it would take 25 months from award to deliver a fully functioning facility, with the following phases: • Engineering: 6 months



• Construction: 12 months

• Startup-Testing: 4 months

• Acceptance: 3 months Site Layout. No specific layout was provided, but an isometric view was included in the response, see Figure E-77.

FIGURE E-77 3-D ISOMETRIC VIEW

Process Flow and Mass Balance. The process flow is summarized in Figure E-78. In Table E-38, the mass balance of the facility is summarized as mass percent of the delivered MSW.



FIGURE E-78 ARROW ECOLOGY FLOW DIAGRAM

1. Receiving moving floor & inspector. 16. Second chance for Inorganic materials and balancing of liquid. 2. Pre-sorting pool and dumping elements. 17. Liquid reservoir and pumps to Biological Sub-System. a. Heavy stream moving floor. 20. From hydro-mechanical sub-system. b. Light stream moving floor. 21. Acidogenic reactor no.1. 3. Drum and bag opener. 22. Acidogenic reactor no.2. 4. Magnet system. 23. Heater. 5. Eddy current system. 24. Methanogenic reactor no.1. 6. Manual sorting of glass, stones, and textiles. 25. Methanogenic reactor no. 2 and biogas reservoir. 7. Glass, stones and textiles containers. 26. Solids – liquids separator. 8. Second chance for organics in heavy stream. 27. Water separator and balance tank. 9. Rough shredder. 28. Water treatment and reservoir. 10. Air system for plastics removal. 29. Water reservoir. 11. Manual separation of different plastics. 30. To hydro-mechanical sub-system. 12. Plastics containers. 31. Biogas generator. 13. Hydro-crusher for biodegradable organics. 32. Biogas torch. 14. Filtering of inorganic residue materials. 33. Filter-press for fertilizer. 15. Reservoir for liquids and residue Inorganic materials.



TABLE E-38 ARROW ECOLOGY SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

MSW delivered 100% Recovered recyclables 15% Conversion throughput 60% Compost 23% Landfilled residue (from pre- and post-processing) 19% Net water production 6% Diversion rate 81%

Note that the outputs of the balance do not total 100 percent, because it does not include the mass converted to biogas or the mass evaporated during aerobic maturation. Under the assumptions for the worst-case scenario discussed in Section 5, the diversion rate decreases to 59 percent. The different process steps are described in the following sections. Operation and Maintenance. The biogas production of the ArrowBio facility is continuous (24/7). However, waste reception and processing occur on a 5-day per week schedule, two shifts per day. There is no downtime on the digester itself; it is designed to operate without interruption for a decade or more. Mechanical equipment, such as conveyor belts, shredder, generators, etc. has a maintenance schedule including scheduled downtime. For most of this equipment (for example, the generators), there is sufficient redundancy built in that the process can continue uninterrupted while one of a set of parallel pieces is stopped for maintenance. In cases where the entire process is interrupted (for example, shredder maintenance), there is enough capacity in the system to process that day’s material flow during the two shifts. In case of major generator malfunction, the biogas can be flared. The staffing consists of a first shift of 13 and a second shift of 9. This would result in a total of 22 employees, but in that case the average loaded annual labor cost is only $22,000 ($10.4/hour). In the pro forma, however, they list $30,000/year ($14.4/hr) as their average loaded labor cost per employee. Utility Requirements. Electricity. The facility will produce 29 million kWh per year and will need 6.5 million kWh per year, equivalent to a 22 percent internal power load. The facility will use that fraction of the power it generates to satisfy all its power needs. A temporary external power supply may be needed during startup.



Polymer. The facility will use 1300 pounds of polymer per year to aid in dewatering effluent. Water. The facility will not require any potable water.

Nutrient supplement. The facility will use approximately 20 tpy of nitrogen fertilizer, and 8 tpy of phosphorus Wastewater. The ArrowBio facility produces a fairly weak (e.g., COD/BOD = 600/70 mg/L before treatment, 50/15 after in-plant treatment) wastewater, which ArrowBio sees as a useful product, to the extent that it can be used for irrigation. The facility will produce approximately 5500 gal per day of this excess water. E.3.1.2.2 Preprocessing System. Equipment Description. A partial view of the preprocessing subsystem at the Tel Aviv reference facility is provided in Figure E-79. The delivered MSW is subjected to the following sequence of operations: • The MSW is tipped directly into a water vat, where gravitational separation occurs.

• Heavies/sinkers are separated and go through a bag breaker, magnetic removal (ferrous metals), eddy current device (non-ferrous metals) and a pneumatic (vacuum/forced draft) station from which film plastic is swept into ductwork. Removed materials are baled.

• Overflow from the water vat, screened to exclude large items, passes though smaller enclosed trommel screens and then to large and small settlers, where the grit is separated from organics and removed from the system.

• Larger floaters and buoyancy-neutral items are lifted to a slow speed shredder and then to the large trommel screen. The “overs” from this trommel consist mostly of film plastic and are removed at a pneumatic station. The “unders” (material that passed through the screen) are washed into a non-mechanical device for further solubilization and size reduction.

• The prepared organic-rich flow is pumped continuously via pipeline to the biological element.

Recovered Recyclables. Arrow Ecology projects a recyclables recovery equivalent to 15% mass percent of the MSW delivered.



FIGURE E-79 PREPROCESSING SUBSYSTEM

Inside the physical separation/preparation plant element, viewed toward the visitor entrance. The tipping platform is in back of the viewer. For scale, the railing is waist high. (Photo taken in early testing.)

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The residue removed in the preprocessing is projected to be 19% of the delivered MSW; it will probably be landfilled. E.3.1.2.3 Conversion System. An overview of the conversion subsystem at the Tel Aviv reference facility is provided on Figure E-80. The separated and prepared organic flow (“conversion feed”) first enters acidogenic bioreactors for several hours of preliminary treatment. There, readily metabolized substances already in solution are fermented (e.g., sugars fermented to alcohols), while certain complex molecules are biologically hydrolyzed to their simpler components (cellulose to sugar, fats to acetic acid). The overflow, which is rich in such intermediate metabolites and organic particles under 0.12 inch, then enters the UASB digester. A fibrous residue is recovered from the acidogenic reactors and used as a soil amendment.



FIGURE E-80 CONVERSION SUBSYSTEM

The UASB digester (Upflow Anaerobic Blanket Digester) is a high rate anaerobic digester that was developed in the 1970s by Lettinga et al. in the Netherlands to treat high strength wastewaters. A constant upward flow of water is maintained in the reactor, resulting in the formation of a stable layer of granules containing high densities of microorganisms (the sludge blanket). This is physically similar to a fluidized bed. The wastewater flows through this blanket and the organics in it are efficiently biogasified; there is usually a substantial recirculation, so the feed water flows through the blanket more than once. In the case of ArrowBio, the MSW is essentially converted into wastewater so the organics can be converted in a high efficiency UASB reactor; the operating temperature is between 95 and 110°F. The hydraulic retention time is on the order of 1 day (the solids retention time is much longer). Due to a) the nature of the process and b) the large water inventory in the system, the methane content of the biogas is higher than for a typical high solids AD system (there may be some opportunity for the CO2 to dissolve and be released at other points in the process). As a result, the biogas has a higher heat value exceeding 700 Btu/scf. Excess granules and water are transferred to a settling tank. Supernatant is pumped to the physical separation/preparation element as needed for makeup water, or to an aerobic reactor for polishing if necessary. Water may be stored or used immediately, for example in irrigation. The solids are dewatered for use as stabilized organic soil amendment.



Some of the biogas is used to fire boilers to maintain UASB digestion at an optimum temperature. Otherwise the gas fuels an electrical generator, is stored, or it is flared. Waste heat from the generator contributes to the maintenance of digestion temperature. The biogas generated at the Tel Aviv facility is very low in H2S (90 ppm), so it can be used without further treatment. E.3.1.2.4 Post-Processing. Equipment Description. The effluent from the methanogenic reactor and the solids from the acidogenic reactors are dewatered in a screw press, yielding a filter cake of approximately 30 percent dry matter (TS). This material is fully stabilized, therefore it does not undergo aerobic post-treatment, and it is used as such. The Los Angeles facility will produce approximately 45 dry tons/day of this soil amendment; the projected annual production is reported as 23,400 tons (wet). Arrow Ecology also generates a product water, which is optionally treated aerobically on site to 5-20 mg/L BOD and 28-60 mg/L COD. The daily production of this water is estimated at 5500 gallons/day. E.3.1.3 Product Analysis E.3.1.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed ArrowBio facility would produce the following useful products: • Recyclable materials (metals, plastics) (15,300 tpy)

• Electricity (2.6 MW net marketed, or 23 million kWh/year) with an efficiency of 268 kWh/ton

• Soil amendment (23,400 tpy)

• Irrigation water (5,500 gal/day or 6000 tpy) E.3.1.3.2 Markets Assessment. Arrow Ecology feels that the recycled materials will be of sufficient purity to be marketable, but there will be some contamination, so they will not command a high value ($50/ton for ferrous metals, $60/ton for non-ferrous metals, and $20/ton for plastics). There should be no problem in marketing the electricity. Note that AD offers the option of selling medium Btu gas to a nearby industrial user instead of generating electricity. It could also be purified and compressed, yielding compressed natural gas (CNG), a clean-burning automotive fuel.



The soil amendment is valued at $10/ton. Arrow Ecology is reserved about the marketability of MSW-derived composts generally. They quote Dr. Harry Hoitink, a compost authority, as saying that the production of compost from MSW has been virtually abandoned because of quality inconsistency. Arrow Ecology feels their process is the exception to this rule, that their soil amendment should be quite marketable because it will be unusually clean due to the gravity separation in a watery environment. The residue should easily pass the US EPA 503 regulations; in fact, it passes the 503 standards for Class A amendment, except for a minor cadmium exceedance. E.3.1.4 Environmental Issues E.3.1.4.1 Air Emissions. In the ArrowBio process, odor generation is prevented by rapidly submerging the feed and further processing the biodegradable material is an aqueous slurry and in closed vessels. The combustion of biogas in IC engine generators is expected to generate minor air emissions; Arrow Ecology presently complies with applicable Israeli Ministry of the Environment standards. E.3.1.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. Arrow Ecology does not view the excess water produced as a wastewater, but as a reusable resource. Their process produces unusually “clean” water usable for irrigation. The production is approximately 5500 gallons per operating day. E.3.1.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is approximately 19,000 tpy; they will probably be landfilled. E.3.1.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. AD facilities are compact and can be economical at relatively small sizes, making it possible to build decentralized small facilities, possibly co-located with the existing transfer stations and MRFs. They are virtually odorless and inherently have minimal air emissions. Finally, AD produces renewable energy, but it does so in the form of a medium Btu gas, not just electricity; biogas can be used as a boiler or turbine fuel with minimal processing; it can also be upgraded to a transportation fuel.

E.3.1.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the Arrow Ecology conceptual facility is presented in Table E-39. The following are the assumptions used to arrive at the evaluated cost and the break-even tipping fee (BETF):



TABLE E-39 COST ANALYSIS OF ARROW ECOLOGY CONCEPTUAL LOS ANGELES FACILITY

Unit

Costs provided by

vendor Evaluated

cost Reason for Adjustment Costs Capital cost US$, millions $27.00 Same $/TPD $70,470 Same $/TPY $270 Same O&M without landfilling $ Millions/year $1.23 Same O&M with landfilling $ Millions/year $1.95 $1.98 Consistency with mass

balance Debt service $ Millions/year $2.16 $2.35 Cost given assumes 50%

equity (Year 1 shown); adjusted to standard set of assumptions

Total annual costs $ Millions/year $4.11 $4.33 Revenues Sale of electricity $ Millions/year $1.31 $1.35 Adjusted to standard set

of prices Sale of recyclables $ Millions/year $0.96 $1.25 " Sale of byproducts $ Millions/year $0.00 $0.23 " Total annual revenues $ Millions/year $2.27 $2.83 Annual costs minus revenues $ Millions/year $1.84 $1.50 Break-even tipping fee (BETF) $/ton refuse delivered $18 $14 Worst case BETF $/ton refuse delivered $19

• Unmarketable residue will be landfilled; the total disposal cost will be $40/ton (hauling

plus landfill tipping fee).

• The debt service will be calculated assuming 100% debt financing at an interest rate of 6% per year and a term of 20 years.

• Electricity will be sold at 6¢/kWh.

• Solid byproduct will be sold at $10/ton.

• 50% of the ferrous metals in the post-source separated MSW will be recovered and sold at $50/ton; this recovered tonnage is equivalent to 2.0% of the delivered post-source separated MSW.

• Paper will be recovered and marketed at $75/ton; the recovered tonnage will be equivalent to 12% of the delivered post-source separated MSW.



• Plastics will be recovered and marketed at $100/ton; the recovered tonnage is equivalent to 2.5% of the delivered post-source separated MSW.

• Together, these recycled materials amount to 16.5 mass % of the delivered post-source separated MSW, or 16,500 tpy for a 100,000-tpy facility, and the resulting revenue is $1.25 million; this revenue will be the same for all vendors.

• If the vendor provided a recyclables recovery higher than 16.5%, then the tonnage difference between the vendor number and the evaluated number will be added to the residue to be landfilled at $40/ton.

• If the vendor provided a recyclables recovery lower than 16.5%, then the tonnage difference between the vendor number and the evaluated number will be subtracted from the residue to be landfilled.

• The break-even tipping fee (BETF) will be calculated by adding up the annual costs and subtracting the revenues from the sale of electricity and products, then dividing the result by the 100,000 tons of MSW delivered annually.

• To calculate the worst-case tipping fee, it will be assumed that the byproduct cannot be marketed but instead is used as landfill cover, at a net cost to the conversion facility of $10/ton.

Under these assumptions, the Arrow Ecology BETF is $21/ton. The worst-case BETF is also $21/ton. Arrow Ecology worked out a 100,000 tpy case as requested. They did not work out a case at a higher capacity, but the scale-up information they provided leads us to estimate that at 300,000 tpy the BETF would decline to $14/ton. E.3.1.6 Assessment Summary Arrow Ecology’s track record is limited: one demonstration facility (now closed), and one commercial size plant that is sized for 70,000 tpy, but only handles 25,000 tpy at present because there is only room for one preprocessing train at present, and that is all it can handle. In the SOQ and subsequent clarifications, the mass balance of the system has remained somewhat unclear. Arrow Ecology made the point that it is hard to close a mass balance in a watery system. The financial pro forma was quite elaborate. Arrow Ecology actually processes MSW; most AD plants process source-separated organics (SSO), which is a more forgiving feedstock from a mechanical standpoint. The process is essentially focused on liquefying MSW so it can be converted in a high efficiency wastewater digester (the UASB). It consists of a wet pretreatment relying partially



on gravitational separation, and resulting in a thin slurry, which is pumped to the acidogenic reactor, then to the UASB digester. The organics that reach the UASB degrade quickly due to the operational characteristics of the UASB. As a result, the digester is not as large as one would expect with an AD system running at 4% dry matter. The UASB effluent has low BOD and can be treated aerobically on site to a good quality for irrigation; apparently, the use of the UASB process results in the production of a water that is more usable than that coming from other AD systems. The biogas produced has an unusually high methane content (75%). The solid residues of the ArrowBio process will be used as soil amendments as such, without composting. Arrow Ecology claims that the digestate and acidogenic stage residue are so well stabilized that aerobic curing is unnecessary, which is surprising. Obviously the resulting product will have a low value, be it only because it has not been pasteurized. They feel that marketing MSW-derived compost will be a major challenge, which may be true for Los Angeles at present; on the other hand, European AD operators manage to sell their MSW-derived compost. Yet Arrow Ecology argues that in contrast to other AD vendors, they will produce a superior compost; this claim is based on microscopic examination of acidogenic stage fibers, not overall appearance, or examination of the digestate. Their gross methane yield is very high (2.03 MMBtu/ton back bin waste delivered), which is surprising for a two-phase process in which one would expect that a substantial amount of organics bypass the bioconversion. They project an internal electricity load of only 20% of the gross biogas production, which is low; it is not substantiated. Arrow Ecology is fairly optimistic about recyclables recovery. Facility area requirements are very low, but it is unclear what this is based on since no layout is provided, just a 3-D isometric view without a scale. The capital cost of the conceptual facility is very low (the lowest of all respondents), but no cost detail is provided; they do explain that all their equipment will be off-the-shelf. Labor cost assumptions are unclear but seem low (either $10.4 or $14.4/hr/employee, loaded). They provide a more detailed financial pro forma than other bioconversion respondents; it assumes a 50/50 debt equity ratio. They clearly have the lowest break-even tipping fee (BETF) of the biological process respondents. Contributing to this low cost are a) low debt service costs resulting from a low capital cost, b) a very low annual O&M cost estimate (the lowest of all bioconversion respondents), c) a high methane yield (the highest of all), combined with d) the lowest internal power load.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Organic Waste Systems NV


E.3.2 Organic Waste Systems NV E.3.2.1 Technology Overview E.3.2.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Organic Waste Systems (OWS) is a stock company under Belgian law, constituted in 1988 with a capital of 1.2 million Euros, and specialized in biological treatment of solid and semisolid wastes. OWS has 40 employees and historical revenue of about 10 million Euros per year, although revenues are expected to rise to 15 to 18 million Euros (20 to 25 million U.S. Dollars) in 2004 and 2005 due to the construction of several new facilities (see Section 1.3). OWS developed the DRANCO process. It converts solid and semi-solid organic waste into renewable energy, biogas, and a stable humus-like end product. The conversion takes place in closed digesters under anaerobic conditions, and the biogas is collected and used as an energy source. OWS has constructed several DRANCO plants worldwide. Firm: Organic Waste Systems

Technology: DRANCO (DRy ANaerobic COmposting)

Throughputs: 100,000 tons/year and (300,000 tons/year – after receiving the initial response from the RFQ, additional information was requested for higher throughputs to examine economy of scale. This information is included in Section 5, Table 5-3.)

Principal Contact: Luc De Baere, Managing Director

Address: Organic Waste Systems NV Dok Noord 4 B-9000 Gent Belgium

E.3.2.1.2 Technology Overview. OWS has patented the DRANCO (DRy ANaerobic COmposting) anaerobic digestion process. In this process, the digester feed is mixed with a large amount of recirculating digester effluent. The resulting mix is pumped to the top of the cylindrical digester where it is introduced into the digester. The contents have approximately 40 percent dry matter; they make their way down through the digester in a few days. Subsequently, most of the contents are recirculated to the top, so that the average residence time of the feed is 3 to 4 weeks. The fraction of the effluent removed from the digester (digestate) is aerobically matured using a static pile process and sold as compost. E.3.2.1.3 Reference Plants. The existing and planned OWS plants as of October 2004 are shown in Table E-40. A typical facility is shown on Figure E-81. URS inspected the OWS Brecht II facility on October 18, 2004. URS reported its observations to the City in late 2004.



TABLE E-40 OWS REFERENCE FACILITIES

Throughput

City Country Metric

Ktons/Yr US Short Tons/Yr

US Short Tons/Day* Feed Startup

Existing Brecht I1 Belgium 20 22,051 84 Biowaste2 & waste paper 1992 Salzburg Austria 20 22,051 84 Biowaste 1993 Bassum Germany 14 14,884 57 Grey waste3 1997 Aarberg Switzerland 11 12,128 46 Biowaste 1998 Kaiserslautern Germany 20 22,051 84 Grey Waste 1999 Villeneuve Switzerland 10 11,025 42 Biowaste 1999 Brecht II Belgium 50 55,127 211 Biowaste/waste paper 2000 Alicante Spain 30 33,076 127 Mixed waste 2002 Rome Italy 40 44,101 169 Mixed waste 2003 In Construction/Design Leonberg Germany 30 33,076 127 Biowaste 2004 Hille Germany 38 41,896 161 Grey waste & dewatered sludge 2005 Terrassa Spain 25 27,563 106 Biowaste 2005 Münster Germany 24 26,461 101 Grey waste 2005 Pusan South Korea 75 82,690 317 Food waste and paper sludge 2005 Vitoria Spain 20 22,051 84 Mixed waste 2006 * 261 days/year. 1 Will reopen in 2005. 2 Biowaste is synonymous with source-separated organics (SSO). 3 Grey waste = post-recycling MSW (similar to post-source separated MSW).

The information collected during this visit was taken into account in writing the present report. E.3.2.1.4 Commercial Status. As can be seen from Table E-40, several facilities are operating, and several more are being built. The resulting overall processing capacity for OWS is as follows: • Total existing capacity: 236,500 US tons/year (tpy)

• Capacity under construction: 233,700 US tpy

• Total projected capacity by 2006: 470,200 US tpy The first DRANCO demonstration facility was started up in 1984, and the first commercial unit in 1992, so the technology is commercially and technologically mature.



FIGURE E-81 BRECHT II FACILITY (FOREGROUND); BRECHT I IS IN THE BACKGROUND

E.3.2.2 Detailed Technology Description E.3.2.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. The post-source separated MSW will be dropped onto a tipping floor, where it will be pushed to a feed mechanism to enter preprocessing. During preprocessing, some recyclables will be recovered, and undesirable residue will be removed. The resulting conversion feed will be mixed with recirculated digester effluent, and the resulting mix will be injected at the top of the digester. The biogas will be converted to electricity in a set of IC engine generators. The final effluent from the digester will be subjected to pulping and fine mesh wet screening. The fine material will be matured for 2 weeks in a static pile to produce a marketable compost. OWS provided a two-year schedule of implementation (Figure E-82).



FIGURE E-82 SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION, OWS DRANCO FACILITY

Site Layout. A possible layout was provided covering an area of 4.5 acres. If there are severe area constraints, OWS can probably shrink the footprint to 3 acres. Process Flow and Mass Balance. The process flow is summarized in Figure E-83. The mass balance is not shown because the supplier has indicated this information to be confidential.

FIGURE E-83 PROPOSED OWS FACILITY: PROCESS FLOW

Posttreatment



In Table E-41, the mass balance of the facility is summarized as mass percent of the delivered MSW.

TABLE E-41 OWS DRANCO SUMMARY MASS BALANCE


Note that the outputs of the balance do not total 100 percent, because it does not include the mass converted to biogas or the mass evaporated during aerobic maturation. Under the assumptions for the worst-case scenario discussed in Section 5, the diversion rate decreases to 33 percent. The different process steps are described in the following sections. Operation and Maintenance. The biogas production of the DRANCO facility is continuous (24/7). However, waste reception and processing occur on a 5 day per week schedule, two shifts per day. There is no downtime on the digester itself; it is designed to operate without interruption for a decade or more. Mechanical equipment, such as conveyor belts, shredder, generators, etc. have a maintenance schedule including scheduled downtime. For most of this equipment (for example, the generators), enough redundancy is built in that the process can continue uninterrupted while one of a set of parallel pieces is stopped for maintenance. In cases where the entire process is interrupted (for example, shredder maintenance), there is enough capacity in the system to process that day's material flow during the two shifts. Should the interruption be longer than 1 day, the tipping floor can stockpile three days worth of arriving MSW to be processed later. In case of major generator malfunction, the biogas can be flared. Staffing: 5 employees per shift, total staff of 12; OWS assumes an average loaded labor rate of $50,000/yr or $25/hr. Utility Requirements. Electricity. The facility will produce 17 million kilowatt hours (kWh) per year and will need 4.8 million kWh per year, equivalent to a 28 percent internal power load. The facility will use



that fraction of the power it generates to satisfy all its power needs. A temporary external power supply may be needed during startup. Polymer. The facility will use 93 tons of polymer per year to aid in dewatering effluent. Water. The facility will use 5000 gal of potable water per day (365 days per year) for the flocculant unit and the steam generator. Iron chloride. The facility will use approximately 1300 TPY (5 TPD, 261 days/year) of iron chloride, an industrial waste product. Wastewater. The facility will be operated in such a way that no net wastewater will be generated. E.3.2.2.2 Pre-processing System. Equipment Description. The delivered MSW is subjected to the following sequence of operations: • From the tipping floor, it is shoveled onto conveyors which bring it to the hammer mill

• The hammer mill reduces most of the organics to less than 1½ inches

• Ferrous metals are magnetically removed from the shredded waste

• The shredded waste is screened in a 1½-inch rotating screen; the oversize fraction is mostly non-degradable and is removed; the undersize fraction is mostly biodegradable and is conveyed to the digester’s dosing unit

• Ahead of the dosing unit, an eddy current device removes non-ferrous recyclables from the undersize material; it will now be referred to as conversion feed

Recovered Recyclables. OWS projects a recyclables recovery equivalent to 4.4 mass percent of the MSW delivered. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The residue removed in the preprocessing is projected to be 21 percent of the delivered MSW; it will probably be landfilled. E.3.2.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The conversion feed coming out of preprocessing is delivered to the dosing unit, where the following materials are mixed with it: • An amount of digester effluent approximately 6 times larger than the incoming new

conversion feed



• A small amount of iron chloride (about 5 TPD), an industrial waste material that is used to remove hydrogen sulfide from the biogas

• A small amount of low-pressure steam to warm the mix to 120 to 130°F This mix is then pumped upwards and introduced into the top of the digester. As the material works its way down the digester, it is subjected to intense anaerobic digestion at 120 to 130°F and a dry matter content of approximately 40 percent. It takes about 3-4 days for the material to arrive at the bottom of the digester. There, it is withdrawn, and a small part is removed and sent to post processing, while most of it is recirculated after being mixed with fresh feed, iron chloride, etc. As a result, the conversion feed spends an average of 25 days in the digester. For a close-up of a DRANCO digester, see Figure E-84. Two 800,000-gallon steel digesters are planned, approximately 65 feet high and 50 feet in diameter. Approximately 15,000 dry tons per year are converted to biogas (biogasified), resulting in about 950,000 scf of biogas per day (365 days per year). The gas is expected to contain about 55 percent methane, so the gross energy production is approximately 700 MMBtu/day. This gas flows into a buffer storage tank, then it is sent to blowers which convey it to the IC engine generators. Other than condensate collection, no further treatment of the gas is needed. Some of the heat of the generator’s exhaust gases is used to generate steam to preheat conversion feed in the dosing unit. E.3.2.2.4 Post-Processing. The material removed from the digester is treated by wet screening to remove small unsightly particles of plastic, glass, etc. The slurry is dewatered to 45 percent and the centrifuge cake is distributed evenly over a perforated floor where air is injected into the material to achieve static pile composting. All air exiting the compost pile is led to a biofilter for treatment. Aerobic metabolism raises the temperature to 60 to 65°C (140 to 150°F). This maturation continues for 2 weeks, after which the compost is ready for sale. Compost production is projected to be 40,000 tpy. The residue removed in the wet screening step is projected to total around 18,500 tpy. E.3.2.3 Byproduct Analysis E.3.2.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed DRANCO facility would produce the following useful products: • Recycled metals (4400 tpy)

• Electricity (1.4 megawatt [MW] net marketed, or 12 million kWh/year) with an efficiency of 116 kWh/ton

• Compost (40,000 tpy)



FIGURE E-84 DRANCO DIGESTER

E.3.2.3.2 Markets Assessment. The recycled metals will be of sufficient purity to be marketable, but there will be some contamination, so they will not command a high value. OWS estimates their value at $37.5/ton. There should be no problem in marketing the electricity. Note that AD offers the option of selling medium Btu gas to a nearby industrial user instead of generating electricity. The



biogas could also be purified and compressed, yielding compressed natural gas (CNG), a clean-burning automotive fuel. The compost is sanitized after 3-4 weeks in a digester at 130°F and at least several days at 140 to 150°F. It should be visually acceptable and is expected to meet the standards for any land application except to food crops. E.3.2.4 Environmental Issues E.3.2.4.1 Air Emissions. Odors in the facility will be contained by enclosing all operations, including MSW delivery. The buildings will be operated under a slight negative pressure to prevent odors from escaping. All the extracted air will be led to the static pile composting process and injected into the maturing compost. OWS provides a detailed rundown of possible VOCs emitted during aerobic maturation; however, the air emanating from the compost piles is led to a biofilter, which will easily destroy them. The combustion of biogas in IC engine generators is expected to generate minor air emissions, approximately 650 mg CO/m3, 500 mg NOx/m3, and 500 mg SOx/m3; the emergency flare is projected to generate lower levels, i.e., 100 mg CO/m3 and 200 mg NOx/m3. E.3.2.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The solids and water balance of the process will be controlled so as not to produce any waste water. E.3.2.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is approximately 39,000 tpy; they will probably be landfilled. Note that most of the plastic in the MSW will end up in this stream. E.3.2.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. OWS provides an estimate of noise nuisance in different parts of the facility. Outside the buildings they project a noise level of 60 dB. AD facilities are compact and can be economical at relatively small sizes, making it possible to build decentralized small facilities, possibly co-located with the existing transfer stations and MRFs. They are virtually odorless and inherently have minimal air emissions. Finally, AD produces renewable energy, but it does so in the form of a medium Btu gas, not just electricity; biogas can be used as a boiler or turbine fuel with minimal processing; it can also be upgraded to a transportation fuel. E.3.2.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the OWS conceptual facility is presented in Table E-42.



TABLE E-42 COST ANALYSIS OF OWS CONCEPTUAL LOS ANGELES FACILITY

Unit Using Costs

Provided by Vendor Evaluated

Cost Reason for Adjustment

Costs Capital cost US$, millions $40.06 Same $/TPD $104,557 Same $/TPY $401 Same O&M without landfilling $ Millions/year $3.23 Same O&M with landfilling $ Millions/year $4.79 $4.79 Debt service $ Millions/year $3.49 $3.49 Total annual costs $ Millions/year $8.29 $8.29 Revenues Sale of electricity $ Millions/year $1.52 $0.73 Adjusted to standard

set of prices Sale of recyclables $ Millions/year $0.15 $1.25 " Sale of byproducts $ Millions/year $0.23 $0.40 " Total annual revenues $ Millions/year $1.90 $2.38 Annual costs minus revenues $ Millions/year $6.39 $5.91 Break-even tipping fee (BETF) $/ton refuse delivered $64 $54 Worst case BETF $/ton refuse delivered $62

The following are the assumptions used to arrive at the evaluated cost and the break-even tipping fee (BETF): • Unmarketable residue will be landfilled; the total disposal cost will be $40/ton (hauling















Under these assumptions, the OWS BETF is $59/ton. The worst-case BETF is $62/ton. OWS worked out a case at 100,000 tpy of post-source separated MSW as requested. They did not work out a case at a higher capacity, but the scale-up estimate suggests a worst-case BETF of $45/ton at 300,000 tpy. E.3.2.6 Assessment Summary OWS has a strong track record: the first DRANCO demonstration facility was started up in 1984, and they have a substantial number of commercial facilities in operation around the world, with more in the works (see Section 1.3). OWS provided a detailed and robust SOQ that shows expertise and experience in: a) pre-treatment, b) conversion, c) post-treatment, d) power production, and e) product marketing. They have some experience processing MSW, but most of their facilities process only source-separated organics (SSO, also known as biowaste in Europe). On the other hand, OWS has patented the SORDISEP process that combines dry sorting, AD, and wet separation, and is optimized for post-recycling MSW such as post-source separated MSW. Overall, their SOQ is very credible and realistic. Considering that the post-source separated MSW is what is left after source-separation of recyclables, OWS conservatively projects a low recyclables recovery rate (4.4 percent of delivered MSW tonnage) and a low market value for those recyclables due to their low purity. It is likely that they can market this small stream of carefully removed recyclables.



Their approach appears to be to focus on quality rather that quantity, realizing the very real danger that a large stream of very commingled recyclables may not be marketable and may instead have to be landfilled. As a result of this philosophy, they have a high reject rate. This leaves them with the lowest projected diversion rate of all biological process respondents (61 percent). Under URS’ worst-case scenario, OWS’ diversion rate decreases to 33% when it is assumed that the compost will be landfilled. OWS has customized the pre- and post-treatment for LA’s post-source separated MSW; it includes sophisticated dry and wet stages, all geared towards producing a marketable compost. They understand that this should be an essential focus, and they also understand the trade-off between diversion rate and compost marketability. They project by far the greatest production of compost of all bioconversion respondents. They provided a detailed layout for their Los Angeles plant; after further questioning, they also provided the minimum footprint they could achieve (3 acres). Area and revenue estimates seem realistic. OWS assumes they can sell power at 12.5¢/kWh, which is unrealistically high. They also want to maximize automation and have a small projected staff (12 employees); their salary assumptions are reasonable. Their BETF is $59/ton, and the worst case BETF is $62/ton. OWS plans to control H2S in the biogas going to the generators by adding iron chloride, itself a waste material, to the conversion feed; this is an effective, inexpensive, and simple approach (no particular equipment needed). They plan to manage solids and water to achieve zero wastewater production.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Waste Recovery Systems, Inc. (Valorga)


E.3.3 Waste Recovery Systems, Inc. (Valorga) E.3.3.1 Technology Overview E.3.3.1.1 Description of the Technology Supplier Team. Waste Recovery Systems, Inc. (WRSI) was founded in 1992 to develop, own, and operate facilities that would beneficially process municipal solid waste (MSW) and sewage sludge, using the proprietary Valorga anaerobic digestion process. WRSI has received notification that the WRSI/Valorga International/Shaw-Emcon group has been selected by a major waste management firm to build, own, and operate a facility to process a significant daily quantity of MSW in the Western US for a period of 20 years. Shaw-Emcon will be the EPC contractor for the project, guaranteeing a fixed price construction contract and mechanical completion. Valorga International will provide a guarantee for the process. VALORGA INTERNATIONAL SAS (formerly Steinmüller Valorga Sarl) was created in December 2002, following the constitution of a new shareholding made up of the companies TECMED (Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED SA) and HESE (HESE UMWELT GmbH). Note that the original Valorga firm was founded in May 1981. Valorga International is a team of technicians, multi-field process engineers, specialized in mechanics, electricity, process control, and biology; the firm has been designing household waste treatment plants for more than 20 years. Valorga International delivers turnkey plants as general contractor or member of a consortium of construction. Valorga International also ensures the technology transfer for the public or private operators of its installations, and provides operating assistance, advice or expertise. Valorga International developed the patented Valorga process in the early 1980s. The Valorga process converts solid and semi-solid organic waste into renewable energy (biogas), and a stable humus-like end product. The conversion takes place in closed digesters under anaerobic conditions, and the biogas is collected and used as an energy source. Valorga International has constructed several Valorga plants worldwide. Responding firm: Waste Recovery Systems, Inc.

Technology: Valorga Process

Throughputs: 100,000 tons/yr and (300,000 – after receiving the initial response from the RFQ, additional information was requested for higher throughputs to examine economy of scale. This information is included in Section 5, Table 5-3.)

Principal Contact: Steven A. Morris

Address: 33655 Marlinspike Drive Monarch Beach, CA 92629-4428 USA



Technology Provider: Valorga International SAS

Principal Contact: Claude Saint-Joly

Address: Parc du Millenaire – BP 51 Montpellier (F) 34935 France E.3.3.1.2 Description of the Technology and End Products. Valorga international has patented the Valorga anaerobic digestion process. In this process, a solid or semi-solid waste feed is injected near the bottom of a cylindrical digester. The Valorga digesters have a vertical partition running from one wall across the center in the direction of the opposite side of the wall, extending over approximately 2/3 of the diameter. The waste feed is introduced on one side of the partition and is removed from a port on the other side, to ensure a minimum residence time in the digester. During their transit, the contents are mixed via pulsed injections of pressurized biogas from the bottom of the digester. Typically, the waste resides in the digester for 3 to 4 weeks, at a dry solids content of 30 to 40%. The digester effluent is dewatered, aerobically matured, and marketed as compost. E.3.3.1.3 Summary of Reference Plants. The existing and planned Valorga plants as of October 2004 are shown in Table E-43. URS inspected the Barcelona Valorga facility on October 15, 2004. URS reported its observations to the City in late 2004. The information collected during this visit was taken into account in writing the present report. E.3.3.1.4 Commercial Status. As can be seen from Table E-43, several facilities are operating, and several more are being built. The resulting overall processing capacity for Valorga is as follows: • Total existing capacity: 938,000 US tons/year (tpy)

• Capacity under construction: 552,000 US tpy

• Total projected capacity by 2006: 1,490,000 US tpy The first Valorga demonstration facility was started up in 1982, and the first commercial unit started up in 1988, so the technology is commercially and technologically mature.



TABLE E-43 VALORGA REFERENCE FACILITIES

Throughput1

City Country metric

ktons/yr US short tons/yr

US short tons/day Feed Startup

Existing Amiens France 85 93,716 328 Mixed MSW 1988 Tilburg Netherlands 52 57,332 200 Biowaste2 1994 Engelskirchen Germany 35 38,589 135 Biowaste 1998 Freiburg Germany 36 39,691 139 Biowaste 1999 Cadiz Spain 115 126,792 443 Mixed MSW 2000 Mons Belgium 56 61,411 215 Mixed MSW + Biowaste 2000 Geneva Switzerland 10 11,025 39 Biowaste 2000 La Coruna Spain 182 200,662 702 Mixed MSW + Biowaste 2001 Varennes-Jarcy France 100 110,254 386 Mixed MSW + Biowaste 2002 Bassano Italy 60 66,152 231 Mixed MSW + Biowaste 2003 Barcelona - Ecoparque II Spain 120 132,304 463 Source-sorted waste 2004 In construction/design Hannover Germany 100 110,254 386 Mixed MSW 2005 Calais France 27 29,768 104 Biowaste 2006 Beijing China 105 115,766 405 Sorted MSW 2006 Shanghai China 269 296,031 1,035 Mixed MSW + Biowaste 2006

1 Valorga uses 286 days/year. 2 Biowaste is synonymous with source-separated organics (SSO).

E.3.3.2 Detailed Technology Overview E.3.3.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. The post-source separated MSW will be dropped onto a tipping floor, where it will be pushed to a feed mechanism to enter preprocessing. During preprocessing, some recyclables will be recovered, and undesirable residue will be removed. The resulting conversion feed will be will be injected into the digesters. The biogas will be converted to electricity in a set of IC engine generators. The final effluent from the digester will be dewatered and matured for 2 weeks using an in-vessel composting process to produce marketable compost. For much of the information requested, the responder referred to Valorga’s Barcelona facility (see Figure E-85), because the conceptual Los Angeles facility would be very similar. WRSI estimates that it would take 12 to 15 months to construct the conceptual facility.



FIGURE E-85

VALORGA FACILITY IN BARCELONA; VIEW OF DIGESTERS, BUFFER GAS STORAGE, AND FLARE

Site Layout. No specific layout was provided. The responder stated that the conceptual facility for Los Angeles would be most similar to the Valorga facility in Barcelona. Respondent estimates an area requirement of 12 acres for the conceptual facility. If there are severe area constraints, WRSI can shrink the footprint to 7.4 acres. Process Flow and Mass Balance. An overview of the process flow at the Barcelona facility is provided on Figure E-86. In Table E-44, the mass balance of the facility is summarized as mass percent of the delivered MSW. Note that the outputs of the balance do not total 100 percent, because it does not include the mass converted to biogas or the mass evaporated during aerobic maturation. Under the worst-case scenario described in Section 5, the diversion rate is decreases to 55 percent.



FIGURE E-86 VALORGA BARCELONA PROCESS FLOW OVERVIEW



TABLE E-44 WRSI/VALORGA SUMMARY MASS BALANCE


The different process steps are described in the following sections. Operation and Maintenance. The biogas production of the Valorga facility is continuous (24/7). However, waste reception and processing will probably occur on a 5.5-day per week schedule (286 days/year). There is no downtime on the digesters themselves; they are designed to operate without interruption for a decade or more. Mechanical equipment, such as conveyor belts, shredder, generators, etc. has a maintenance schedule including scheduled downtime. For most of this equipment (for example, the generators), there is sufficient redundancy built in that the process continues uninterrupted while one of a set of parallel pieces is stopped for maintenance. In cases where the entire process is interrupted (for example, shredder maintenance), there is enough capacity in the system to process that day's material flow during the two shifts. Should the interruption be longer than 1 day, the tipping floor can stockpile three days worth of arriving MSW to be processed later. In case of major generator malfunction, the biogas can be flared. WRSI lists a staff of 23 employees; the average annual loaded labor rate is $46,000 per employee. Utility Requirements. Electricity. The facility is projected to produce 19 million kilowatt hours (kWh) per year and require about 30% of that for its internal power load (approximately 6 million kWh per year). The facility is expected to use 30 percent of the power it generates to satisfy all its power needs. A temporary external power supply may be needed during startup. Polymer. Design deliverable, not provided. Water. Design deliverable, not provided.



Wastewater. The facility is expected to generate approximately 11,000 gallons per business day of wastewater (13,000 tons per year). E.3.3.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. The delivered MSW is subjected to the following sequence of operations: • Initially a drum sieve bag opener with 2 meshes, 60 mm & 100 mm.

• Material <60mm is passed over a densimetric separator then to the anaerobic digestion unit.

• Material >60 and <100mm is delivered to a shredder, then to a 60 mm drum sieve, passed over a densimetric separator, and then to the anaerobic digestion unit.

Recovered Recyclables. WRSI projects a recyclables recovery equivalent to 20 mass percent of the MSW delivered. Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The residue removed in the preprocessing is projected to be 21 percent of the delivered MSW; it will probably be landfilled.

E.3.3.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The conversion feed coming out of preprocessing is delivered to a mixing chamber where process water can be added as needed, steam is injected to heat the feed, and some amount of digester effluent is added. The resulting slurry is pumped into the digester during operating hours using a robust piston pump such as those used for concrete pumping. The Valorga digester is a concrete cylinder with a vertical central inner wall that extends across two-thirds of its diameter. Valorga has extensive experience building concrete digesters and has had them in continuous operation for up to 15 years. The introduction and extraction orifices are located on the lower part of the digester on either side of this inner wall. Thus, the digesting material is forced to move around this wall, which prevents short-circuiting of the waste. A view of the Barcelona Valorga digesters is provided in Figure E-87. Valorga’s patented mixing system is pneumatic: pressurized biogas is introduced through injectors mounted in the base of the digester. The base of the digester is divided into eight sectors comprising 40 injectors each. The sectors are activated sequentially by an automated control system. The pressure of the injected biogas is approximately 120 psi. Sufficient energy is introduced through each sector to lift and mix the volume of material located above



FIGURE E-87 CLOSE-UP OF TWO OF THE THREE VALORGA DIGESTERS IN BARCELONA

it. The biogas used in the mixing process is recirculated from the gas dome at the top of each digester. A key advantage of this mixing process is that no mechanical mixing equipment is situated inside in the digester. On average, waste feed spends approximately 30 days in the digester, where it is subjected to intense anaerobic digestion.



There will be three 1.1 million-gallon steel digesters, approximately 96 feet high and 50 feet in diameter. Approximately 15,000 dry tons per year are converted to biogas (biogasified), resulting in about 980,000 scf of biogas per day (365 days per year). The gas is expected to contain about 55 percent methane, so the gross energy production is approximately 540 MMBtu/day. This gas flows into a buffer storage tank, and then it is sent to blowers, which convey it to the IC engine generators. Other than chilling and condensate collection, no further treatment of the gas is needed. Some of the heat of the exhaust gases is used to generate steam to preheat conversion feed in the mixing chamber. E.3.3.2.4 Post-Processing. Equipment Description. The digester effluent flows out by gravity to a set of parallel screw presses; the filtrate from the screw presses is further treated in centrifuges with polymer injection. The combined liquid recovered from the screw presses and the centrifuges is used partially for feed dilution, and the remainder is discharged as wastewater. All recovered solids (press cake and centrifuge solids) go to aerobic composting, which is conducted for 2 weeks in enclosed tunnel composters. After the aerobic treatment, the compost is post-processed, including screening and separation steps to remove undesirable components, and the finished compost is marketed. Compost production is projected to be approximately 20,000 tpy. E.3.3.3 Product Analysis E.3.3.3.1 Summary of Products Generated. The conceptual Valorga facility would produce the following useful products: • Recycled materials (20,000 tpy)

• Electricity (1.5 megawatt (MW) net marketed, or 13 million kWh/year) with an efficiency of 138 kWh/ton

• Compost (20,000 tpy) E.3.3.3.2 Markets Assessment. WRSI estimates that the average price for the recycled materials will be $31/ton. There should be no problem in marketing the electricity. Note that AD offers the option of selling medium Btu gas to a nearby industrial user instead of generating electricity. It could



also be purified and compressed to produce compressed natural gas (CNG), a clean-burning automotive fuel. The compost is sanitized after 3-4 weeks in a digester and at least several days at 140°-150ºF in the aerobic maturation stage. It should be visually acceptable and is expected to meet the standards for any land application except to food crops. E.3.3.4 Environmental Issues E.3.3.4.1 Air Emissions. Enclosing all operations, including MSW delivery, will contain odors in the facility. The buildings will be operated under a slight negative pressure to prevent odors from escaping. All the extracted air will be treated. The combustion of biogas in IC engine generators is expected to generate minor emissions of CO, NOx, and SOx/m3; WRSI foresees no problem in complying with event the strictest air emissions standards. E.3.3.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. Approximately 11,000 gallons per day of wastewater will be produced. Based on the composition of the waste to the digesters, the facility may operate a wastewater pre-treatment system for processing wastewater. Any treated wastewater would be expected to be discharged to the local sanitary sewer system and will comply with all applicable pre-treatment regulations. Furthermore, the facility will be jointly regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and will ensure compliance with all Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR). E.3.3.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is approximately 21,000 tpy; it will probably be landfilled. E.3.3.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. Many of the problems pertaining to noise, litter, and dust are regulated at the local city or township level. Because anaerobic digestion is an enclosed process, no fugitive odors, litter or dust will be experienced as a result of operating the digesters. Emissions in violation of Section 41700 of the Health and Safety Code are not expected from this facility. AD facilities are compact and can be economical at relatively small sizes, making it possible to build decentralized small facilities, possibly co-located with the existing transfer stations and MRFs. They are virtually odorless and inherently have minimal air emissions. Finally, AD produces renewable energy, but it does so in the form of a medium Btu gas, not just electricity; biogas can be used as a boiler or turbine fuel with minimal processing; it can also be upgraded to a transportation fuel.



To illustrate the fact that AD can be a good neighbor, WRSI cites the Valorga facility in Freiburg, Germany, which is within the city limits, in a commercial zone, on an important thoroughfare, and within 100 ft of a Burger King restaurant (See Figure E-88).

FIGURE E-88 VALORGA DIGESTER IN FREIBURG, GERMANY

E.3.3.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the Valorga conceptual facility is presented in Table E-45. The following are the assumptions used to arrive at the evaluated cost and the break-even tipping fee (BETF): • Unmarketable residue will be landfilled; the total disposal cost will be $40/ton (hauling








TABLE E-45 COST ANALYSIS OF WRSI/VALORGA CONCEPTUAL LOS ANGELES

FACILITY

Unit

Using costs provided

by vendor Evaluated

cost Reason for Adjustment Costs Capital cost US$, millions $33 Same $/TPD $87,200 Same $/TPY $334 Same O&M without landfilling $ Millions/year $2.10 Same O&M with landfilling $ Millions/year $3.02 Same

Debt service $ Millions/year $2.91 $2.91 Adjusted to standard set of assumptions Total annual costs $ Millions/year $5.85 $5.93 Revenues Sale of electricity $ Millions/year $0.67 $0.81 Adjusted to standard set of prices Sale of recyclables $ Millions/year $0.61 $1.25 Adjusted to standard set of prices Sale of byproducts $ Millions/year $0.11 $0.19 Adjusted to standard set of prices Total annual revenues $ Millions/year $1.40 $2.25 Annual costs minus revenues $ Millions/year $4.45 $3.68 Break-even tipping fee (BETF) $/ton refuse delivered $45 $38 Worst case BETF $/ton refuse delivered N/A $42

* Valorga uses 286 days/year • Paper will be recovered and marketed at $75/ton; the recovered tonnage will be

equivalent to 12% of the delivered post-source separated MSW.









Under these assumptions, the Valorga BETF is $36/ton. The worst-case BETF is $43/ton. E.3.3.6 Assessment Summary Valorga International has a strong track record. It has designed AD facilities for 20 years, and a dozen commercial plants are operating successfully in the world; more facilities are in the works. They appear to have the largest worldwide processing capacity of any solid waste AD manufacturer. Valorga has substantial experience processing MSW, although most of their facilities process SSO. However, the SOQ submitted is technically and financially weak, and it is incomplete; Valorga was overwhelmed with proposal preparation and they and their partner WRSI could not devote much time to the SOQ. Weaknesses of the WRSI/Valorga SOQ include:

• WRSI apparently has no substantial experience marketing compost in the US.

• The minimum area requirement is substantial (at least 7.4 acres), but no layout was provided to back up that estimate.

• WRSI projects the highest recovery of recyclables of all biological process respondents (20% of delivered MSW), but little detail of the preprocessing is provided to back up this impressive claim.

• The energy data provided are comparatively simplistic.

• The facility capital cost without the cost of land is quite low ($26 million), but is not backed up.

• No attempt was made to customize the process to Los Angeles’ post-source separated MSW.

In summary, the quality of Valorga’s response to the City’s RFQ did not appear to be consistent with Valorga’s international reputation and expertise.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Canada Composting, Inc.


E.3.4 Canada Composting, Inc. E.3.4.1 Technology Overview E.3.4.1.1 Description of the Technology Supplier Team. CCI is a privately held, Canadian based (Toronto, Ontario) company incorporated in 1994 that designs, builds, owns, sells and operates, in any combination, resource recovery plants for processing the organic fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). CCI has approximately 45 shareholders having invested $8 Million Canadian since it was founded in 1992. Firm: Canada Composting, Inc. (CCI)

Technology: BTA process

Throughputs: 100,000 tons/year and (300,000 – after receiving the initial response from the RFQ, additional information was requested for higher throughputs to examine economy of scale. This information is included in Section 5, Table 5-3.)

Principal Contact: Kevin Matthews, President and CEO

Address: Canada Composting, Inc. (CCI) 390 Davis Drive, Suite 301 Newmarket, ON L3Y 7T8 Canada The technology that forms the nucleus of CCI’s solutions is the patented BTA Process. This is a German technology that combines sophisticated waste pre-treatment and separation techniques with advanced anaerobic digestion. BTA is a world leader in biological recycling processes and has 26 plants operating globally that use its technology. CCI owns the exclusive license rights for the technology deployment into the Canadian and USA markets and has installed the world’s largest BTA facility in Newmarket, ON. In addition to the BTA Process, CCI brings together existing processes and techniques that allow beneficial utilization of the three primary outputs of the BTA process, which are: • Solids: Aerobic composting to produce compost/soil amendment

• Liquids: Treatment to produce acceptable liquids for land application, or sewer discharge

• Biogas: Cogeneration to produce clean, renewable electricity and heat



E.3.4.1.2 Description of the Technology and End Products. CCI holds the exclusive license for the BTA process in Canada and the U.S. The BTA process is a solid waste AD process that was developed in Germany in the 1980s. Its particularities include the use of wet pulping to prepare the facility feed for anaerobic digestion. This converts the feed into a slurry, which is pumped to the anaerobic digester. The latter is operated in the liquid phase; various digester designs are used. Generally, the digester effluent is dewatered, aerobically matured, and marketed as compost. CCI has installed the world’s largest BTA process plant in Newmarket, ON; additionally, CCI has installed and is presently operating a second plant in Toronto. E.3.4.1.3 Summary of Reference Plants. The existing and planned CCI and BTA plants as of October 2004 are shown in Table E-46. A typical facility is shown on Figure E-89. E.3.4.1.4 Commercial Status. Based on the data summarized in Table E-46, the commercial status of CCI and BTA’s technology can be summarized as follows: • Total existing capacity

��CCI facilities 160,000 tpy

��Other BTA facilities 262,000 tpy

��CCI + BTA 421,000 tpy • In construction 155,000 tpy

• Total, existing + in construction 577,000 tpy

• Facilities using BTA preprocessing only 214,000 tpy The first BTA demonstration facility was started up in 1986, and the first commercial unit in 1991. CCI installed and is operating two facilities in Canada, including the world’s largest BTA facility, also one of the world’s largest solid waste AD facilities (130,000 TPY, startedup in 2000). This indicates that the BTA technology is commercially and technologically mature and that CCI has strong full-scale experience. On the other hand, CCI/BTA’s experience is almost entirely with SSO, as opposed to MSW or post-recycling waste similar to the post-source separated MSW. In fact, CCI strongly recommends that an SSO strategy be pursued and prefers to process SSO; they also state that the BTA process is designed to process organic waste with less than 20% contamination.



TABLE E-46 CCI – BTA REFERENCE FACILITIES > 10,000 TPY

Throughput

City Country Metric



Existing, CCI Newmarket, ON (Halton Recycling)

Canada 120 132,304 507 Commercial and industrial organics, SSO

2000

Toronto ON (Dufferin) Canada 25 27,563 106 SSO & commercial organics

2002

Existing, BTA Process Helsingor (Elsinore)1 Denmark 20 22,051 84 Biowaste 1991 Dietrichsdorf, Kelheim District Germany 20 22,051 84 Commercial &

residential SSO 1995

Brunnthal (Munich) Germany 25 27,343 105 Residential SSO 1996 Karlsruhe Germany 12 13,230 51 Residential SSO 1996 Erkheim, District Unterallgau Germany 12 12,679 49 Biowaste, commercial

waste 1997

Wadern-Lockweiler Germany 20 22,051 84 Biowaste, commercial waste

1998

Mertingen, District Donau-Ries Germany 12 13,230 51 Agricultural waste, biowaste

2001

Villacidro, Sardinia Italy 45 49,614 190 Mixed waste incl. sewage biosolids

2002

Ieper (Ypres) Belgium 50 55,127 211 Biowaste 2003 Mulheim, a.d. Ruhr Germany 22 24,256 93 Biowaste 2003 Existing, Using BTA Pre-Treatment Technology Schwabach Germany 12 13,230 51 Biowaste 1996 Munster Germany 20 22,051 84 Biowaste 1997 Wels Austria 15 16,538 63 Biowaste 1997 Kirchstockach (Munich) Switzerland 20 22,051 84 Biowaste 1997 Pulawy Poland 22 24,256 93 Mixed waste 2001 Verona Italy 70 77,178 296 Mixed waste 2002 Parramatta/Sydney Australia 35 38,589 148 Commercial waste,

organic sludges 2003

Schwabach Germany 12 13,230 51 Biowaste 1996 In Construction Pamplona Spain 100 110,254 422 Sieved mixed waste 2005 Krosno Poland 30 33,076 127 Biowaste, commercial

waste 2005

Alghoba Libya 11 12,128 46 Mixed waste ? Biogaspark Austria Contract for four

500-kW plants ?

* 261 days/year. 1 Temporarily offline.



FIGURE E-89 130,000 TPY CCI FACILITY IN NEWMARKET, ON

E.3.4.2 Detailed Technology Description E.3.4.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. The tipping floor operator will first remove large non-processable objects. Then the waste is subjected to dry pretreatment. It is first loaded on a trommel screen. Garbage bags are broken up, and the majority of the organics report to the undersize fraction, from which ferrous metals and aluminum are removed using magnetic removal and an eddy current generator. At this point, the waste enters the wet pretreatment phase; it is conveyed to one of the pulpers, which separates the waste into: a) a light fraction (plastic textiles, etc.); b) a heavy fraction (stones, glass, metal, batteries, etc.); and c) an organic suspension. The latter is degritted in a hydrocyclone. The resulting conversion feed goes to buffer storage and is then fed to a digester operating in the liquid phase, where it is biogasified. The digester effluent is dewatered, the filtrate recycled as process water, and the cake is aerobically matured to be marketed as compost. CCI foresees 6 months to negotiate a mutually agreeable contract, 12 months for design to completion of construction, and an additional 9 months for ramp-up to full capacity.



Site Layout. A series of facility drawings was provided showing a footprint of 7 acres. This does not include the maturation of the dewatered effluent. For that, CCI foresees needing a 10-acre area, which should probably be located away from the conversion facility. The facility footprint can probably be reduced. Process Flow and Mass Balance. The process flow and mass balance is summarized in Figure E-90. In Table E-47, the mass balance of the facility is summarized as mass percent of the delivered MSW. Note that the outputs of the balance do not total 100 percent, because it does not include the mass converted to biogas or the mass evaporated during aerobic maturation. Under the assumptions for the worst-case scenario discussed in Section 5, the diversion rate decreases to 647 percent.

The different process steps are described in the following sections. Operation and Maintenance. CCI provided a detailed chapter about maintenance and availability. Maintenance is performed without major interruption of operations, certainly without interruption of waste deliveries. No BTA plant has ever had to stop accepting waste due to malfunction. The biogas production of the facility is continuous (24/7), while waste delivery and mechanical processing is done on a 5-day-per-week, 24-hour/day (i.e., 3 shifts) schedule. There is no downtime on the digester itself; it is designed to operate without interruption for a decade or more. Mechanical equipment, such as conveyor belts, pulpers, generators, etc. have a maintenance schedule including scheduled downtime. Sufficient redundancy is built in so that the process can continue uninterrupted while one of a set of parallel pieces is stopped for maintenance. To provide additional ability to deal with major maintenance shutdowns, it is possible to build the tipping floor large enough to provide the desired buffer storage. In case of major generator malfunction, the biogas can be flared. Staffing: CCI projects a total staff of 60, including MRF picking line personnel; the average labor cost is $45,000 per employee per year. CCI notes that a facility processing the same amount of SSO would only require 36 employees. Utility Requirements. Electricity. The facility will produce approximately 950,000 scf/day of biogas. CCI expects that 45% of the electricity produced would be needed to satisfy the facilities’ internal power needs.



FIGURE E-90 CONCEPTUAL CCI FACILITY: PROCESS FLOW AND MASS BALANCE



FIGURE E-90 (CONTINUED) CONCEPTUAL CCI FACILITY: PROCESS FLOW AND MASS BALANCE

TABLE E-47 CCI BTA SUMMARY MASS BALANCE


Flocculants. The facility will use 53 tons of polymer per year to aid in dewatering effluent. Water. The facility will use 10,000 gallons of potable water per day for the flocculant unit and the steam generator. Wastewater. The facility will generate 24,000 gallons of wastewater per day; this number can change considerably depending on waste composition and client priorities; CCI can pretreat the water before discharge if that is desired.



E.3.4.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. The delivered MSW is subjected to the following sequence of operations: 1. Dry pretreatment

• The tipping floor operator separates large objects that cannot be processed.

• The remaining waste is loaded into a trommel screen equipped with knives to break open garbage bags; the trommel passes the majority of the organics and fine material.

• The oversize fraction goes to manual picking lines where further recyclables are recovered, rejects are removed, and desirable organics are sent on to the pulpers. The picking lines are necessary when contaminants in the feed waste exceed 20%, as will be the case with post-source separated MSW.

• The trommel fines pass under magnetic and eddy current separators, after which they are introduced into one of several pulpers via a screw auger.

2. Wet pretreatment

• The patented BTA waste pulper is a wet process that produces three separate fractions: a) a light fraction (floaters such as plastics and textiles); b) a heavy fraction (sinkers such as stones, glass, metals, batteries, etc.); and c) an organic suspension.

• The organic suspension goes to a hydrocyclone for degritting, then to the pulp buffer storage.

Recovered Recyclables. CCI will recycle ferrous metals and aluminum; the projected recovery is equivalent to 4.1 mass percent of the MSW delivered. E.3.4.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The conversion feed is pumped from the pulp storage into the anaerobic digester, where it is biogasified. Several digester designs have been used. They have in common that they operate in the liquid phase and are completely mixed. Two 925,000-gallon steel digesters are proposed. Dimensions were not provided, but these volumes are similar to the Valorga or OWS digesters proposed elsewhere and the aspect ratio is similar, judging from the digester at CCI’s 130,000 TPY Newmarket facility, so the height would be on the order of 70 ft. Approximately 950,000 scf of biogas are produced per day (365 days per year). The methane content is typically around 55%, so gross energy production is approximately 500



MMBtu/day. The biogas is sent to the IC engine generators. Other than moisture removal, no further treatment of the gas is needed. E.3.4.2.4 Post-Processing. Process Description. The digester effluent is dewatered using centrifuges followed by screw presses. The resulting cake is sent to aerobic maturation. CCI feels this is best done at a remote location outside the urban area, because of the substantial land requirement and the concern for nuisances. They have assumed for their cost estimates that the hauling would cost $40/ton. CCI emphasizes that the size of the area needed is a function of the type of compost product quality desired; the curing building would cover 2.25 acres, and some additional area is required for loading/unloading, bagging, etc. The post-processing does not have to be at a remote location, it could be at the conversion plant; this will have to be decided based on local constraints. CCI would mix the cake with a bulking agent like wood chips or bark chips to improve porosity, then would treat it using static pile composting technology, followed by further curing in windrows. The extent of the post-processing is a function of the desired compost quality criteria. The bulking agent would be screened out before marketing and reused. CCI provides a detailed discussion of the ins and outs of producing marketable compost. Compost production is projected to be 22,000 tpy. Figure E-91 shows the digester, pulp, and water storage necessary for compost production. E.3.4.3 Byproduct Analysis E.3.4.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The conceptual CCI facility would produce the following useful products: • Recycled metals (4100 tpy)

• Electricity (0.9 megawatts (MW) net marketed, or 8 million kWh/year) with an efficiency of 155 kWh/ton

• Compost (22,000 tpy or 10,000 cubic yards per year)

• Carbon emission credits (120,000 tons carbon equivalent/year) E.3.4.3.2 Market Assessment. CCI estimates the value of recycled iron at $44/ton and recycled aluminum at $900/ton.



FIGURE E-91 CCI DIGESTER (FOREGROUND), PULP &

WATER STORAGE (BACKGROUND) – NEWMARKET, ON

There should be no problem in marketing the electricity. Note that AD offers the option of selling medium Btu gas to a nearby industrial user instead of generating electricity. The biogas could also be purified and compressed, yielding compressed natural gas (CNG), a clean-burning automotive fuel. CCI goes to great lengths to prepare the best quality compost possible, so if compost can be marketed in Los Angeles, CCI compost should be marketable there. CCI assumes a price of $10/cubic yard for its compost. Alone among the respondents, CCI proposes selling carbon emissions credits. A carbon emissions trading exchange was set up in Chicago for voluntary participation. Recent prices have ranged from $3 to $25 per ton of carbon equivalent (TCE). E.3.4.4.1 Air Emissions. Odors in the facility will be contained by enclosing all operations, including MSW delivery. The buildings will be operated under a slight negative pressure to prevent odors from escaping. All the extracted air will be led to a biofilter system designed to deliver less than one odor unit at the property boundary.



The combustion of biogas in IC engine generators is expected to generate minor air emissions. Typical emission numbers provided by CCI are summarized in Table E-48.

TABLE E-48 COMBUSTION EMISSIONS – BIOGAS

Contaminant Concentration (ppmV) Nitrogen Dioxide 6.54E-06 Carbon Monoxide 1.26E-05 Sulfur Dioxide 2.66E-07 Hydrogen Sulfide 1.39E-08 Mercaptans 2.01E-09 Particulate Matter 1.69E-09 Propene 2.81E-10 Toluene 5.57E-10

E.3.4.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. CCI provides a detailed description of its wastewater management. Most of the water is recycled in the process; the excess water can be used for irrigation or discharged to the sewer with or without treatment. Some typical wastewater characteristics are shown on Table E-49.

TABLE E-49 LIQUID EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE

E.3.4.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. CCI discusses the various residuals produced by their process. They point out that the light fraction from preprocessing would be an excellent high Btu/low ash feedstock for gasification or combustion; it is mostly plastic, so one could remove some or most of the plastic for sale on the recycling market. The heavy fraction would be landfilled. The grit fraction is typically landfilled but could have some beneficial use such as road bedding.



Without such diversion of residuals or fractions thereof, the total amount of unmarketable residuals is approximately 26,000 tpy, which will probably be landfilled. Note that most of the plastic in the MSW will end up in this stream. E.3.4.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. CCI discusses various possible nuisances such as noise and pests and how they plan to deal with them. The upshot is that these nuisances will be controlled to levels acceptable to the community. AD facilities are compact and can be economical at relatively small sizes, making it possible to build decentralized small facilities, possibly co-located with the existing transfer stations and MRFs. They are virtually odorless and inherently have minimal air emissions. Finally, AD produces renewable energy, but it does so in the form of a medium Btu gas, not just electricity; biogas can be used as a boiler or turbine fuel with minimal processing; it can also be upgraded to a transportation fuel. CCI argues that AD is by far the least harmful solid waste management method and shows some results of a 1995 Environment Canada study indicating that it is the lowest producer of greenhouse gases (see Table E-50).

TABLE E-50 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS COMPARISON

E.3.4.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the OWS conceptual facility is presented in Table E-51. The following are the assumptions used to arrive at the evaluated cost and the break-even tipping fee (BETF): • Unmarketable residue will be landfilled; the total disposal cost will be $40/ton (hauling




TABLE E-51 COST ANALYSIS OF CCI CONCEPTUAL LOS ANGELES FACILITY

Unit

Using Costs Provided by

Vendor Evaluated

Cost Reason for Adjustment Costs

US$, millions $55.00 Same $/TPD $143,600 Same

Capital cost

$/TPY $550 Same O&M without landfilling $ Millions/year $6.00 Same O&M with landfilling $ Millions/year $7.05 Same Debt service $ Millions/year $4.80 Same Total annual costs $ Millions/year $11.85 Same Revenues Sale of electricity $ Millions/year $0.14 $0.61 Adjusted to standard set of

prices Sale of recyclables $ Millions/year $0.69 $1.25 Adjusted to standard set of

prices Sale of byproducts $ Millions/year $0.48 $0.22 Adjusted to standard set of

prices Total annual revenues $ Millions/year $1.30 $2.08 Annual Costs Minus Revenues $ Millions/year $10.55 $9.77 Break-even tipping fee (BETF) $/ton refuse delivered $106 $93 Worst case BETF $/ton refuse delivered $97

• The debt service will be calculated assuming 100% debt financing at an interest rate of

6% per year and a term of 20 years.






• Together, these recycled materials amount to 16.5 mass percent of the delivered post-source separated MSW, or 16,500 TPY for a 100,000 TPY facility, and the resulting revenue is $1.25 million; this revenue will be the same for all vendors.







Under these assumptions, CCI’s BETF is $98/ton. The worst-case BETF is $97/ton. CCI worked out a case at 100,000 tpy of post-source separated MSW as requested. They did not work out a case at a higher capacity, but supplied some general scale-up information, based on which we estimate that their BETF would decline to $71/ton and their worst-case BETF to $59/ton. E.3.4.6 Assessment Summary CCI provided a very detailed SOQ. In particular, the description of composting and related constraints is very detailed. The mass balances and financial information are detailed. Among biotechnology respondents, they provide the only discussion of project guarantees, detailed descriptions of commissioning, maintenance, and the factors affecting availability. Reference facilities are described in detail. CCI itself has a limited track record (two facilities), but the facility in Newmarket, ON is among the largest AD facilities in the world. BTA has a strong record, with two dozen facilities worldwide. Most BTA facilities process only SSO, not MSW. CCI has only worked with SSO and is strongly recommending that the City of LA switch to SSO. They state that the BTA process requires less than 20% “contamination”, so a manual sorting step will be required to achieve that level of purity, hence their large number of employees (60, the highest of all 5 biotechnology respondents). CCI is very focused on making a high-grade compost for the retail market, which does not seem very realistic for any compost produced from MSW. After AD, the compost gets lengthy static pile treatment, then windrowing. Lengthy treatment requires a large area. They project an already large 7 acres for their LA plant, but it does not include compost



preparation. The compost is hauled to an off-site facility of 10 acres, hopefully where the land is cheaper. That still amounts to 17 acres for 100,000 tpy, far more that any other bioconversion respondent. They clarified that they could reduce this area significantly and even perform the compost preparation on site, depending on compost quality standards and local constraints. Their description of power production and energy balance is cursory. The mass balance is hard to understand; CCI shows that of 100 tons of post-source separated MSW delivered to the facility, only 47 go to the digesters, far less than any other bioconversion respondent. Yet, they have a similar biogas and compost production as the other bioconversion respondents, and their landfilled residue tonnage is not very different either; it is hard to reconcile these numbers. CCI projects very high capital and O&M costs, resulting in the highest BETF and worst-case BETFs. They prefer to operate around the clock, 5 days/week to minimize the number of mechanical startups. Overall, they are very conservative in their assumptions: lowest recyclables recovery (4%), highest internal power load (45%), largest area (7+10 acres), highest capital cost ($55 million), and highest O&M cost ($7 million/year). They introduce a new wrinkle: they feel the facility can make at least hundreds of thousands of dollars per year by selling carbon credits. A carbon exchange was set up in Chicago and functions on a voluntary basis. At this point in time, there does not appear to be a market for carbon credits in Los Angeles because of the absence of a regulatory driver. However, the City should monitor this as it could very well change over the next few years and significantly improve the economics of any energy-producing waste conversion technology.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Wright Environmental Management, Inc.


E.3.5 Wright Environmental Management, Inc. E.3.5.1 Technology Overview E.3.5.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Wright Environmental Management, Inc., incorporated in 1992, is a total solution provider for clients looking at better ways of managing their waste streams and the environment. The company patented a tunnel-type in-vessel aerobic composting reactor. More than 70 of these tunnel composters have been installed across North America and Europe. Their capacity ranges up to 30 TPD, and they typically require a residence time of 14 days. In 2000, Wright Environmental began to design and install pre-processing systems to process MSW. Recently, they developed the Biodryer™ in-vessel biological drying technology based on its tunnel composting process. In the Biodryer, the processed material is dried to less than 15% moisture by using metabolic heat. Biological drying is an order of magnitude cheaper than conventional thermal drying, it does not require air pollution control equipment, and the air permitting is much simpler. Website: http://www.wrightenvironmental.com. Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) is a crown corporation established by the Government of Canada, which acts as the prime contractor when the client prefers a commitment from the Government of Canada. All obligations and undertakings incurred by CCC when it enters into a contract with a buyer outside of Canada are obligations and undertakings of the Government of Canada (http://www.ccc.ca/eng/home.cfm). Machinex designs and manufactures preprocessing equipment; it has installed over 200 turnkey installations throughout North America and Europe (http://www.machinex.ca/ home.html). Shaw Group founded in 1987, has grown to become the world's only vertically integrated provider of complete piping systems, and comprehensive engineering, procurement and construction services. Shaw specializes in the power generation and process industries along with the environmental and infrastructure sectors. In 2003, the SHAW GROUP had revenues in excess of $3.3 Billion. The Shaw Group’s engineering division Stone & Webster provides cradle-to-grave consulting, engineering, design and remediation services, encompassing all phases of project development and execution for Environmental/ Infrastructure (E/I) work (http://www.shawgrp.com/).



For this project, CCC would be the prime contractor, Wright Environmental would be the Project Lead and Technology Provider, while Machinex and Shaw Group (Stone & Webster) would be subcontractors. Responding firm: Wright Environmental Management, Inc.

Technologies: In-vessel Composting and Drying (Biodryer�)

Throughput: 100,000 tons/yr

Principal Contact: Russell Blades, Vice President

Address: 9050 Yonge Street, Suite 300 Richmond Hill Ontario, Canada, L4C 9S6

E.3.5.1.2 Technology Overview. Wright Environmental developed the Biodryer™ in-vessel biological drying technology based on its tunnel composting process. In the Biodryer, the processed material is dried to less than 15% moisture by using metabolic heat; the resulting dry material can be used as biomass fuel. Biological drying is an order of magnitude cheaper than conventional thermal drying, it does not require air pollution control equipment, and the air permitting is much simpler. The Biodryer can easily be retrofitted into a composter, should the client decide to produce compost rather than biomass fuel. Wright proposes two options to the City. The first option is to produce RDF and market it. Wright developed this option in detail and it is the focus of this review. Wright also mentions that the City could enter into a tolling arrangement with a power plant, in which the City would get a negotiated amount of power in exchange for the RDF. The second option was only outlined; it consists of attaching a power plant to the RDF facility and to generate power and steam on site, using RDF combustion or RDF gasification followed by syngas combustion. E.3.5.1.3 Reference Plants. Some existing Wright Environmental facilities are shown in Table E-52. Note that this list is not exhaustive. A typical facility is shown on Figure E-92. E.3.5.1.4 Commercial Status. Wright Environmental has built more than 70 composting facilities. They have recently developed a modification of their tunnel composter called the biodryer. They have demonstrated the efficacy of this biodryer. The Wright Environmental tunnel composter is well established commercially at scales up to 8000 TPY; facilities combining several composters are established commercially at scales up to 30,000 TPY. The Biodryer has been demonstrated at the scale of a full size tunnel composter. We are not aware of any commercial Biodryer operation so far. However, Wright



TABLE E-52 SOME WRIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE FACILITIES

Throughput

City Country Metric



Existing Mintlaw/Kirkhill Scotland 32 35,281 135 MSW 2000 Inverboyndie Scotland 19 20,884 80 MSW ? Carney Recycling Canada (BC) 12 13,053 50 Biosolids/woodchips/food waste ? Orlando, FL USA 9 10,442 40 Food waste/wood chips ? Lynbottom England 16 17,266 66 Food waste/green waste 1998 Albany, NY USA 12 13,050 50 Food waste/paper/wood ? In Construction/Design Panda UK

*261 days/year.

FIGURE E-92

KIRKHILL TREATMENT PLANT (MINTLAW – ABERDEENSHIRE, SCOTLAND)



Environmental emphasizes that the Biodryer is only a fairly minor modification of their patented and proven tunnel composter, and as such, there are few uncertainties about its future full-scale implementation. We would still like to see at least one full-scale (i.e., several tens of thousands of TPY) Biodryer operation before we can describe it as commercial technology. At this point we conclude that the Biodryer technology is at the demonstration stage. E.3.5.2 Detailed Technology Description E.3.5.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. The post-source separated MSW will be dropped onto a tipping floor, where it will be pushed to a feed mechanism to enter preprocessing. During preprocessing, some recyclables will be recovered, and undesirable residue will be removed. The resulting material will be dried in the Biodryers. Inerts will be removed from the biodryer output, and the resulting purified RDF will be pelletized. Assuming permits are in hand, Wright Environmental estimates 2-3 months for engineering, 15 months for construction, and 3 months of testing and start-up, for a total of 21 months. Site Layout. A possible layout was provided covering an area of 6 acres. Subsequently, several other possible layouts were provided, using different preprocessing designs, with areas as low as 3 acres. So, if there are severe area constraints, Wright can probably shrink the footprint to 3 acres.

Process Flow and Mass Balance. The process flow and mass balance is summarized in Figure E-93. In Table E-53, the mass balance of the facility is summarized as mass percent of the delivered MSW. Note that the outputs of the balance do not total 100 percent, because it does not include the mass evaporated in the Biodryer. The landfilled residue is not directly comparable to the other processes reviewed, since the RDF is combusted elsewhere, thereby generating ash. If this remote ash production is taken into account, and assuming the ash is landfilled, the diversion rate declines to approximately 73%. If we include the assumptions for the worst-case scenario discussed in Section 5, the diversion rate would decrease to 42% because of the inability to market the RDF in the Los Angeles area. Wright foresees a total staff of 43, although different available preprocessing systems will have different labor requirements, so the staff can be reduced; Wright assumes loaded labor



FIGURE E-93 PROPOSED WRIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY: PROCESS FLOW

AND MASS BALANCE (PER BUSINESS DAY)

rates of $10, $15, $20, and $25/hour for laborers, skilled laborers, foreman, and general manager, respectively. Utility Requirements. Electricity. The conceptual facility will need 5.3 million kWh per year.



TABLE E-53 WRIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Post-source separated MSW delivered 100% Recovered recyclables 8% Conversion throughput 75% RDF 44% Landfilled residue (from pre- and post-processing) 21% Net water production 0% Evaporation 28% Diversion rate 78%

Consumables, Water, etc. The conceptual facility will have no significant needs for consumables or water. It will need liquid fuel for moving equipment. Wastewater. The facility will not generate a significant amount of wastewater. E.3.5.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. There are two identical parallel preprocessing trains. The delivered post-source separated MSW is subjected to the following sequence of operations: • From the tipping floor, it is shoveled onto conveyors which bring it to the presorting line

where oversized or unacceptable materials are removed by hand

• The material then passes through a bag breaker and on to trommels

• The first trommel screen will pass all two-inch minus material; this material goes to the mixer shuttle

• The second trommel screen will pass the six-inch minus material; the resulting two-to-six-inch material goes to the Shred-Tech Four-Shaft shredder for size reduction to 2 inch minus and then to the mixer shuttle

• The oversize material coming out of the trommel goes to a manual sorting station where recyclables and undesirables are removed

• The material remaining after hand sorting goes to the shredder for size reduction to 2 inch minus, and then to the mixer shuttle

• On the way to the mixers, all materials pass through a two-stage ferrous metal magnetic separator



Recovered Recyclables and Pellet Composition. Wright projects a recyclables recovery equivalent to 8 mass percent of the MSW delivered. Note that the preprocessing train can be operated either to include plastics in the RDF (maximizing energy recovery), or to remove the plastics and recycle them (in the latter case the solid product of the facility would be biomass fuel, which could be subject to different regulations and incentives than RDF). Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The mass of residue removed in the preprocessing is projected to be equivalent 17 percent of the delivered MSW; it will probably be landfilled. E.3.5.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The conversion feed coming out of preprocessing is delivered to the shuttle mixers, which homogenize the conversion feed coming out of preprocessing and feed it to a series of eight parallel Biodryer units. The biodryer process is illustrated in Figure E-94; Biodryer internals are shown on Figure E-95. The Biodryer™ is divided into two distinct zones (Heat, Drying), which are separated by spinners. The Heat Zone is where the aerobic decomposition and resulting exothermic reaction takes place. In the Heat Zone, typical biomass temperatures will increase to 55°C after 24 hours, then to 80°C after 7 days. In addition, the moisture content of the biomass will decrease from about 60% to 40%.

FIGURE E-94 BIODRYER SCHEMATIC

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��



FIGURE E-95 VIEW OF BIODRYER INTERNALS

A heat recovery system captures the heat produced in the Heat Zone and transfers this heat into the air stream of the Drying Zone for improved drying performance. The biomass moisture content is reduced from 40% to about 10% (or setpoint condition) during the next 7 days in the Drying Zone to meet the client’s specific biofuel requirements. Due to the low moisture levels in the Drying Zone, the aerobic decomposition process is practically stopped, thus conserving mass and energy. The Biodryer™ is able to precisely control temperatures and moisture levels within the biomass while limiting the aerobic decomposition process to only 7 days. This unique design results in minimal carbon loss (CO2), maximizing the total energy content (e.g., total Btu/day) going to the RDF. Finally it must be noted that the Biodryer can easily be converted back to a composter, should the user decide to produce compost instead of RDF. E.3.5.2.4 Post-Processing. Equipment Description. The dried fluff RDF is passed through an air classifier that removes most remaining heavy inert components, which are presumed landfilled; the reject mass is equivalent to 4% of the post-source separated MSW delivered.



Wright environmental proposes to pelletize the resulting material, to increase its marketability. The pellets would have a heat value of 7500 Btu/lb (6000 to 9000 Btu/lb). The total production of pelletized RDF is projected to be 44,000 TPY. Wright also presents the option of converting all the RDF into power and steam on site. The gross power output would be 6.2 MW (Wright estimates 8.5 MW, but that overlooks the fact that post-source separated MSW is only delivered 5 days per week, so to calculate the average daily delivery and energy production, one must multiply the daily tonnages by 5/7). The net output would be 5.4 MW. Fuel can represent 80% of the operating cost of a power plant, so having a fuel (RDF) that is immune to energy price fluctuations can be a significant market advantage. E.3.5.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed Wright Environmental facility would produce the following useful products: • Recycled metals (9640 TPY)

• RDF (44,000 TPY) E.3.5.3.2 Market Assessment. Based on the analysis of the post-source separated MSW and a survey of Los Angeles recyclers, Wright has assumed an average price for recycled metals of $250/ton for this SOQ. Their survey included discussions with the Los Angeles County Materials Exchange Program (LACoMAX), the California Energy Commission, the Portland Cement Association (California), the Environmental Protection Association (EPA), and Wright’s experience in the field. This solid fuel can be: • Combusted in conventional boilers (stoker, fluidized bed, etc.) to produce steam and

power

• Gasified to produce syngas for boilers, reciprocating engines, and gas turbines

• Cofired with natural gas or coal for steam or power

• Introduced as fuel into cement kilns (calcination) Based on the expected RDF quality and current fuel prices, Wright assumes a market value of $35/ton for the RDF. Wright has also identified a number of potential buyers for the RDF in the greater Los Angeles area, including 6 cement plants and 8 solid-fueled power and steam plants. Of these 8, two are the existing WTE plants; the Intermountain 1 and 2 coal-



fired power plants are included (1640 MW); the other 5 are small cogeneration plants ranging from 17 to 108 MW. E.3.5.4 Environmental Issues E.3.5.4.1 Air Emissions. Odors in the facility are contained by enclosing all operations, including MSW delivery. The composting tunnels are kept under a slight negative pressure. All the air extracted from the biodryers is treated in a biofilter. Unlike thermal drying systems (rotary, flash, steam) that are combustion based processes, the Biodryer� uses no fossil fuels. Therefore, there is no production of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM10), products of incomplete combustion (PICs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) normally found in the combustion process exhaust from thermal dryers. Odor sampling under ideal weather conditions shows that no measurable odor is detected in both the actual and worst case scenario samples. This corresponds to an ED50 value of <7 odor units. The RDF will be combusted at a different location, so for an evenhanded comparison with other vendors, the resulting air emissions should be counted. It is expected that these emissions will be in compliance with all applicable regulations. Since the RDF is highly purified compared to MSW, it is also expected to be easier to bring the air emissions of RDF combustion in compliance compared to the corresponding emissions from MSW. E.3.5.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. No significant wastewater production is expected. E.3.5.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is approximately 22,000 TPY; they will probably be landfilled. Two options are available for plastics, a) they can be included in the solid product (RDF) to maximize energy recovery, or b) they can be removed and landfilled if it is important that the solid product qualify as biomass fuel. Biomass fuel may be eligible for the new Renewable Energy Tax Credits ($18/MWh). E.3.5.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. Compared to other biotechnologies, biodrying to produce solid fuel (RDF or biomass fuel) greatly increases energy recovery, i.e., ultimate kWh per ton of delivered post-source separated MSW. In fact, biodrying followed by combustion recovers 2 to 4 times more power per ton of post-source separated MSW than AD systems. This has environmental benefits since the resulting displacement of fossil fuel usage is also 3 to 6 times greater. Biodrying is far less energy intensive than thermal drying.



The biodryer facility itself can be quite unobtrusive and will have no air emissions whatsoever. Since the Biodryer is not a combustion-based thermal process, it does not require fossil fuels, elaborate pollution controls (SCR’s, scrubbers, etc), or the same air permitting requirements associated with any combustion or thermal process. E.3.5.5 Costs and Revenues The cost analysis of the Wright conceptual facility is presented in Table E-54.

TABLE E-54 COST ANALYSIS OF WRIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTUAL

LOS ANGELES FACILITY

Unit

Using costs provided by

vendor

Evaluated cost, RDF

only

Evaluated cost, including power

generation from RDF Costs Capital cost US$, millions $31.25 $31.25 $49.44 $/TPD $81,563 $81,563 $129,038 $/TPY $313 $313 $494 O&M without landfilling $ Millions/year $2.62 $2.62 $4.01 O&M with landfilling $ Millions/year $3.57 $3.57 $5.08

Debt service $ Millions/year $2.72 $2.72 $4.31 Total annual costs $ Millions/year $6.29 $6.29 $9.39 Revenues Sale of electricity $ Millions/year NA NA $2.82 Sale of recyclables $ Millions/year $1.96 $1.25 $1.25 Sale of byproducts $ Millions/year $1.53 $1.53 $0.00 Total annual revenues $ Millions/year $3.48 $2.78 $4.07 Annual costs minus revenues $ Millions/year $2.81 $3.52 $5.33 Break-even tipping fee (BETF) $/ton refuse delivered $28 $43 $53 Worst case BETF $/ton refuse delivered $51 $54

The following are the assumptions used to arrive at the evaluated cost and the break-even tipping fee (BETF): • Unmarketable residue will be landfilled; the total disposal cost will be $40/ton (hauling






• RDF will be sold at $35/ton.




• Together, these recycled materials amount to 16.5 mass % of the delivered post-source separated MSW, or 16,500 TPY for a 100,000-TPY facility, and the resulting revenue is $1.25 million; this revenue will be the same for all vendors.





Under these assumptions, the Wright BETF is $35/ton. The worst-case BETF is $51/ton. It must be noted that the assumptions listed above are consistent with the assumptions used for all other respondents. However, in the case of biodrying to produce RDF, the worst-case assumptions are less than optimal, because the increased amounts of paper and plastics recycled are by and large not diverted from the reject stream, but are instead diverted from the RDF stream. In other words, in the worst-case the reject stream going to the landfill may be somewhat reduced, but it is mainly the RDF stream that will decline. So, RDF revenue



will go down, which is not captured in this worst-case scenario. Where this economic impact included, the break even tipping fees would increase somewhat. Wright worked out a case at 100,000 TPY of post-source separated MSW as requested. Were the scale of operations to increase to 300,000 TPY, we estimate that the worst-case BETF may decrease to approximately $40/ton. E.3.5.6 Assessment Summary Early in this technology evaluation project for the City of Los Angeles, we decided not to include RDF preparation as a technology, because we felt that it did not address the City’s needs. Consequently, we did not contact vendors of this technology. We did send a RFI and an SOQ to Wright Environmental, whose track record so far is mainly in aerobic composting, assuming they would propose a conceptual composting facility. So, we were surprised when Wright actually proposed using biological drying to produce RDF. This is Wright’s specific recommendation to the City, based on their expert judgment, so we are reviewing it the same way as the other respondents’ SOQs. However, one should realize that there are other RDF technology vendors, including some with biodrying technology. So, should the City decide that they are interested in RDF production, some of these other RDF vendors should be contacted and evaluated. With over 70 facilities operating worldwide, Wright Environmental has a strong track record in in-vessel aerobic composting. Most of these facilities are small compared to what the City is envisioning and Wright’s experience with MSW is limited. The facilities in question are aerobic composting facilities, not biodrying or RDF facilities; we have found no evidence that the Wright team has experience marketing RDF. So, a 100,000 TPY facility of the type proposed by Wright would be a significant departure from their track record, even if biodrying is only a variation on composting. Wright submitted a detailed SOQ showing strong expertise and experience in pre-treatment, composting, and power production. Their assumed average price for recyclables is several times higher than the estimate of the other respondents, but they appear to have researched the issue locally.

RDF production is fundamentally different from the other processes evaluated, in that it maximizes the production of a solid fuel, which is then exported. The facility itself does not generate another energy product like a gaseous fuel or power. As a result its immediate environmental impact is very small, but not really comparable to the environmental impact of the other respondents’ processes. To compare on a level playing field, one should follow the RDF to its ultimate usage, where it will have an impact, including atmospheric emissions and ash generation.



Wright provides a cursory overview of a co-located RDF production and power plant concept. It must be noted that this concept should be directly compared to the concepts of respondents who propose thermal technologies to convert post-source separated MSW to power and steam. In that context, the only different wrinkle introduced by Wright is the biodrying upstream of the thermal process. One needs to evaluate if the added cost of biodrying is worth the return in added thermal efficiency and power production. This evaluation cannot be made at this point, in part because we did not ask for and thus did not receive the cost of sub-processes like biodrying, only the total cost for the entire RDF facility was provided.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS Global Renewables


E.3.6 Global Renewables E.3.6.1 Technology Overview E.3.6.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Global Renewables was formed in 2000; it is a leader in the delivery and implementation of sustainable waste management solutions for solid household and commercial waste. Global Renewables is wholly owned by GRD Limited (GRD), which is listed on the Australian and New Zealand Stock exchanges and has a market capitalization of $380 million. Besides Global Renewables, GRD wholly owns GRD Minproc, a leading Australian resource and process engineering company; it has completed over 200 projects in 30 countries ranging in value from $4 million to $200 million with a total value exceeding $12 billion. GRD Minproc carries out the detailed design, construction management, and commissioning of Global Renewables’ facilities. GRD also owns a 56% share in OceanaGold, a major gold producer.

Global Renewables’ UR-3R process includes anaerobic digestion using the German ISKA process, for which they hold the license in Australasia and Asia. Global Renewables also has an alliance with Sorain Cecchini Tecno SRL (SCT) from Italy, which has expertise in the separation and aerobic composting of MSW. In the UR-3R process, the SCT process is used for the aerobic treatment that follows AD; Global Renewables has the SCT license for the Asia-Pacific region. Global Renewables’ website is www.grl.com.au. Firm: Global Renewables

Technology: ISKA, SCT

Throughput: 100,000 tons/yr

Principal Contact: Greg MacDonald, Business Development Executive

Address: Level 35, Exchange Plaza 2 The Esplanade Perth WA 6000

Australia Note: Clarification. Global Renewables’ submittal could not be reviewed in detail because it provided only limited information compared to most respondents to the RFQ. So this review is abbreviated, and the submittal cannot be directly compared to the other submittals. E.3.6.1.2 Technology Overview. Global Renewables’ Urban Resource-Reduction, Recovery and Recycling (UR-3R) process contains 4 basic elements:



• Mechanical Separation

• ISKA percolation

• Composting and refining using the SCT process

• Renewable energy recovery in the form of biogas In the UR-3R Process® waste resources become cleaner at every stage of the process. Shredding and mixing are minimized; separation processes are maximized using both mechanical and natural biological technologies. Waste is treated gently to enhance recovery of resources such as glass and paper, and to avoid mixing contaminants into the organics or turning high value materials (e.g., plastics) into comparatively low value materials (e.g., fuel). Resources that have a higher recovery cost than their current net value are inerted for either safe landfill disposal or separate storage. E.3.6.1.3 Reference Plants. The world’s first UR-3R Facility, located at Eastern Creek, Sydney, Australia, commenced operation in September 2004. This facility is designed to process 190,000 TPY (expandable to 290,000 TPY) of MSW; see Figure E-96.

FIGURE E-96 190,000 TPD EASTERN CREEK UR-3R FACILITY, SEPTEMBER 2004



Global Renewables is also currently finalizing contract details for a 250,000 TPY UR-3R Facility in Melbourne, Australia’s 2nd largest city. In addition, Global Renewables is shortlisted to tender on a 110,000 TPY facility in Perth, Western Australia, and is currently well advanced in a tender submission involving three UR-3R Facilities processing up to 660,000 TPY for the Lancashire County Council, UK. ISKA GmbH started up its first facility in 1999, in Buchen, Germany; it processes around 33,000 TPY of MSW. The facility is currently being expanded to 160,000 TPY. ISKA is also building a 110,000 TPY facility in Heilbronn, Germany. SCT has designed and built over 25 aerobic composting facilities in 5 countries and is currently constructing additional facilities in France, Spain, and Australia. SCT is part of the Sorain Cecchini Group, which in its collective operations handles and processes over 24,000 tons per day of waste. E.3.6.1.4 Commercial Status. The ISKA process has been proven at a scale of 30,000 TPY in one facility. SCT is a well-known and large engineering concern with proven separation and aerobic composting processes. Global Renewables built a 190,000 TPY integrated facility and is in the startup phase. Overall, while we wait for that facility to prove itself, we feel that this technology is at the boundary of demonstration and early commercialization. E.3.6.2 Detailed Technology Description E.3.6.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. Facility Overview. Global Renewables feels that a 100,000-TPY facility would be at best economically marginal. Their preferred facility size is between 200,000 and 275,000 TPY. Delivered post-source separated MSW is first led through MRF for recovery of recyclables and removal of rejects. The material left over goes to an ISKA percolator where it sprayed with hot process water. This generates a percolate solution, which is biogasified in a hybrid packed-bed low solids digester. Solid residue from the percolator is dewatered in a press; the filtrate goes to the digester, while the cake is screened and the undersize fraction goes to composting. The latter occurs in large mixed compost bay inside a building under negative pressure. The initial 2-week intensive composting phase is followed by 8 weeks of windrow maturation. The final product is screened before being marketed. Site Layout. No layout was provided. Figure E-96 illustrates the layout of the 190,000-TPY Eastern Creek facility. Its total area is 13.8 acres.



Process Flow and Mass Balance. The process flow is summarized on Figure E-97. In Table E-55, the mass balance of the facility is summarized as mass percent of the delivered MSW.

FIGURE E-97 SUMMARY UR-3R PROCESS SCHEMATIC

MechanicalSeparation

ISKA ®PercolationSeparation

Composting andRefining

RecyclablesResidual

to inert waste landfill

Organic Growth Media(OGM)

ISKA ®PercolationDigestion

UR-3RPower

Generation

Reduced GHG Emissions


SolidOrganics

MSWMSW

Liqu

idO

rgan

ics

Biogas

RenewableEnergy

Water

SeparatedOrganics

Residuals

(after any kerbside

recycling)

MechanicalSeparation

ISKA ®PercolationSeparation

Composting andRefining

RecyclablesResidual

to inert waste landfill

Organic Growth Media(OGM)

ISKA ®PercolationDigestion

UR-3RPower

Generation



SolidOrganics

MSWMSW

Liqu

idO

rgan

ics

Biogas

RenewableEnergy

Water

SeparatedOrganics

Residuals

(after any kerbside

recycling)





Note that the outputs of the balance do not total 100 percent, because it does not include the mass converted to biogas or the mass evaporated during aerobic maturation. Global Renewables provided estimates for mass biogasified, however, even with that, the mass balance information leaves a lot of mass unaccounted for. The different process steps are described in the following sections. Operation and Maintenance. The conceptual facility is operated non-stop (24/7) with 2 daily shifts; total staff is 80, including a managerial staff of 7. Utility Requirements. Electricity. The facility will be a net exporter of electricity

Water and Wastewater. The facility will be water-neutral, i.e., it will not require any water importation and will not export any wastewater. E.3.6.2.2 Pre-Processing System. Equipment Description. The UR-3R Facility’s receival hall is a fully enclosed building and is maintained at negative air pressure to prevent the escape of fugitive odors. The size of the building is such that waste can be stored for 7-day (continuous) operation of the Facility. The waste is loaded into a bag opener by Front End Loader (FEL) prior to separation in rotating trommel screens. The first step is to remove the bulky and recyclable materials from the waste stream, leaving an organic rich stream that is low in contaminants. The oversize streams containing the recyclables optimize the presentation of the product materials for subsequent hand sorting and automatic materials recovery. Bulky non-recyclable residues are removed for landfilling.

Early removal of recyclable materials follows the HNRV principle, preserving the embodied energy. The process flow sheet specifically excludes shredding equipment, thereby minimizing the potential for organic contamination. The organic rich stream from sorting and separation is transported to the ISKA® Percolation area by conveyor where it is fed into each ISKA Percolator (see Figure E-98) by a dedicated screw conveyor. The Percolator operates in a semi-continuous fashion loading fresh material and discharging solid residue (SNAP) during the operating schedule of the sorting facility. Overnight operations continue, with the exception of loading/unloading. The Percolator cycles through this regime using wash water from the digester. The water is heated to 40°C -



FIGURE E-98 ISKA PERCOLATOR

50°C before being sprayed over the organic material in the Percolator. As the solutions percolate through the stirred bulk waste, the volatile organic component of the municipal waste, colloidal material and sands are discharged via a floor grate into a sump prior to processing in the sand washing section. After passing through the sand washing and sludge removal circuits, the percolate solution is processed through the anaerobic digestion circuit, producing biogas and excess water, which is used in the composting operation. Recovered Recyclables. Products recovered during the mechanical separation unit-process include: • Cardboard

• Mixed paper

• Mixed plastics

• Plastic containers (mainly PET and HDPE)

• Glass containers (color streaming available)

• Ferrous metals

• Non-Ferrous metals



E.3.6.2.3 Conversion Unit System. ISKA® Percolation includes an anaerobic packed-bed digester for conversion of the liquefied and soluble volatile solids in the circulating water into biogas. The hybrid upflow anaerobic digester design has been adopted to provide a high biological conversion capacity under a range of variable feed conditions. The methanogenic bacteria are immobilized on an inert support with granular accretions of bacteria populating above and below the filter bed. The percolation solution, is recirculated through the digester filter bed with fresh feed from the Percolator. The large recirculating load allows the biomass to absorb organic shock loadings in. The organics are metabolized by the bacteria to produce additional biomass, CO2, and methane. The excess biomass is recirculated to the percolator where the acidic environment releases the volatile solids for re-digestion. The biogas will typically contain 70% methane (CH4) and 30% carbon dioxide (CO2) and a range of contaminant gases, particularly H2S. Occurrence of H2S will depend on the precise nature of the municipal waste processed. The biogas produced is cleaned to remove the H2S prior to being used for electricity generation in a purpose-designed power station and for process heat generation in gas-fired water heaters. An alternative use of the biogas can be used to fuel industrial processes, or even processing into vehicle fuel. E.3.6.2.4 Post-Processing. Process Description. Solid (organic) residue is removed from the Percolator and fed into a dewatering press designed to reduce the moisture content to 40%-45%. At this point, the organic residue is referred to as SNAP. The filtrate is pumped from the dewatering press into the sand separation circuit with the other percolate liquid. The dewatered SNAP is screened. The organics are concentrated into the undersize stream, and are conveyed to the composting process to produce high quality organic growth medium (OGM). The oversize stream containing more contaminants is similarly transferred to the composting building for pasteurization ahead of being used as alternative daily cover on landfill or other use. The intensive composting is carried out in a fully enclosed, negatively aerated building, under controlled moisture content and aeration conditions to maintain the process in an aerobic state, with material held within the thermophilic temperature range of 45 to 75ºC. Two counter-rotating augers mounted on a trolley carried by a portal bridge crane spanning the composting building turn the compost daily and progressively move the composted material from the loading side to the unloading side of the composting building within the retention period of between 28 and 35 days. The product from the composting stage is then matured in windrows for approximately 8 weeks. After maturation, the OGM is passed



through a secondary refining process to remove any remaining glass, stones, plastic and foil, resulting in a high quality, marketable OGM product. E.3.6.3 Byproduct Analysis E.3.6.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following useful products (calculated quantities derived from 100,000 TPY of post-source separated MSW): • Recycled materials (19,800 TPY)

• Electricity (approximately 1 megawatt (MW), gross production)

• Compost (20,700 TPY)

E.3.6.3.2 Market Assessment. There should be no problem in marketing the electricity. Note that AD offers the option of selling medium Btu gas to a nearby industrial user instead of generating electricity. The biogas could also be purified and compressed, yielding compressed natural gas (CNG), a clean-burning automotive fuel. Global Renewables goes to great lengths to produce a high-quality compost, so, to the extent that compost is marketable in Los Angeles, their compost should be marketable. E.3.6.4 Environmental Issues E.3.6.4.1 Air Emissions. Odors in the facility will be contained by enclosing all operations, including MSW delivery. The buildings will be operated under a slight negative pressure to prevent odors from escaping. All the extracted air will be treated. The combustion of biogas in IC engine generators is expected to generate minor air emissions. Global Renewables performed dispersion modeling to satisfy air permitting requirements. The resulting maximum ground-level concentrations assuming a 26-ft stack include 381 and 7.2 �g/m3 for NOx (1-hr maximum and annual peak, respectively) and 0.50 and 0.35 mg/m3 for CO (1-hour maximum and 8-hr maximum, respectively).

E.3.6.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The solids and water balance of the process will be controlled so as not to produce any wastewater. E.3.6.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is approximately 16,000 TPY (on a basis of 100,000 TPY delivered post-source separated MSW); they will probably be landfilled.



E.3.6.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. AD facilities are compact and can be economical at relatively small sizes, making it possible to build decentralized small facilities, possibly co-located with the existing transfer stations and MRFs. They are virtually odorless and inherently have minimal air emissions. Finally, AD produces renewable energy, but it does so in the form of a medium Btu gas, not just electricity; biogas can be used as a boiler or turbine fuel with minimal processing; it can also be upgraded to a transportation fuel. The UR-3R Process® takes household and commercial waste streams and recovers recyclables, produces a clean organic growth medium (OGM), generates renewable energy (green power) and reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By doing so, valuable urban resources are diverted from either ‘single energy use’ incineration or landfill thereby allowing the maximum recovery and recycling of resources from the waste stream. The UR-3R Process® differs from almost all other Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) technologies in that it applies virtually no mass-destructive operations on the waste such as full-stream shredding, composting, digestion or thermal treatment. It is unique in that waste resources become cleaner at every stage of the process. Waste is treated gently to enhance recovery of resources such as glass and paper, and to avoid mixing contaminants into the organics or turning high value materials (e.g., plastics) into comparatively low value materials (e.g., fuel). E.3.6.5 Costs and Revenues Global Renewables’ experience indicates that 100,000-TPY a project will be at best economically marginal. Their experience suggests that the preferred facility size is within the range of 200,000 – 275,000 TPY. Their modeling indicates that a UR-3R Facility processing 250,000 TPY post-source separated MSW (their recommended minimum size) over a nominal 20-year contract period and producing streamed recyclables, renewable energy and OGM, will have a capital cost in the range of $50 to $70 million (excluding land), resulting in a processing (gate) fee in the range of $60 to $80 per ton (excluding residuals disposal to landfill). This unit cost should not be confused with the BETF calculated for other respondents; insufficient information is available to calculate the BETF for Global Renewables, so no direct cost comparison can be made.

Assuming the facility’s land requirement is 15 acres at $1 million/ac, then the unit capital cost ranges from $260 to $340/TPY. This is similar to the, admittedly very rough, capital costs estimated for 300,000 TPY facilities built by the other bioconversion respondents ($250 to $300/TPY).



E.3.6.6 Assessment Summary Global Renewables provided limited information in general and essentially no information tailored to Los Angeles. Due to this lack of information, their SOQ could not be evaluated on the same basis as the other respondents, so their SOQ cannot be directly compared to the others. For example, break-even tipping-fees could not be estimated. GRD/Global Renewables is a large and credible firm; the ISKA process has been operating for a few years in one location; SCT’s processes are probably tried and proven. Global Renewables’ facility concept is very advanced and focused on achieving the Highest Net Resource Values (HNRVs) of all the waste components. However, there is only one integrated facility (Eastern Creek, Australia) and it is in its startup phase. The mass balance is unclear and hard to close; it might help if dry and wet mass balances were provided. Only 5% of the delivered mass is biogasified; one would expect that number to be around 12-15%; in other words, the energy recovery is quite low. The thorough recovery of paper in pre-processing (to maximize HNRV) may contribute to this by reducing the biodegradable feed to the digester.

Appendix F

Alternative Technology Request for Qualifications

ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY APPENDIX F REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

F-1

City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Request for Qualifications for Alternative MSW Disposal Technologies

October 5, 2004 F.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Los Angeles (the “City”), Bureau of Sanitation, presently disposes of approximately 3,800 short tons/day of municipal solid waste (MSW). This MSW is curbside collected curbside, in “black bins” from residential customers. A characterization of the black bin waste is shown in Table 1. The City also uses green bins for green waste, and blue bins for recyclables. The City has contracted with URS Corporation (URS) to evaluate a wide range of thermal, biological and chemical “conversion technologies”, as well as incineration technologies, to treat the MSW and significantly reduce the amount of MSW going to the landfill. The City’s goal is to select one or more suppliers to develop one or more facilities to treat the MSW and produce usable products such as fuel, electricity, chemicals, and/or compost. The first step of the project was to develop a long list of potential MSW disposal technologies and suppliers. Following that, URS issued a set of specific technology-based questions to the suppliers on the long list to help the City screen the long list and produce a short list. Using the information received from the suppliers, URS and the City developed a short list of technologies and suppliers that are most likely to meet the needs for treating the MSW and reducing the amount of MSW being sent to the landfill. The purpose of this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is to address specific technical and financial issues for the technologies and suppliers on the short list. Once responses from the RFQ are evaluated, the City may select one or more suppliers with which to negotiate a contract for disposal technology facility development, or it may issue a Request for Proposal for development of one or more facilities. F.2 BACKGROUND The City’s objectives are to: • Increase diversion of the black bin waste from the existing landfill


F-2

TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF BLACK BIN MSW

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 2004

Waste Category Percent of Individual Waste Type Total Percentage Paper 25.73% Cardboard 9.87% 2.54% Paper bags 1.87% 0.48% Newspaper 11.06% 2.85% Ledger/Office 3.90% 1.00% Magazines/Catalogs 11.57% 2.98% Miscellaneous paper 37.02% 9.52% Mixed paper (non-recyclable) 24.70% 6.36% Glass 3.39% Bottles/jars 99.48% 3.37% Other glass 0.52% 0.02% Metal 9.63% Ferrous containers 5.35% 0.52% Aluminum beverage cans 1.99% 0.19% Other aluminum 4.35% 0.42% Other ferrous 34.54% 3.33% Other non-ferrous 5.35% 0.52% Electronics 48.41% 4.66% Plastic 16.60% PET/PETE bottles/jars 9.83% 1.63% HDPE bottles 9.46% 1.57% Other misc. containers 6.05% 1.00% Film plastic 59.52% 9.88% Miscellaneous plastic 15.14% 2.51% Organic Materials 36.67% Food waste 24.23% 8.89% Yard waste 10.59% 3.88% Branches/woody material 2.62% 0.96% Other wood 10.66% 3.91% Textiles 17.35% 6.36% Manure 0.83% 0.31% Other organics 33.71% 12.36% Construction Materials 6.58% Concrete 9.28% 0.61% Gypsum board 37.27% 2.45% Soil, rock, or brick 53.45% 3.52% Mixed Residue 1.40% HHW 100% 1.40%

TOTAL 100.00% Note: the black bin MSW is approximately 25% moisture.


F-3

• Develop one or more MSW disposal technology facilities, using one or more conversion or incineration technologies that meet the following criteria:

��Waste Suitability: The disposal technology must be able to efficiently treat (i.e., low

residual stream) the organic portion of the black bin waste stream

��Conversion Performance: The disposal technology must be able to convert the organic portion of the black bin waste stream into useful products

��Throughput Requirement: The disposal technology must be to treat at least 200 tons/day of processed black bin wastes (following removal of recyclables and inorganic materials)

��Commercial Status: The disposal technology can be developed on a commercial scale within the planning period for this project (2008-2010)

��Current Technology Capability: The disposal technology must have demonstrated the capability to process at least 20 tons/day of MSW or similar feedstock (currently)

• Own and operate the disposal technology facility(ies), in order to reduce its dependence

on private industry for its MSW management

• Have a facility in operation prior to 2010

• Produce marketable products and by-products, such as fuel, electricity, fertilizer, compost, and/or chemicals

F.3 SOLICITATION PROCESS F.3.1 Schedule The City is utilizing a three-step process to investigate the availability, suitability, and economics of alternative MSW disposal technologies. This RFQ is the second step of the process. This solicitation process begins on October 5, 2004 with distribution of this RFQ. Formal submittals must be received by the close of business, which is 5:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time), on November 8, 2004.

F.3.2 Disclaimers By responding to this RFQ, Respondents acknowledge and consent to the following conditions relative to the City’s solicitation process. Without limitation and in addition to


F-4

other rights reserved by the City in this RFQ, the City reserves and holds, at its sole discretion, the following rights and options: • To supplement, amend, or otherwise modify this RFQ, prior to the date of submittal of

the RFQ

• To receive questions concerning this RFQ from Respondents and to provide such questions, and the City’s responses, to all Respondents

• To require additional information from one or more Respondents to supplement or clarify the materials submitted

• To conduct further investigations with respect to the qualifications and experience of each Respondent

• To visit and examine any of the facilities referenced in the RFQ and others owned, operated, and/or built by the Respondent in order to observe and inspect such facilities and their operation

• To waive any defect or technicality in any RFQ received

• To eliminate any Respondent that submits a nonconforming, non-responsive, incomplete, inadequate or conditional RFQ

• To reject any or all submittals

• To cancel this RFQ in whole or in part with or without substitution of another RFQ if such cancellation is determined to be in the best interest of the City

• To select and enter into an agreement with the Respondent submitting an RFQ that is determined by the City, at its sole discretion, to be in the best interest of the City

• To decide on the most appropriate method for implementation, which may include discontinuation of this solicitation process and development of the facility(ies) via another procurement process chosen by the City

• To take any action affecting the RFQ process that would be in the best interests of the City

• To review the financial capabilities of the Respondents Neither the City nor URS assume any liability or responsibility for submittals delivered after the closing time and date referenced above due to delivery service fault, failures, or limitations. Respondents are limited to one submittal in response to this RFQ. The one submittal may include information on more than one possible configuration of a disposal technology facility.


F-5

All submittals and supporting information shall become the property of the City. Information considered confidential by the Respondent must be clearly identified as such. However, marking all or substantially all of a submittal confidential may result in the submittal being considered non-responsive by the City. The City (and URS) will use all reasonable efforts to protect the confidentiality of such information, as identified by the Respondent. The City may be required to release information contained in a submittal in order to meet regulatory or legal requirements. The City will notify you if it is required to provide requested information to meet regulatory or legal requirements. However, the City will not be held liable for damages resulting from the disclosure of confidential information pursuant to regulatory requirements or as part of a legal proceeding. Respondents are responsible for any and all costs associated with responding to this RFQ or modifications to this RFQ. F.4 PROJECT OWNERSHIP It is anticipated that the facility(ies) will be owned by the City. F.5 OPERATION It is anticipated that the facility(ies) will be operated and maintained by the City. F.6 POTENTIAL PARTNERS At this time, the City is pursuing this project on its own. However, the City may choose to partner with a disposal technology supplier for development, construction, operation, and/or maintenance of the facility(ies). It may be preferable for the technology supplier to build the facility, and operate it for some yet-to-be-determined performance period, after which the title to the facility would pass to the City for ownership and operation (to be negotiated between the City and the Respondent). F.7 RISK MITIGATION The City will require substantial assurances that the disposal technology facility(ies) are economic, safe and operate reliably. Emissions data will be important for addressing permittability and the safety of operations.


F-6

F.8 LOCATION The location of the disposal technology facility has not yet been determined. Respondents should assume that potential sites have reasonable access to water, electricity, natural gas pipelines and sewer capacity. Sources of water will be addressed when the requirements for it become clear. F.9 INFORMATION REQUESTED The City is seeking Respondents who can provide the following: • A complete MSW disposal technology facility, including equipment to receive, sort, and

process MSW, convert MSW into a range of marketable products, such as fuels, electricity, chemicals, fertilizer, and/or compost, and marketable by-products such as glass, metals, paper, char, and slag

• A demonstrated disposal technology that will be:

��Available for commercial operation by the time of the award of a contract

��Able to demonstrate reliable operation using the City’s MSW

��Able to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District emissions regulations With this RFQ, the City is requesting specific information on the Respondent’s existing facility(ies), as well as information for the facility proposed by the Respondent for the City. Respondents should assume that the proposed facility would utilize 100,000 short tons/year of black bin MSW.


F-7

PART 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION Please provide complete answers to the following: Item #1: Name of Firm Name of Technology Principal Contact Person Address Telephone/Fax Email Item #2: Please provide background information about your firm. This can be available information in brochure format. Include firm history, location(s), accomplishments, personnel resources and financial condition. Item #3: List up to five reference facilities, including for each: • Name and location

• Owner/Operator

• Technology

• Feedstock

• Capital and O&M cost

• Raw MSW and feedstock throughput

• Types/quantities of products and by-products

• Amount of residual sent to landfill Item #4: Discuss the potential markets for the sale of the anticipated products and by-products. Address:


F-8

• Assumed end product characteristics

• Estimated size of market of potential purchasers

• Your materials marketing experience Item #5: Briefly discuss the significant environmental impacts from your facilities, or issues that require permits. Include, as appropriate, air emissions, water emissions, solid waste residues, visual impacts, and nuisance (odor, noise, traffic) impacts. Item #6: Provide a summary of the key advantages offered by your technology for an environment like Los Angeles. Compare those advantages with the key challenges you will encounter. Item #7: When providing cost information for the proposed facility, please use the following assumptions: • Land Cost: $1,000,000 per acre

• Interest Rate: 6%

• 20-year amortization for buildings and equipment

• Residue disposal cost: $40 per ton

• Power at the site: $60/MWhr

• O&M escalation at 3% per year Please provide other assumptions in your cost estimate, including tipping fee, and unit costs for revenue-generating products. PART 2 – THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES

This part pertains only to the thermal technologies, including incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, pyrolysis/gasification, pyrolysis/steam reforming, plasma gasification, microwave, and steam reforming/catalysis. If your technology is biological and/or chemical, please proceed to Part 3.


F-9

In the submittal, the Respondents should include the following information on the most appropriate existing reference facility:

1. Technical description of the MSW treatment system and associated processes.

2. A description of the pre-processing system required to prepare the feedstock for processing. Include equipment used to pre-sort, separate, shred, size, screen, dry, or otherwise process the material.

3. A description of the equipment used to feed the conversion unit or incinerator, e.g. screw feeders or presses.

4. A description of the gas cleaning systems, such as scrubbers, baghouses, activated carbon filters, etc. used for cleaning the syngas and/or waste gases.

5. Where applicable, describe the power generation system, e.g., reciprocating engine, boiler, turbine, etc., and associated environmental controls.

6. A description of the odor control system.

7. Site layout drawings.

8. Photos.

9. History of operations, including start-up date, time in service, availability, and performance.

10. Discussion of operating and maintenance problems, resolved and unresolved. For the facility proposed by the Respondent for the City, the Respondent should provide: 1. Technical information, including narrative descriptions of the proposed facility .

2. A description of the pre-processing system required to prepare the feedstock for processing. Include equipment used to pre-sort, separate, shred, size, screen, dry, or otherwise process the material.

3. A description of the equipment used to feed the conversion unit or incinerator, e.g. screw feeders or presses.

4. A description of the gas cleaning systems, such as scrubbers, baghouses, activated carbon filters, etc. used for cleaning the syngas and/or waste gases.


6. A description of the odor control system.

7. Heat and material balances.


F-10

8. Basis of design.

9. Standard pro forma, if available.

10. Conceptual drawings and layouts.

11. Lists of major pieces of equipment, number of units, capacity, and materials of construction.

12. Extent of process modularization and ability/cost to increase future capacity.

13. Operation and maintenance staffing requirements.

14. An overall project schedule showing engineering, construction, start-up, testing and acceptance (assume permits in hand).

15. Description of how the overall facility will operate. Attached to this RFQ is an Excel spreadsheet, which is to be used by the Respondents to provide specific information on the existing and proposed facilities (in addition to the narrative). The first sheet is named “Thermal/Existing Facility” and is to be used for providing information on Respondent’s existing facility. If the Respondent has more than one facility, it should input data for the facility most similar to what is being proposed for the City. Brief descriptions of any other facilities should be included in Item 3, Part 1 described above. The second sheet is named “Thermal/Proposed Facility”, and is to be used by the Respondent for providing information on the facility that it is proposing for the City. If the Respondent chooses to propose an alternate configuration, it should copy the first two “Thermal/Proposed Facility” columns onto a new sheet and input the additional data onto that new sheet. In each spreadsheet, the first column shows the data requested. The second column (where applicable) provides a description of what the City is requesting. Respondents are to use the third column to input the information. For clarification, the “conversion unit” itself may be an incinerator furnace/boiler combination or a pyrolysis/gasification reactor vessel. It does not include the feed system to it or the gas cleaning system after it. Note that some information for incineration processes is listed separately from that for pyrolysis and gasification processes. In order to improve the overall efficiency of the proposed conversion technology facility, the City encourages Respondents to incorporate as many of the following integration concepts as possible into the proposed facility. Many thermal conversion technologies incorporate combustion of syngas in boilers, gas turbines or reciprocating engines for the generation of electricity, and some or all of the following integration concepts may be applicable.


F-11

• Recovery of waste heat from reciprocating engine or gas turbine exhaust to produce steam and drive a steam turbine-generator, producing additional electricity (there is no use for export steam, so Respondents should maximize the use of steam for power generation)

• Utilizing waste heat from reciprocating engine or gas turbine exhaust for drying the incoming raw MSW, producing a feedstock with a higher heating value

• Drawing gasification and/or combustion air from the MSW receival building /area, creating a negative pressure as an odor control method

• For pyrolysis systems, combusting a portion of the syngas or pyrolysis oil, instead of natural gas or fuel oil, to heat the pyrolysis reactor

• For pyrolysis systems, returning unconverted pyrolysis char to the pyrolysis reactor to increase overall syngas production

PART 3 – BIOLOGICAL/CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES This part applies to technologies such as anaerobic digestion and ethanol fermentation. In the submittal, the Respondents should include the following information on the most appropriate existing reference facility: 1. Technical description of the MSW disposal technology (conversion unit).

2. A description of the pretreatment system required to prepare the feedstock for processing. Include equipment (and manufacturers) used to pre-sort, separate, shred, size, screen, pulp, or otherwise process the material.

3. A description of the biogas cleaning systems, if applicable, such as desulfurization, dehydration, CO2 removal, etc.


5. Site layout drawings.

6. Photos.

7. History of operations, including start-up date, time in service, and availability, performance.

8. Discussion of operating and maintenance problems, resolved and unresolved.

9. Describe odor control systems.


F-12

For the facility proposed by the Respondent for the City, the Respondent should provide: 1. Technical information, including narrative descriptions of the proposed facility and

individual key processes.

2. A description of the pretreatment system required to prepare the feedstock for processing. Include equipment (and manufacturers) used to pre-sort, separate, shred, size, screen, pulp, or otherwise process the material.

3. A description of the biogas cleaning systems, if applicable, such as desulfurization, dehydration, CO2 removal, etc.


5. Basis of design, including heat and material balances.

6. Conceptual drawings and layouts.

7. Standard financial pro forma, if available.

8. Extent of process modularization and ability/cost to increase future capacity.

9. Operation and maintenance staffing requirements.

10. Lists of major pieces of equipment, number of units, capacity, and materials of construction.

11. An overall project schedule showing engineering, construction, start-up, testing and acceptance (assume permits in hand).

12. Description of how the overall facility will operate. Attached to this RFQ is an Excel spreadsheet, which is to be used by the Respondents to provide specific information on the existing and proposed facilities (in addition to the narrative in Parts 1 and 3). The first sheet is named “Biological-Chemical/Existing Facility” and is to be used for providing information on Respondent’s existing facility. The second sheet is named “Biological-Chemical/Proposed Facility”, and is to be used by the Respondent for providing information on the 100,000 ton/year facility that it is proposing for the City of Los Angeles. In each spreadsheet, the first column shows the data requested. The second column (where applicable) provides a description of what the City is requesting. Respondents are to use the third column to input the information. We envision the MSW disposal technology facility as consisting of three main parts: pre-processing, conversion, and post-processing. Pre-processing covers operations between the delivery of raw MSW to the introduction of processed feed into the conversion process. The raw MSW will be defined as facility feed, while the pre-processed feed entering the


F-13

conversion process will be defined as conversion feed. Pre-processing may include screening, shredding, removal of recyclables, removal of unmarketable residue, addition of water and hydropulping, etc. At a minimum, pre-processing produces a feedstock for the conversion process; it may also produce recyclables, marketable by-products, and an unmarketable residue destined for the landfill or other treatment/disposal. In the conversion portion of the process, conversion feed is converted into a fuel (biogas, ethanol, etc.) and/or heat, leaving an unconverted residue. This unconverted residue is further processed in the post-processing, where it may be composted, dewatered, dried, screened, etc. At a minimum, post-processing produces an unmarketable residue that must be sent to a landfill or other treatment/disposal; generally, it also produces marketable by-products such as compost, fertilizers, etc. END NOTES Responses in the spreadsheets must utilize customary U.S. units:

Parameter Required Unit for Spreadsheet Metric Equivalent Area of Facility Acres 1 acre = 0.4047 hectare Temperature ˚F Temperature in ˚F = 1.8

(temp. in ˚C) + 32 Pressure psi 1 psi = 6.895 kPa MSW Heating Value Btu/lb, LHV basis (LHV = lower

heating value) 1 Btu = 1055 J = 252 cal; 1 lb = 1 pound = 0.454 kg; 1 kJ/kg x 0.43 = 1 Btu/lb

Syngas Heating Value Btu/scf, LHV basis (LHV = lower heating value)

scf = standard cubic foot = 28.32 liter = 0.02832 m3 (STP); 1 kJ/m3 x 0.0268 = 1 Btu/scf

Syngas flow scfh scfm = scf per hour

Density lb/ft3 1 ft3 = 28.32 liter Weight Pounds or short tons (2000 lbs. = 1

short ton) 1 short ton = 907 kg

Volume, liquids U.S. gallons 1 US gallon = 3.7854 liter Volume, gases ft3 1 ft3 = 28.32 liter = 0.02832

m3 Electric power MW or kW Costs $ U.S. Particle size inches 1 inch = 2.54 cm

Tons/year refers to short tons per year; tons/day refers to short tons per day, assuming a 5-day week. To convert between tons/day and tons/year, assume that there are 365 (5/7) = 261 operating days in one year. Example: Facility A processes 50,000 metric tons MSW per year: therefore, it processes 55,127 tons/year or 211 tons/day of MSW.

APPENDIX F RFQ REQUEST DATA SPREADSHEET

CITY OF LOS ANGELES ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL EVALUATION

DATA SPREADSHEET FOR PROPOSED THERMAL SYSTEMS

DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Name of Respondent GENERAL INFO

Process technology (Incineration, Pyrolysis, Gasification, Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming, Pyrolysis/Gasification)

For all processes. Where applicable, include descriptions such as fixed bed, fluid bed, kiln, air-blown, oxygen-blown, slagging.

Name/owner of process technology

Name and owner of process or technology. If respondent is licensing the process or technology, provide the name of the owner of the process or technology. Identify any key patents that apply to respondent’s technology.

Raw MSW tons/hour This is for MSW delivered to the facility, prior to any processing

Raw MSW throughput, tons/day This is for MSW delivered to the facility, prior to any processing

Raw MSW throughput, tons/year This is for MSW delivered to the facility, prior to any processing

Raw MSW throughput, tons/year, each year in operation

Design availability, % Availability=hours that the facility is designed to operate/8760

Capital cost, $ Include interest during construction; do not include cost of land.

Construction time, months Construction time of facility, in months, from start of site clearing to start of operation.

Area, acres



DATA SPREADSHEET FOR PROPOSED THERMAL SYSTEMS (CONTINUED)

DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION

O&M costs

Annual operating and maintenance costs for the facility (include labor and consumables such as water, chemicals, natural gas, propane, and fuel oil).

O&M staffing Number of permanent staff; show how many per shift.

Scheduled downtime, days/year Number of days the facility would be down for maintenance

RAW MSW RECEIVAL AND PRE-PROCESSING SYSTEM Throughput, tons/hour

Materials removed from raw MSW stream

List names and tons/day of any recyclables and non-recyclables (separate table ok)

CONVERSION UNIT FEEDSTOCK FEED SYSTEM Throughput, tons/hour

Feedstock, as % of raw MSW Feedstock fed into the conversion unit/Raw MSW delivered to the facility, x 100%

Maximum feedstock size, inches For feedstock fed into the conversion unit Maximum feedstock moisture, % For feedstock fed into the conversion unit Feedstock, Btu/lb (HHV) For feedstock fed into the conversion unit





CONVERSION UNIT (FOR PYROLYSIS, PYROLYSIS/STEAM REFORMING, PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION, GASIFICATION, AND PLASMA GASIFICATION)

Type of Technology

For incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, pyrolysis/steam reforming, and pyrolysis/gasification processes

Number of modules (in-service/standby) List number of operating and standby modules Module feedstock throughput, tons/hour

For processed MSW/feedstock fed into the conversion unit, per module

Module feedstock throughput, tons/day For processed MSW/feedstock fed into the conversion unit, per module

Module feedstock throughput, tons/year

For processed MSW/feedstock fed into the conversion unit, per module

Module dimensions, feet and inches For all processes Module materials of construction For all processes

Type of plasma technology For plasma gasification only (external or in-situ placement of torch)

Type of plasma torch For plasma gasification only (transferred or non-transferred torch)

Number of plasma torches per module For plasma gasification only Total plasma torches For plasma gasification only




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Plasma torch manufacturer and model number For plasma gasification only Power use/plasma torch, kW For plasma gasification only Plasma power source For plasma gasification only (AC or DC)

Plasma gas For plasma gasification only (air, oxygen, steam, nitrogen, etc.)

Conversion unit temperatures, oF For all processes Residence time in conversion unit For all processes Carbon conversion, % For all processes

Syngas temperature exiting conversion unit, oF For all processes Syngas production, scfh For all processes

Syngas production, scf/ton feedstock Ratio of syngas production per unit of feedstock fed to the conversion unit

Composition of syngas, (CO, H2, CH4, CO2, N2, H20) Percent of each constituent H2/CO Ratio of hydrogen to carbon monoxide in syngas

H2+CO/CO2 Ratio of hydrogen plus carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide in syngas

Syngas heating value, Btu/scf LHV basis

Disposition of Char For pyrolysis only. State whether char would be disposed of in landfill or marketed

Ash produced

Specify whether bottom ash (for processes at temperatures below melting point of inorganic materials) or as vitrified slag (for processes at temperatures above melting point of inorganic materials)




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Water Use, gallons/day For all processes.

Chemical additives, lbs/day

List names and amounts of chemicals, including those used for water treatment, emission control systems, etc.

Fuel usage for start-up or process needs (list type of fuel, when used, and quantity used in lb/hour or scfh)

For example, for natural gas or fuel oil used for start-up, list usage rate and amount used for each start-up.

Oxygen use, tons/day For processes that utilize oxygen injection

Waste heat boiler conditions

For processes that would utilize a waste heat boiler for combustion of syngas (lb/hour steam generated, temperature in ˚F and pressure in psi)

Fuel use

For processes that require natural gas, fuel oil, or other fuels for start-up, operation, and/or shutdown, list scf or gallons per day and what it is used for

FOR INCINERATION For incineration processes. Is process considered to be mass burn? Yes or no Number of incinerator modules For incineration processes. (i.e. furnaces/boilers) MSW or RDF throughput, tons/hour/module For incineration processes. MSW or RDF throughput, TPD per module For incineration processes. MSW or RDF throughput, TPY per module For incineration processes. Waste gas flow, scfh For incineration processes. Steam flow, lb/hr per module For incineration processes.




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Total steam flow, lb/hr For incineration processes. Water Use, gallons/day

Fuel use

For processes that require natural gas, fuel oil, or other fuels for start-up, operation, and/or shutdown, list scf or gallons per day and what it is used for

GAS CLEANING SYSTEM System gas throughput, scfh Chemicals used, lbs/day List each Dry scrubber by-products, lb/day List each Wet scrubber by-products, lb/day List each ESP by-products, lb/day List each Baghouse by-products, lb/day List each

POWER GENERATION For proposed facilities that incorporate power generation.

Number of Steam Turbine-Generators For proposed systems that utilize steam turbine-generators

Steam turbine-generator, MW each (gross)

For proposed systems that utilize steam turbine-generators

Steam turbine-generators, MW total (gross)

For proposed systems that utilize steam turbine-generators

Number of engines or gas turbines For proposed systems that utilize gas turbines or reciprocating engines

Engine generator or gas turbine, MW each (gross)

For proposed systems that utilize gas turbines or reciprocating engines




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Engine generators or gas turbines, MW total

For proposed systems that utilize gas turbines or reciprocating engines

Internal load, MW For proposed systems that utilize gas turbines or reciprocating engines

Alternate fuel capable?

For all proposed processes. Is power generation equipment designed to operate on other fuels, i.e. natural gas, fuel oil,etc. for extended periods?

MW on alternate fuel For all processes. What is gross output when alternate fuel is used, instead of syngas?

BY-PRODUCTS/WASTE PRODUCTS Marketable By-products List each, tons/day produced Marketable By-products, lbs/ton feedstock List each. Unmarketable by-products, solid wastes and waste water List each, tons/day or gallons/day produced Unmarketable by-products, solid wastes, and wastewater, lbs/ton feedstock or gallons/ton feedstock List each. STACK EMISSIONS

Expected emissions

For all processes. List major constituents, including SO2, NOx, PM, HAPs, CO, VOCs, dioxins/furans, acid gases, heavy metals

Stack height, feet For all processes.



DATA SPREADSHEET FOR EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION FACILITY

DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION NAME OF SUPPLIER GENERAL INFORMATION

Process technology Anaerobic digestion, ethanol fermentation, etc.

Location of facility City, nearest major city if needed, country

Contact name and address Name, telephone, fax, e-mail

Owner and/or operator Name, postal address, telephone, fax, e-mail

Process technology, name and owner


Facility type Pilot/ demonstration/ commercial

Process Description Describe in less than 30 words Area occupied by the entire facility, acres Operations

Staffing

Number of permanent staff; show labor categories and how many employees per shift.



DATA SPREADSHEET FOR EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION FACILITY (CONTINUED)


Startup duration

Time elapsed bewteen a cold start and full commercial operation

Scheduled downtime, days during the last 12 months

Unscheduled downtime, days during the last 12 months

Number of days the facility was down for maintenance or repairs

History

Construction time, months

Construction time of facility, in months, from start of site clearing to start of operation.

Startup date Time in service as of 1 October 2004, months Availability, % over the last 12 months Hours running per year/ 8760 Environmental Air emissions

Permitted limits

Type (NOx, SOx, CO, HC, PM10, etc), concentration, and/or mass per time

Solid residue to landfill/combustion, tpd Wastewater, gallons/day Hazardous waste type and tpd Economics

Capital cost, US$

Include interest during construction; do not include cost of land.

Operations and Maintenance (O&M), US$/year Labor Utilities (electricity, water, fuel) Residue landfilling/incineration




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Other costs Revenue rates Tipping fee US$/ton of facility feed Fuel US$/unit of fuel Byproducts Type, US$/ton Revenue Tipping fee US$/year Sale of fuel US$/year Sale of electricity US$/year Sale of byproducts US$/year Subsidy US$/year SUBPROCESS DETAILS Pretreatment Number of modules Types of recovered marketable recyclables Conversion Number of modules Maximum particle size of conversion feed, inches Residence time, days Internal temperature, degrees F Volatile solids conversion efficiency, % Fuel/power production

Fuel treatment Dehydration, desulfurization, etc.

Resulting fuel composition % methane, % carbon dioxide, ppm sulfur, etc.

Post-processing





Type of process for solids and liquids Screening, aerobic composting, etc.

Types of byproducts and residue

Area required, ac Area required for entire post-processing operation

FACILITY FEED

Material delivered to the facility, before any processing at the facility

Description Municipal solid waste, biowaste, waste paper, etc.

Composition % paper, metal, plastics, etc. Moisture, wet mass % Approximate moisture content

Inorganics, dry mass% Approximate inorganic content, on a dry basis

Organics, dry mass % Approximate organic content on a dry basis

Biodegradable, dry mass % Approximate biodegradable organic content on a dry basis

Throughput: wet tons per hour/day/year Design tph Design tpd Design tpy Actual tph Actual tpd Actual tpy

MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE actual, historical numbers for the last 12 months

Preprocessing




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Recyclables removed from facility feed Types and tpd (Use separate table if desired) Recyclables as mass % of facility feed Unmarketable residue removed from facility feed tpd Mass % of facility feed Conversion Conversion feed: tph tpd tpy Mass % of facility feed Fuel production: Energy content, btu/scf or btu/gal Higher heating value (HHV) scf/day or gal/day scf or gal/ton facility feed Btu/ton facility feed Usable heat production: Btu/day Btu/ton facility feed Post-processing Electricity production: Average kW kWh/day kWh/ton facility feed Gas cleanup waste, type




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION tpd Byproduct 1 (type) tpd Byproduct 2 (type) tpd Byproduct 3 (type) tpd Unmarketable residue, tpd Mass % of facility feed UTILITIES AND ENERGY NEEDS Natural gas needed, scf/day Btu/ton facility feed

Liquid fuel needed, gal/day Specify which type of liquid fuel, Btu/gal

Btu/ton facility feed Electricity needed, kWh/day kWh/ton facility feed Water needs, gal/day gal/ton facility feed Consumables (oil, chemical additives, etc.) Type(s) Quantity/yr



DATA SPREADSHEET FOR PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION FACILITY

DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION NAME OF SUPPLIER GENERAL INFORMATION Process technology Anaerobic digestion, ethanol fermentation, etc. Contact name and address Name, telephone, fax, e-mail

Process technology, name and owner


Process Description Describe in less than 30 words Area occupied by the entire facility, acres Options for reducing the area occupied by the facility Operations

Staffing Number of permanent staff; show labor categories and how many employees per shift.

Startup duration Time elapsed bewteen a cold start and full commercial operation

Planned downtime, days per year

Construction time, months Construction time of facility, in months, from start of site clearing to start of operation.

Environmental

Air emissions Type (NOx, SOx, CO, HC, PM10, etc), concentration, and/or mass per time

Solid residue to landfill/combustion, tpd Wastewater, gallons/day Hazardous waste type and tpd



DATA SPREADSHEET FOR PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION FACILITY (CONTINUED)

DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Economics

Capital cost, US$ Include interest during construction; do not include cost of land.

Operations and Maintenance (O&M), US$/year Labor Utilities (electricity, water, fuel) Residue landfilling/incineration Other costs Revenue rates Tipping fee US$/ton of facility feed Fuel US$/unit of fuel Byproducts Type, US$/ton Revenue Tipping fee US$/year Sale of fuel US$/year Sale of electricity US$/year Sale of byproducts US$/year SUBPROCESS DETAILS Pretreatment Number of modules Types of recovered marketable recyclables Conversion Number of modules Maximum particle size of conversion feed, inches Residence time, days Internal temperature, degrees F




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Volatile solids conversion efficiency, % Fuel/power production Fuel treatment Dehydration, desulfurization, etc. Resulting fuel composition % methane, % carbon dioxide, ppm sulfur, etc. Post-processing Type of process for solids and liquids Screening, aerobic composting, etc. Types of byproducts and residue

Area required, ac Area required for entire post-processing operation

MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE Preprocessing Recyclables removed from facility feed Types and tpd (Use separate table if desired) Recyclables as mass % of facility feed Unmarketable residue removed from facility feed tpd Mass % of facility feed Conversion Conversion feed: tph tpd tpy Mass % of facility feed Fuel production: Energy content, btu/scf or btu/gal Higher heating value (HHV) scf/day or gal/day scf or gal/ton facility feed




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Btu/ton facility feed Usable heat production: Btu/day Btu/ton facility feed Post-processing Electricity production: Average kW kWh/day kWh/ton facility feed Gas cleanup waste, type tpd Byproduct 1 (type) tpd Byproduct 2 (type) tpd Byproduct 3 (type) tpd Unmarketable residue, tpd Mass % of facility feed UTILITIES AND ENERGY NEEDS Natural gas needed, scf/day Btu/ton facility feed Liquid fuel needed, gal/day Specify which type of liquid fuel, Btu/gal Btu/ton facility feed Electricity needed, kWh/day kWh/ton facility feed




DATA REQUESTED DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION Water needs, gal/day gal/ton facility feed Consumables (oil, chemical additives, etc.) Type(s) Quantity/yr

Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies