The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY111111111 lill 11111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY Preliminary Feasibility Study WASTE•TO-ENERGY 02 a FACILITY PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A WASTE -TO -ENERGY FACILITY IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER FEBRUARY 141 1983 C ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many documents and interviews were used to prepare this report. Many private 1 engineering consultants contributed their time and provided copies of studies prepared for other jurisdictions. Portions of those studies were used liberally in the preparation of this report. The City Manager's Office retains the responsibility for the accuracy of this report but acknowledges the contributions of the following firms: Blyth Eastman Paine Webber, Inc. Brown and Caldwell CH2MHill Cooper and Clark CSI Resources Systems Incorporated Eijumaily-Sutler Associates Engineering Science Franklin Associates, Ltd. KVB Inc. Metcalf & Eddy Inc. Mitre Corporation-Metrek Division II II IZ IJ II i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 CHAPTER I CURRENT PRACTICES AND COSTS I-1 COLLECTION PRACTICES I-1 DISPOSAL PRACTICES I-1 MSW VOLUMES I-2 COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL COSTS I-6 FUTURE DISPOSAL COSTS I-7 COMMERCIAL HAULERS 1-8 CHAPTER 11 MSW DISPOSAL COST REDUCTION IMPOSE REFUSE FEE II-1 RECYCLING OR RESOURCE RECOVERY 1I-2 ALTERNATE DISPOSAL SITES AND TRANSFER STATIONS II-2 WASTE -TO -ENERGY FACILITY II-5 CHAPTER III WASTE -TO -ENERGY TECHNOLOGY III-1 BICONVERSION III-1 Composting III-1 Anaerobic Digestion 11I-2 PYROLYSIS III-3 REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF) III-4 MASS BURNING III-6 Refractory Lined vs. Waterwall Furnaces III-8 Modular (Controlled Air) Incineration III-8 Stoker Fired Units III-11 Rotary Furnaces III-13 RDF Fired Units III-14 CMI-ENCON COMBINATION II1-16 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER IV ENERGY MARKETS IV-1 ELECTRICITY IV-1 STEAM IV-3 METHANE GAS IV-5 REFUSE DERIVED FUEL IV-5 SOIL AMENDMENTS IV-5 DESALINATED WATER IV-5 SECONDARY MATERIALS MARKET IV-6 CHAPTER V LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS V-1 WASTE STREAM GUARANTEES V-1 MARKET GUARANTEES V-2 SITE GUARANTEES V-2 PROCUREMENT V-2 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION GUARANTEES V-5 FINANCING OPTIONS V-6 Conventional Revenue Bonds V-6 Industrial Development Bonds V-7 Lease Revenue Bonds V-8 Leveraged Leasing V-8 Private Debt and Equity V-9 PERMITS V-10 City of Newport Beach Permits V-10 Air Pollution Permits V-10 Ash Disposal Authorization V-11 Sold Waste Facility Permit V-11 CHAPTER VI ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY VI-1 COMPOSTING VI-1 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION VI-1 PYROLYSIS VI-1 REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF) VI-2 MASS BURNING STOKER UNITS VI-4 MODULAR CONTROLLED - AIR UNITS VI-5 CMI-ENCON VI-8 O'CONNOR COMBUSTOR VI-9 CONCLUSIONS ON ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY VI-10 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER VII ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS VIZ-1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT VII-1 LOCATION OF PROJECT VII- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES VII-1 Air Quality VII-1 Vehicle Traffic VII-2 Noise VII-2 Odor and Dust VII-3 Vectors VII-3 Aesthetics VII-3 Safety VII-3 APENDIX A CALCULATIONS FOR MSW DISPOSAL COST REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES A-1 iv LIST OF TABLES Page I-1 Annual Volumes of City Collected MSW 1-3 I-2 Typical NSW Compositions I-5 I-3 1982-83 MSW Handling Costs I-6 I-4 Annual Dumping Fee Increases 1-7 1-5 MSW Disposal Hauling Costs per Mile I-8 II-1 1982-83 MSW Costs per Dwelling Unit II-2 11-2 Transfer Station Costs II-4 12-3 Comparison of MSW Disposal Cost Reduction Alternatives II-6 IV-1 SCE Energy Payment Schedule IV-2 IV-2 SCE Capacity Payment Schedule IV-2 IV-3 SCE Avoided Cost Payments IV-3 IV-4 Prices for Recovered Materials IV-7 V-1 Risk Sharing Under Alternative Prqcurement Approaches V-6 VI-1 Economics of RDF VI-3 VI-2 Economics of Stoker Units VI-5 VI-3 Economics of Modular Units VI-7 VI-4 CMI-ENCON Revenues Per Ton MSW VI-9 v LIST OF FIGURES Page I -A Monthly Refuse Volumes I-4 III -A RDF Processing III-5 III-B Mass Burning III-7 III-C Modular Unit III-9 III-D Stoker Mechanisms III-12 III-E O'Connor Combustor III-14 vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS A waste -to -energy facility has the potential to save the City several hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in refuse disposal costs. However, such facilities require large capital expenditures and present both financial and environmental risks. Private industry will participate in such a venture and assume most of the financial risk. Therefore, it is recommended that the City of Newport. Beach continue to pursue a waste -to -energy project by first selecting and approving a suitable site. CURRENT PRACTICES AND COSTS The City collects approximately 50,000 tons of assorted municipal solid wastes (MSW) each year and disposes of it at the Coyote Canyon landfill. Seasonal differences vary the daily average collections between 100 TPD (tons per day) in January to 160 TPD in July. The City will spend approximately $1.5 million in fiscal 1982-83 to collect and haul MSW. Additionally, the County imposed dump fees in October, 1981, at $4.90 per ton. This fee will rise to $7.00 per ton on July 1, 1983 and will cost the City approximately $310,000 in fiscal 198344. Dump fees may continue to escalate considering that the national average is $10 per ton and the Orange County system requires major capital improvements. Hauling costs may also increase in future years if the Coyote Canyon landfill closes and the City is forced to haul to a much more distant site. Every mile of hauling distance costs the City approximately $16,500 annually in vehicle and labor costs, and alternate landfill sites may add 10 to 15 miles to the hauling distance. In sum, additional disposal costs will total hundreds of thousands of dollars in coming years. MSW DISPOSAL COST REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives were investigated to determine their potential for lowering City costs. These included alternate disposal sites, a transfer station, a trash fee, and waste -to -energy facilities. As demonstrated on the following table and excepting the trash fee alternative, a waste -to -energy facility provides the most potential for cost reduction. 1 COMPARISON OF MSW DISPOSAL COST REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES (1982-83 Dollars) Total Hauling Annual Annual Additional Cost Other Cost to Alternative Base Costs Dump Fee sl Difference Difference City Continue to dump at Coyote Canyon $lt500,000 $310,000 -0- -0- $1,810,000 Dump at Bee Canyon $lt500,000 $310,000 +$243,000 -0- $2,053,000 Dump at Hntg.Beach Transfer Station $1,500,000 $478,000 +$ 72,000 -0- $2,050,000 Dump at new County Transfer Station near JWA $1,500,000 $478,000 -$ 94,000 -0- $1,884,000 Build and Operate a Transfer Station for the City at the City Yard $lt500>000 $310,000 -$188,000 +$402,000 $2,024,000 (TS costs) Waste -to -Energy w/$5 per ton fee located mid -point in City $1,500,000 $224,000 -$ 94,000 -0- $1,630,000 Waste -to -Energy w/$0 per ton fee located at City Yard $1,500,000 $ 10,000 -$142,000 -0- $1,368,000 bpose Refuse Fee $1,500,000 $310,000 -0- -$1,491,000 $ 319,000 (fees collected) $7/o1 at landfills and $10.80/ton at County Transfer Stations 2 II WASTE -TO -ENERGY TECHNOLOGY Dozens of technologies exist to convert MSW to saleable energy. Simple techniques like composting and theoretical ones like pyrolysis are available, and each has individual pluses and minuses. However, after much experimentation, most consideration is now given to successfully operating incineration techniques that produce steam and/or electricity. Pretreatment of MSW to separate and shred it to produce Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) before incineration also has been a successful technique. A very promising but as I yet untested technology involves digesting presorted MSW with waste water to produce pipeline quality natural gas and then burning the sludge to produce steam and/or electricity. Incineration techniques include several stoker type units that churn burning refuse and mix it with air. , Several rotary furnace units and many types of simple modular incinerators are available. Each technology has various advantages and disadvantages. 0 ENERGY MARKETS Electricity and natural gas are the most easily marketed products of a waste -to -energy facility. Southern California Edison by law must buy all the electricity that can be produced and has indicated a strong desire to buy any natural gas that can be produced. Recovered materials like ferrous metals, aluminum, and glass are also marketable, but the volume and prices will yield relatively little income. Steam may be sold to Mobil Oil in West Newport; to Hoag Hospital, and to the Hughes Company. There are only limited markets for other potential products such as compost, soil amendments, pyrolytic fuel oil, refuse derived fuel, or desalinated water. Only electricity, natural gas, and steam have good markets near Newport Beach. Energy prices paid to small producers declined during 1982 and are expected to stabilize over the next few years. Southern California Edison paid 8.2G/Kwh in January, 1982, and only 6.624/Kwh in December, 1982. Forecasts for exponentially rising energy costs heard often in the past few years are being reevaluated. Declining demand, conservation, the oil glut, cogeneration, and waste -to -energy projects are serving to limit price increases. Accordingly, promises of future revenues to balance the costs of a waste -to -energy facility must be weighed carefully. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS A major public work, a waste -to -energy facility requires permits and approvals from many institutions and requires extensive contractual and financial assurances. Sufficient amounts of MSW must be guaranteed as well as energy product sales. Many facilities have suffered for lack of both. Site approval is critical. Many jurisdictions have spent large sums only to find that they have no acceptable site. More than all other factors, referendums and resident opposition have defeated proposed facilities. Procuring a facility is a complicated task involving the mixing and matching of both an organizational approach and bidding procedures. Possible approaches include conventional A/E, turnkey, full service, or private contractors. Bidding procedures include sealed, competitive, two-step advertising, or sole source. .r7 I Construction and operation guarantees are necessary to protect against delays, overruns, system failures, inflation, productivity losses, labor strikes, and similar problems. Financing can take the form of conventional revenue bonds, industrial development bonds, lease revenue bonds, leveraged leasing, or private debt and equity. The most profitable method, leveraged leasing, is extremely complicated and requires special attorneys and IRS rulings. Permits are required from many agencies starting with the City of Newport Beach. The Zoning Code prohibits "incineration or reduction of garbage, sewage,... or refuse." A waste -to -energy facility would require the following permits: City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment Local Coastal Plan Amendment Zoning Text and Map Amendment Use Permit Building Permit EIR • South Coast Air Quality Management District Permit to Construct Permit to Operate • Regional Water Quality Control Board and Orange County Health Care Agency Ash Disposal Authorization • California Solid Waste Management Board and Orange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency Solid Waste Facility Permit ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY only privately financed facilities exhibit the potential to provide cost savings to Newport Beach. Dumping fees, or tipping fees, at waste�to-energy facilities represent the difference between costs and revenues. Revenue from energy sales is not expected to equal debt service and operation costs within the next few years. Smaller sized plants of the type required for Newport Beach do not have the advantage of economy of scale. Debt service costs for conventionally financed facilities necessitate tipping fees of $15 to $40 per ton. Only tax leveraged private financing can reduce debt service costs to the point where tipping fees are attractive to the City. Consequently, only those technologies which are supported by private financing appear to be economically feasible for Newport Beach. I 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Air quality, truck traffic, and aesthetics are the major concerns. Noise, odor, dust, and safety impacts are more easily mitigated by enclosing all operations in protective buildings. Air pollution will be strictly controlled by expensive equipment, but trace quantities of hydrochloric acid, dioxin, and heavy metals will be released to the atmosphere. Offsets may actually reduce regional air pollutants. Vehicle traffic will be localized at the site, but trip miles should be reduced overall. Architectural treatment and landscaping can reduce aesthetic impacts, but refuse processing is rarely considered an attractive neighbor. Generally, a waste -to -energy facility would have the same environmental impacts as any other industrial process. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A waste -to -energy facility in Newport Beach has the potential to save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars each year while reducing overall environmental impacts. However, substantial financial risks are involved, and t environmental impacts will be shifted and concentrated. f At the present time, it appears that only a privately financed facility which produces steam, electricity, or natural gas is appropriate. The private financing will reduce the tipping fee, and the energy markets will support only those products. Only two technologies demonstrate that combination of attributes and these are CMI-ENCON and O'Connor Combustor. Both of these technologies present unanswered questions which will be addressed during 1983 and 1984. Both are completing EPA tests for air emissions, and both produce ash which is being tested for its disposal classification. No CMI-ENCON plant is operating completely, and performance values need to be confirmed. This and other necessary information will be forthcoming and will better demonstrate the feasibility of each technology. Siting is and will remain the biggest single obstacle to development of a facility. Conversely, an approved site will generate enthusiastic financial backing and ease the entire development process. Efforts to locate an acceptable site can proceed while awaiting the information regarding the CMI-ENCON and O'Connor technologies. Based on the above findings, it is recommended that the City continue to pursue a waste -to -energy facility but in a cautious manner. Because siting is the most' critical factor, it is recommended that selection and approval of a site precede all other efforts in order to minimize the risk of expending considerable funds unproductively. Site investigations can proceed using the requirements associated with the 1 CMI-ENCON and O'Connor technologies. Appropriately sized parcels can be located and analyzed. Appraisals, property owner interviews, development costing, and environmental analysis can be conducted at minimal expense. The results of this analysis would provide the necessary information and documentation to enable the City Council to approve a location for a waste -to -energy facility within the City of Newport Beach. When, and if, an acceptable site is approved, further development actions can be pursued with more confidence and less risk. 5 CHAPTER I CURRENT PRACTICES AND COSTS Collection and disposal of municipal solid wastes (MSW) in Newport Beach is conducted by both City government and private haulers. This chapter explains primarily the functioning of the City's operations in order to provide a basis for understanding and evaluating the advantages of a waste -to -energy facility. COLLECTION PRACTICES The General Services Department collects most of the MSW within the City. The Refuse Division collects trash and refuse from most residences, some businesses and from City facilities. The Refuse Division collects only from smaller cans, so multiple family units and businesses using large bins must contract a private hauler. The Field Maintenance Division collects beach refuse, street sweepings, and assorted debris. The General Services Department owns and operates a fleet of assorted vehicles for this purpose. The Utility Department collects and disposes of debris from its repair and construction activities, and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department collects and disposes of cuttings and trimmings from its landscaping and tree pruning activities. The Refuse Division collects trash from curbsides five days per week except for an additional Saturday collection in beach areas during the twelve summer weeks. Newspapers are also collected from curbside on monthly trash pickup days and deposited in a storage bin at the City Yard where they are picked up and paid for by a private recycling contractor. The City is divided into five collection areas, one of which is serviced each Monday through Friday. The Refuse Division collections service approximately 23,000 dwelling units and 150 businesses. The Field Maintenance Division collects trash from the ocean beach areas using a large (38 cubic yard) load packer, special sand sifters, and assorted hauling vehicles. The 38 yard packer averages three loads per week throughout the year, but may run five or six loads per week during the summer. Street sweepings and assorted debris are collected from locations scattered throughout the City and from accumulations deposited at the City Yard. DISPOSAL PRACTICES Disposal of all MSW is at the County operated landfill at Coyote Canyon. Each collection vehicle travels to the landfill, and there are no transfer operations. I-1 Vehicle routes vary within certain patterns. All refuse collection vehicles are parked overnight at the City Yard on Superior Avenue. Each workday the vehicles travel to the collection area and then make one or more trips to the landfill. Routes between the City Yard, the collection areas, and the landfill vary according to the hour, day, and season, depending on traffic, road conditions, and driver preference. Generally refuse vehicles utilize major streets such as 17th Street, Irvine Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, Ford Road, and MacArthur Boulevard, to go from the City Yard to the collection areas and to Bonita Canyon Road leading to the landfill. Vehicles returning to the City Yard from the landfill generally traverse Bristol Street, Irvino Avenue, and 17th Street to arrive oh Superior Avenue. A map of collection areas and routes is contained in Appendix A. MSW VOLUMES MSW is normally measured in tons but no scales are used to weigh the City's refuse. The weight of MSW is estimated based on cubic yard volumes and the rated weight capacity of each vehicle. Orange County residents typically generate 3.5 lbs/day of residential MSW. MSW generation per population or dwelling unit in Newport Beach is difficult to determine. The City experiences large fluctuations in population and occupancy during the year. Tourists may number 20,000 to 100,000 on any given day with peaks during the summer months. Residential trash sometimes is difficult to separate from beach refuse. occupancy per unit may rise in summer months. Nevertheless, annual volumes of City -collected MSW (as currently measured) have remained relatively constant on a per -dwelling -unit basis. Accordingly, projections of future MSW volumes can be reasonably extrapolated from past records on the basis of the number of dwelling units. The following tables present a variety of statistics on the refuse volumes generated and collected within the City. I-2 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS MSW SOURCE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SPECIAL NEWSPAPERS BEACH CLEANINGS STREET SWEEPINGS UTILITIES2 PBR TRIMMINGS2 TABLE I - 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ANNUAL VOLUMES OF CITY - COLLECTED MSW IN TONS YEAR 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83-BuILDOUT (ESTIMATED)'(ESTIMATED) 31,285 32,182 32,332 38,0001 29,082 28,547 29,IE00 34,515 4,815 4,810 4,900 5,000 99 83 100 120 1,117 1,296 1,235 1,500 9,236 8,027 8,500 10,000 2,895 2,497 2,800 3,000 1,400 2,100 TOTAL (TONS/YR) 50,744 1,400 2,100 48,760 1,400 2,100 50,435 SOURCE: GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORTS, 1NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES I-3 1,600 2,300 58,035 IH i F Figure z-1 1g80-82 Monthly Volumes of MSW Collected by the City of Newport Beach Key: N=Newspapers B=Beach Cleaning C=Commercial R=Residential Source: General Services Activity Reports Oct. 80 to Sept. 82 '� W r W "" W U$ We ft W M A 'a* 00 00 00 Me COMPONENT Combustibles Paper Cardboard Newspaper Misc. Paper Paper Subtotal Plastic Rubber, Leather Textiles Lumber Garbage Yard Waste Total Combustibles Noncombustibles Metals TABLE I- 2 TYPICAL MSW COMPOSITION LONG BEACH LOS ANGELESa SAN DIEGOb SAN FRANCISCOo NATIONALe THIS STUDY 1973 1975 AREA--1977 1979 11.72 3.7 15.0 17.6 --- 6.32 11.3 5.1 6.0 -- 20.56 25.2 36.3 25.0 - 38.60 40.2 56.4 48.0 33.5 6.35 2.3 5.6 2.0 3.6 1.02 0.5 0.9 1.Od 2.6 2.86 2.3 2.4 2.0d 2.0 3.07 2.1 2.7 2.Od 3.2 8.48 5.4 4.2 -- 17.0 20.90 33.1 17.5 23.0 17.5 81.28 85.9 89.7 78.0 79.4 Ferrous 4.65 5.2 4.9 6.0 8.0 Aluminum 1.45 ** 0.9 0.5 0.9 Other Nonferrous ** 0.9 ** 0.2 0.3 Metal Subtotal 6.10 6.1 5.8 6.7 9.2 Glass 11.69 7.3 4.2 8.0 9.9 Miscellaneous 0.93 (Rock,dirt,etc.) 0.7 0.3 7.3 1.5 Total Noncombustibles 18.72 14.1 10.3 22.0 20.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 a Envirogenies Systems Co. "System Engineering Analysis of Solid Waste Management in the SCAG Region" June 1973. b Stanton, Stockwell, Henningson, Durham & Richardson "Southern California Urban Resource Recovery Project" December 1976. c Brown & Caldwell, State Solid Waste Management Board "Bay Area Solid Waste Management Project, Phase I" February 1977. d Assumed breakdown of 5% leather, rubber, textiles and lumber. e 1980 Resource Recovery Update, by NCRR. ** Not evaluated separately. I-5 COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL COSTS The City will pay approximately $1,493,000 in fiscal 1982-83 to collect MSW and haul it to the Coyote Canyon landfill. The City will pay an additional $138,000 in 1982-83 for dumping fees which were instituted in October, 1982, at approximately $4.90 per ton. Street sweepings and trimmings are exempt from dump fees. These costs are summarized on Table I-3. TABLE 1 - 3 City of Newport Beach 1982-83 MSW Handling Cost General Services Department Refuse Division Budget $1,025,655 Revenue Sharing 287,700 Newspaper Revenue (34,610) Total Net Cost $1,278,745 Field Maintenance Div. Beach Cleaning (collection & hauling) Street Sweeping & Misc. (hauling only) Sub -Total Utilities Department (hauling only) Vehicles Labor Sub -Total PBR Department (hauling only) Vehicles Labor Sub -Total Dump Fees (EstimatedI Refuse Division Field Maintenance Div. Utilities Sub -Total $ 150,000 36,710 $ 186,710 $ 7,293 2,357 $ 9,650 $ 12,155 6,442 $ 18,597 $ 109,058 24,738 4,050 $ 137,846 TOTAL $1,631,548 From Oct. - Nov. 182 Actuals and 180-82 Monthly Activity Reports. I-6 FUTURE DISPOSAL COSTS Dumping fees and possibly hauling costs will increase in the future. The $4.90 per ton dumping fee is slated to increase to $7.00 ton July 1, 1983. (Initial administration of the fee is averaging $4.50 per�ton for the City, but more experience should raise that to the full figure.) Further increases are very possible as the national average is $10 per ton, and the Orange County system requires major capital improvements. Additionally, the Coyote Canyon landfill may close and necessitate hauling to much more distant locations. One alternative site is Bee Canyon in the north Irvine area which adds more than 16 miles to the average roundtrip to the landfill. Each additional mile of hauling distance costs the City approximately $16,492. These costs are detailed on the following tables: TABLE I-4 ANNUAL DUMPING FEE INCREASES 2003 (projected 1982-83 buildout) Tons Subject to Fees 44,300 51,235 Total Fee @ $4.90/ton $217,070 $251.050 Total Fee @ $7.00/ton 310,100 358,645 Total Fee @ $10.00/ton 443,000 512,350 I1 From Table I-1 a I-7 c �a TABLE I - 5 City of Newport Beach MSW Disposal Hauling Costs Per Mile Vehicle 0 & M Labor Cost Total Trips Annual Type Cost/Mile Per Mile3 Vehicle Per Year to Cost @ 25 MPH Cost/Mile Land Fill Per Mile Refuse Div. 29 YD $1.3351 $ .708 $2.04 1512 $ 3,084 16 YD 0.795i 1.198 1.99 4452 8,860 10 YD 0.47 1.198 1.67 204 341 Field Main. Div. 38 YD $1.0251 $ .986 $2.01 144 $ 290 All Others 1.00 .51 1.51 1608 2,428 Utility Dpt. $1.30 $ .59 $1.89 288 $ 544 PBR Dept. $1.00 $ .53 $1.53 624 $ 945 TOTAL $16,492 Assumes open road costs are 50% of total mileage costs which include expensive stop and go collection miles. 2 From Oct. - Nov, experience and 182 vehicle logs. 3 See Ap pendix A COMMERCIAL HAULERS Private hauling companies collect refuse from most businesses and some residences. The City collects only 45 gallon or 50 pound containers, and multiple family units and businesses using large dumpster bins must contract a private hauler. The commercial haulers licensed to operate in Newport Beach are hesitant to disclose the volumes they collect. However, given the large number of commercial establishments within the City, it is assumed that commercial haulers could supplement the City collections to provide a total of 200 TPD to 250 TPD of MSW. I-8 iI CHAPTER II MSW DISPOSAL COST REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES Expected refuse disposal cost increases may be offset by several methods which are discussed in this chapter. IMPOSE REFUSE FEE The Newport Beach Municipal Code requires the costs of refuse collection and disposal to be defrayed solely from property tax revenues. Most other cities in the County collect some sort of fee to defray refuse costs and, thus, pass increases to the property owner. Because the pertinent City Code section was created by the initiative process, another vote would be required to amend it. Imposition of a trash fee probably would require the City to handle the fees for all refuse service. Because the City collects refuse only from small containers, some residences and most businesses need to contract private refuse haulers. Refuse fees are normally collected through the property tax bills on a per unit basis. To provide uniformity, the City would need to collect fees from all property owners and pay private haulers as needed. Possibly the City could cease its refuse collection operations and simply collect fees and hire private haulers. Disposal of refuse such as street sweepings, tree trimmings and utility debris would still need to be accomplished by the City. Thus, only the costs of trash pickup and perhaps beach cleaning could be passed directly to property owners. Because property taxes would not decrease with the imposition of a refuse fee, those residents now receiving City refuse collection service would experience increased costs. Those residents and businesses now using private haulers only would switch the address to which they send their payment. As indicated on the following table, the City could defray current residential collection and disposal costs by imposing a refuse fee of approximately $54.88 per dwelling unit, per year. The City, of course, could impose a lower fee to defray only part of the costs. TABLE XI - 1 1982-83 MSW Costs Per Dwelling Unit Refuse Division Costs (from Table I - 3) $1,278,745 Refuse Division Collections (from Table I - 1) 35,635 tons Collection Cost per Ton $35.88 Dump Fee (1983) 7.00 Total Cost $42,88 per ton Average Dwelling Units Generates (at 3.5 lbs/day and 2.01 persons/ ) 1.28 tons/year Average Annual Cost Per Dwelling Unit $ 54.88 RECYCLING OR RESOURCE RECOVERY The City on many occasions has investigated various recycling processes and has discovered them to be largely impractical and not cost effective. The City practices newspaper recycling and both reduces its hauling costs and recovers $30,000 to $40,000 each year from this program. Problems with other recycling programs, at this point in time, include cumbersome and expensive separation requirements, high transportation costs and poor markets. Even if these problems were overcome, recycling could provide no more than a 20-25% reduction in refuse volume. The City will continue to investigate recycling, but at this time, it is not an attractive solution to the waste disposal cost problems. ALTERNATE DISPOSAL SITES AND TRANSFER STATIONS If the Coyote Canyon landfill closes, the City may be faced with increased costs to haul to more distant disposal sites. At this time, neither the life span of Coyote Canyon or its replacement site is known. Three likely alternative disposal sites have been investigated to determine potential savings in hauling costs. (None of these alternatives would help reduce dumping fees.) II-2 U 1 Bee Canyon, in the unincorporated County territory near MCAS, E1 Toro, is the site planned by the County of Orange to replace Coyote Canyon. However, attempts by the County to purchase the site from The Irvine Company have failed, and a condemnation trial is anticipated. Additional costs to haul MSW to Bee Canyon are summarized on Table II - 3. The County of Orange also operates a refuse disposal transfer station in Huntington Beach which has an indefinite life span. The hours of operation are currently very restricted due to insufficient capacity. However, if Coyote Canyon closes without a replacement, it is expected that the Huntington Beach Transfer Station will be expanded and upgraded. Costs to haul refuse to this site are summarized in Table II - 3. New transfer stations could be constructed in a variety of locations. The County of Orange has considered as lately as 1980 a new transfer station in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport to service those communities which now have direct access to Coyote Canyon. The site previously studied by the County would reduce hauling distances for Newport Beach refuse disposal vehicles. The maximum reduction in hauling distances would be provided by a transfer station located at the City Yard on Superior Avenue. Such savings are summarized in Table II - 3. In the absence of a new County transfer station, a City constructed transfer station is an option. Costs for such a facility are detailed in Table II - 2. I II-3 TABLE II - 2 Transfer Station Costs (1982-83 Dollars) Assumes capacity of 200 tons per eight hour day Vehicles (2 hr round trip haul time) Truck tractors (3) and trailers (4) with 65 cubic yard capacity $ 475,0001 Annual 0 & M at $30,000 each tractor $ 90,000 Construction2 Building $ 110,000 Compactor and push pit $ 88,000 Land - $0 - Labor (with 40% fringe) Drivers (3 at $35,000/yr.) $ 1051000 Crew (2 at $28,000/yr.) $ 56,000 Annual Costs, vehicles (amortized over 5 yrs. at 10%) $ 125,000 Buildings (amortized over 15 yrs. at 10%) $ 26,000 Vehicle 0 & M $ 90,000 Labor $ 161,000 Total Annual Cost $ 402,000 'City of Beverly Hills bid documents, April 1581. 2The Heil Co., Handbook of Transfer System Analysis, 1978, inflated 10% per year to 1982. II-4 WASTE -TO -ENERGY FACILITY A waste -to -energy facility would convert the energy contained in refuse to useable energy such as electricity or steam. Such useable energy can be sold to defray the costs of refuse collection and disposal. Such a facility located within the City would reduce hauling costs and vehicle maintenance. such facilities have the potential not only to reduce or eliminate dumping fees, but also to produce a profit. Hauling costs would be reduced by a waste -to -energy facility located anywhere in the City because all areas of the City are closer to the City Yard and to the refuse collection areas than the Coyote Canyon landfill. Any potential increased hauling distances necessitated by the closing of Coyote Canyon also would be avoided. Additionally, time savings and maintenance cost savings would be experienced because of the speed and ease of dumping from a concrete surface rather than the rough, uneven working face of a landfill. Reductions in dumping fees are dependent on energy markets, financing arrangements, operational costs, and a variety of other factors which are detailed later in this report. The tipping fee (or dumping fee) at a waste -to -energy facility represents the difference between all costs and all revenues. The cost savings over a range of performance values for a waste -to -energy facility within the City are presented on Table II - 3. Table II - 3 clearly indicates substantial potential cost savings resulting from a waste -to -energy facility within the City, and the remainder of this report addresses the feasibility of such a facility. (Notes on Table II - 3) Table II - 3 summarizes the cost reduction alternatives. Starting with the Coyote Canyon baseline, the table presents the total annual cost differences resulting from dump fees and hauling costs. The haul costs presented in Table II - 3 are calculated in Appendix A. The dumping fee increases shown with the County transfer station alternatives assume a $10.80 per ton fee when landfill fees are $7.00 and assume a $15.43 fee when landfill fees are $10.00 per ton. The hauling cost figure for the County transfer station near JWA assumes a reduction of six miles in the round trip, and uses the per mile figure of $16,492 from Table I - S. The hauling cost for the Newport Beach transfer station subtracts the haul savings from the cost of the transfer station appearing on Table II - 2. The dump fee savings for the waste -to -energy alternatives assume that the tipping fee covers the dump fee for the residue, and that Utility Department debris would still need to be hauled directly to the County landfill. The waste -to -energy alternative, with the $5 fee, assumes that the site is located so as to take advantage of 50% of the $188,000 saving of hauling to the City Yard. The waste -to -energy facility, with the $0 fee, assumes that the site is located at the City Yard and assumes full advantages of the haul cost savings except for Utility debris and street sweeping, which would still need to be hauled directly to the landfill. The refuse fee alternative assumes that all Refuse Division costs would be defrayed, but that Beach cleaning dump fees and costs, and Utility dump fees would remain. II-5 TABLE II - 3 Comparison of MSW Disposal Cost Reduction Alternatives (1982-83 Dollars) Annual Cost Increases Total Annual Increase Dump Fees Haul Above Original 1982-83 Costs Budget Disposal Site at $7 at $10 with $7 Fee with $10 Fee Coyote Canyon (base line) $31OK $443K -$0- $ 310,000 $ 443,000 Bee Canyon +$243K Total $31OK $443K $243K $ 553,000 $ 6860000 Huntington Beach Transfer Station ,6h +$168K 240K +$ 72K Total $478K $683 $ 72K $ 550,000 $ 755,000 County Transfer Station near JWA ,d +$168K $240K -$94K Total $478K $683K -$94K $ 384,000 $ 5899000 NB Transfer Station at City Yd -$188K Gx -0- -O- +$402K Total $31OK $443K $214 $ 524,000 $ 657,000 Waste -to -Energy with $5/ton Tipping Fee LI -$ 86K $172K -$ 94K Total $224K $271K ( $ 94K) $ 130,000 $ 177,000 Waste -to -Energy with $O/ton Tipping Fee and located near City Yard & -$300K $430K -$142K Total $ 10K $ 15K ($142K) ($ 132,000) ($ 127,000) Impose Refuse Fee 0 -$30OK $430K -$1,300K Total $ IOK $ 15K $1,300K) $i 290,000 $1,285,000 II-6 11 '1 CHAPTER III WASTE -TO -ENERGY TECHNOLOGY The conversion of municipal refuse to energy can be accomplished in many ways. This chapter describes most known technologies with emphasis on those with proven performance. Each description includes some operating history of the process and the known advantages and disadvantages of each technology. BIOCONVERSION This technology refers primarily to the conversion of the organic elements of refuse into fertilizer and methane gas. Composting and anaerobic digestion are the most common forms of bioconversion. Composting Solid waste composting in Europe and the Far East is currently practiced at over.100 plants. Over the past 25 years, however, the composting facilities established in the United States have met with little success, and all have closed with the exception of the pilot -scale plant at Altoona, Pennsylvania. The process for composting solid waste consists of three basic steps: 1. Coarse treatment - Shredding to uniform size (smaller than two inches), hand-picking noncom- postables, and magnetic separation of ferrous metals. 2. Digestion - Aerobic or anaerobic bacteria and fungi digest the waste, using methods that range from windrows to mechanical digesters to stablize the material and produce heat to kill pathogens. 3. Fine treatment - Shredding and screening to remove dust and glass from the finished compost. The basic technology of composting is well developed, and there are no real technological barriers to making compost. The history of failure in the United States is due primarily to inadequate markets. Compost from municipal solid waste cannot qualify as a fertilizer because it is low in nutrients (less than one percent nitrogen). Its main use is as a soil conditioner; however, the value as a soil conditioner is low, and economics do not favor any extensive shipment. In addition, compost has not proved to be a viable alternative to composted manures and chemical fertilizers. The primary benefits of composting from a solid waste management point of view appear to be volume reduction, ferrous metals recovery, and production of a relatively stable landfill material. Reliability of composting is good because the technology is well developed and the mechanical systems are not too sophisticated. A composting plant following the coarse -treatment stage is relatively inflexible because it cannot be easily adapted to new systems or converted to another use. The system is easily expanded and therefore capable of handling changing waste loads. The relatively long digestion period (10 to 15 days) requires sites significantly larger than for most other resource recovery systems. As noted in the next chapter, there is no market for composted refuse in Orange County. Anaerobic Digestion This technology, a type of bioconversion, involves breaking down the organic portion of solid wastes and sewage sludge by bacteria and other anaerobic microorganisms. Carbon dioxide and methane gas is a decomposition by-product. The anaerobic digestion process consists of four steps: 1. Waste handling and mixing - Shredding and separating the organic solid waste material through staged shredding and screening or hydro pulping (wet separation of fibrous material) and mixing with sewage sludge as a nutrient. 2. Digestion - Anaerobic digestion of the organic mass takes place in a controlled environment and well -mixed reactor for a detention time period of 5 to 45 days. The final products are methane and carbon dioxide gas and sludge. 3. Methane gas treatment or direct use - Removal of moisture, carbon dioxide, and traces of hydrogen sulfide gases produces medium -quality methane gas (700 Btu per cubic foot). The generated digester gas (300 Btu per cubic foot) may be used unprocessed in equipment (boilers and engines) modified to burn this type of gas. 4. Residual sludge liquids would be separated from the digester sludge by dewatering and returned to a sewage treatment plant. The dewatered sludge (20 percent by volume, 50 percent by weight of incoming waste stream) could be landfilled, incinerated, or land spread as a soil amendment. The relatively short detention time converts only 30 to 35 percent of the solid waste energy content to methane. Up to 50,000 cubic feet of gas per 100 tons of refuse has been produced with retention times of up to 20 days. Assuming the gas is used for steam production and the sludge is incinerated, overall recovery efficiencies approach 40 percent. However, if the sludge is not incinerated, the overall efficiency drops to 10 to 20 percent. A demonstration size anerobic digestion system (50 to 100 tons per day) has been constructed in Pompano Beach, Florida. Another system is operating in Oklahoma City, and one is planned for Ventura, California. Such systems are capital intensive; and because of the long digester storage times, significant amounts of land are required as compared to other energy recovery systems. III-2 I Marketability of steam or gas is limited unless the plant can be located next to potential customers or a natural gas transmission line. Transmission of the gas or steam for distances in excess of one to two miles rapidly impacts the economics of the system. In addition, large volumes of sewage are required. This impacts system economics because credit cannot be claimed for sludge -disposal costs that would be eliminated. PYROLYSIS Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of organic material by heating it in the absence or near absence of oxygen. This process, the basis of petroleum refining, as applied to solid waste involves feeding shredded municipal solid waste into a controlled -atmosphere reaction vessel where it is heated or partially burned. Pyrolysis differs from incineration in that it is endothermic (heat absorbing) so that it takes 20 to 30 percent of the energy content of the refuse to sustain the process. The primary products of this process are: ° A gas primarily consisting of hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide with 15 to 30 percent of the heating value of natural gas ° A liquid or oil that includes organic chemicals such as acetic acid, acetone, and methanol and water with 70 percent of the heating value of No. 6 fuel oil ° A char or ash consisting of almost pure carbon plus inerts such as glass and metals The design and process controls such as temperature, pressure, and reaction time determine which of the products predominates. At least ten firms have developed a pyrolysis system; however, only three systems have advanced to the demonstration or full-scale stage. ° Monsanto Corporation's "Landgard" system (Baltimore, Maryland). Monsanto has withdrawn, and the full- scale plant reopened following extensive modifications. ° Occidental Petroleum Corporation's "Garrett" process (San Diego County, California). The demonstration plant has been dismantled. Union Carbide Corporation's "Purox" System (South Charleston, West Virginia). The demonstration plant operated successfully since 1974, but further develop- ment depends on sale of full-scale process technology and plant. Recovery of the energy in solid wastes through pyrolysis gas and conversion to steam is 50 to 60 percent efficient; however, recovery as a liquid oil is only 20 to 30 percent efficient. Because of shredding, it is possible to use material recovery front-end processes along with pyrolysis to capture ferrous and aluminum metals and glass. Landfilling of char and ash would be required. 'II III-3 Pyrolysis should still be classified as a developing technology with none of the processes identified for use in any of the presently planned resource recovery systems. The problems with pyrolysis center on reliability (technical problems) and cost considerations. Pyrolysis systems are not flexible, and their high capital costs would make it impossible to abandon all or part of a system to take advantage of future developments. Pyrolysis systems have not yet been developed and produced in convenient modular systems to allow phased expansion to handle future waste loads. Site availability would be similar to that for other industrial facilities. Both the oil and gas products have excellent heating and handling qualities for use in steam boilers when compared to refuse -derived fuel (RDF). The oil does tend to cause some corrosion problems. REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF) This technology involves processing refuse into a fuel for use either as a supplement to fossil fuels in conventional boilers or as an exclusive fuel in specially designed boilers. The RDF process can include any of a variety of shredding, flailing, screening, separating, recovery, or classifier mechanisms to reduce the refuse into highly flammable pellets, chips. fluff, or any other easily handled form. Typically, 80 percent of municipal refuse can be processed into RDF. Several such mechanisms are illustrated on Figure III -A. There are currently 28 RDF systems under construction or operation in the United States and more in various stages of planning and design. At present, there are no RDF plants operating in the Southwestern U.S. Thirteen of the 28 produce RDF which is transported to a separate steam/power generating facility. The other fifteen use RDF on site to fuel dedicated boilers. A large RDF project is planned in Long Beach, California. RDF plants cover a wide capacity range from small facilities of 100 TPD to large systems of 3,000 TPD. The smaller facilities usually sell RDF to coal fired power plants. The average size RDF plant firing dedicated boilers to cogenerate steam and electricity is slightly over 1,700 tons per day. Most of the RDF plants have experienced major problems in the materials' handling section of the facility, RDF is very light, abrasive, and highly viscous. Downtime has been very high at many sites as problems with conveying, storing, and feeding the product into the furnaces have continued. Howeveri proponents of RDF systems using dedicated boilers point to these advantages compared to mass -burning facilities: ° Maximizes materials' recovery by separating recyclables at front end. Provides a cleaner, higher BTU fuel for combustion. ° Lower excess air requirements result in smaller air pollution control devices, a smaller boiler, and higher thermal efficiency. ° Less ash is produced which can affect significant savings in ash hauling and disposal. III-4 7� 60 IV it i♦ iMi so i* mai• owes it a it m em m ! FLAIL MILL FERROUS S' NOMINAL MAGNETIC SEPARATOR O \ _TROMMEL SHREDDER 4' NOMINAL UNDERFLOW AIR CLASSIFIER OVERFLOW H v H v+ AND DISPOSAL OR MATERIAL RECOVERY 4' DISC SCREEN RDF TO FUEL STORAGE FIGURE III - A RDF PROCESSING TRAIN Disadvantages of this system include: ° operating experience at existing plants has proven that fluff RDF is very difficult to handle and store. This has lead to extensive modifications and downtime. ° The market for ferrous metals, which is the easiest material to recover, is very weak at present. ° The most valuable material in the waste stream is aluminum; however, a reliable process for selectively removing aluminum from the waste stream has not yet been demonstrated. Three emerging technologies offer promise in this area: eddy current separation, electrostatic separation, and dense media separation. However, the RDF facility in New Orleans has opted for hand-picking of aluminum cans after repeated failure of new technologies to perform to specification. Some plants have required millions of dollars in modifications. MASS BURNING As the name implies, this technology involves the incineration of unprocessed municipal refuse. Steam and/or electricity is produced by the waste heat from the process. The basic configuration of a mass burning facility is relatively consistent. Refuse is delivered to an enclosed pit or tipping floor from where it is charged into some sort of a furnace by a crane or a front loading tractor. The refuse is burned as it moves over or through some conveying mechanism. The heat from the process is recovered in a boiler to produce steam. Waste gases are treated by air pollution control equipment and then released through a stack. The remaining bottom ash and fly ash are collected and hauled to a landfill. The general configuration of a mass burning facility is presented on Figure III-B. Numerous configurations of incinerators and boilers exist with various methods of moving and stoking the burning refuse. The major variable features of these facilities are described below: III-6 W" i"" 6090" m o m I ft"" m ,r " m Pit% I / a I Heat Recovery Precipitators S t Heat a Recovery c r'1 k 0 Metal Magnetic Metal Refractory Lined vs. Waterwall Furnaces These two different linings of incinerator furnaces have varying properties that affect their refuse burning characteristics. Refractory material acts as a heat sink to absorb and retain heat from the combustion process. Refractory materials typically are ceramic resembling brick, stone, or lava rock. waterwall furnaces are formed by closely spaced waterfilled tubes that lower incinerator temperatures and are an integral part of the steam generator. Each of these two general types of furnaces have their own separate advantages and disadvantages. The refractory lined furnaces tend to have high but constant temperatures.) Refractory walls will tend to absorb any small explosions which occur. Slagging of refuse material on refractory walls will not harm the incineration process. Combustion gases in refractory lined incinerators must be carefully controlled to minimize fluctuations in oxidizing and reducing atmospheres that promote boiler corrosion. Some heat recovery efficiency is lost in the interest of obtaining a more complete burnout. Thus, refractory walled furnaces tend to reduce refuse volumes at the expense of generating useable energy. Refractory walled incinerators are well suited for continuous operation, but their maintenance shutdowns are more time consuming. Common in Europe, refractory walled municipal refuse incinerators have not yet been operated in the United States. Waterwall furnaces are, by far, the most widely used waste -to -energy technology worldwide, and many are operating in the United States. Waterwalls recover more radiant heat and easily produce super heated steam for the generation of electricity. Steam rate fluctuations are more common however. Boiler corrosion is minimized in waterwalls, but is replaced by soot buildup which must be controlled by soot blowers. Water tubes are susceptible to exploding refuse and must be protected. Maintenance is similar to refractory lined furnaces, but waterwalls have demonstrated lower overall availability. Waterwalls also tend to emit more carbon monoxide. Waterwalls are more expensive to build than refractory lined units. Modular (Controlled Air) Incineration A modular incinerator is a small prefabricated combustion unit which normally operates on a "controlled air" principle. Basically designed to be a low polluting incinerator, this process only recently has been adapted to energy recovery. I The basic elements of a typical controlled air modular incinerator with attached waste heat boiler are shown in Figure III-C. Combustion takes place in two zones --the primary chamber and a secondary chamber, although at least one manufacturer employs a third chamber as well. The incinerator's primary combustion zone is filled with combustible refuse and ignited using a gas or oil burner. The amount of air supplied to the primary chamber is maintained at a level that is typically insufficient for complete combustion. The resulting low air velocity in the primary chamber serves to minimize the entrainment of particulates in the gas stream. Since air into the primary chamber is limited, partial combustion takes place, along with partial pyrolysis of the waste to a low Btu gas. This gas, consisting primarily of carbon monoxide and low molecular weight hydrocarbons, rises into the secondary chamber of the incinerator where complete combustion is assured by the addition of excess air. BOILER RETURN FIGURE III - C CONTROLLED -AIR MODULAR INCINERATOR TO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT CROSS SECTION VIEW RECOVER( BOILER LOADER Both stages of combustion normally require. auxiliary fuel burners for start-up, temperature control, and complete burnout. By a combination of auxiliary fuel injection and air control, the primary chamber temperature is maintained at about 1,400°F and the secondary at approximately 1,800°F. In addition, the primary chambers are often equipped with water spray systems which are automatically actuated when temperatures exceed the desired value. Hot gases from combustion in the secondary chamber are directed through a heat recovery boiler to produce steam. Because of the controlled combustion in the two -stage incinerators, relatively low particulate levels are present in the exhaust gases. The process is similar to other technologies. Waste is initially received on a tipping floor. Tractor operators, in response to a signal from an automatic demand light, push the waste into the loading hopper of the incinerator from which an operator -controlled hydraulic ram feeds the primary combustion chamber. The loading cycle is automatic and interlocked to protect operating personnel from exposure to the heat of incineration and to maintain controlled air conditions in the incinerator. Ash and partially burned waste are continually pushed through the primary chamber by transfer rams, movable grates, or other means. The ash ultimately leaves the chamber and is water quenched in a sump and then conveyed into a container to be hauled to the landfill for final disposal. Energy efficiencies and burnout are relatively low in comparison to other mass burning technologies. Reported energy recovery rates range between 50 to 60 percent, even though manufacturers claim 70 percent. Ash residue is reportedly 40 percent to 50 percent of the original refuse weight. Consumat Systems has manufactured the most modular incinerators of the type described above. Locations where Consumat controlled air incinerators burning MSW are in operation include Auburn, Maine; Dyersburg, Tennessee; North Little Rock, Arkansas; Salem, Virginia; Durham, New Hampshire; Windham, Connecticut; and a number of others. Sizes of these facilities range from less than 50 TPD to 200 TPD. Another type of controlled air incinerator is manufactured by Basic Environmental Engineering, Inc., Glen Ellyn, Illinois. Basic incinerators utilize three -chamber combustion; the primary chamber is maintained at stoichiometric combustion conditions, with excess air supplied to the dual afterburners. The manufacturer states that the three -chamber design affords a higher degree of controllability than is possible with two chambers. Incinerators manufactured by Basic Engineering incorporate water tubes in the combustion chamber to absorb the radiant heat of the burning process. Twenty percent of the steam output is produced in this section. Another major difference with this system is the use of a moving hearth in the larger sizes; the wastes are "bumped" through the combustor, which serves to mix the refuse, reportedly improving the burnout. The manufacturer states that emissions from this incinerator will meet Federal air emissions standards without the use of auxiliary pollution abatement devices, provided that the wastes are not biased with sulfur products, halogens products, or excessive metal oxides of lead, zinc, etc. Basic's first installation operating on municipal solid waste started operation in December 1981 at Collegeville, Minnesota (St. John's University); it is a single 64 TPD unit. In general, modular incinerators have not been used to generate superheated steam or electricity, and they have not been operated on a continuous, 7-day a week, 24-hour a day basis on municipal solid waste. Saturated steam pressures of 100 to 200 psig are typical for modular incinerators. The manufacturers of the systems are working toward achieving steam of higher temperatures and pressures, and new operating data are becoming available regularly. The capital cost of modular systems is considerably below that of other mass burning technologies. Construction and start-up times can be as little as one year. Refractory breakdown due to the highly corrosive reduced air environment has been a major problem. Furnace lifetimes are generally regarded to be only ten years even though some contractors are willing to guarantee them for twenty years. Stoker Fired Units Stoker fired refers to the mechanism that conveys the refuse through the incinerating furnace and simultaneously churns the refuse and mixes it with air to stoke the fire. Stoker mechanisms include moveable grates, rollers, or bars with air ports. Air is forced through the ports as the mechanism churns the refuse. Developed and used primarily in Europe, this technology is licensed to United States firms. Examples of the stoker mechanisms are presented on Figure III-D. Stoker fired units are configured as other mass burning units with dumping pits or tipping floors, boilers, air pollution equipment, etc. Both refractory lined and waterwall units are available, even though the waterwall variety is more common and is the only type in use in the United States. Stoker fired incinerator boilers are the most common type used to generate steam from solid wastes. The technology was first developed in Europe due to necessity because disposal sites were limited and energy costs were higher than in the United States. Increased costs of fuel and disposal of municipal solid waste to landfill has led to the construction of eleven field -erected mass -burning waterwall incinerator/boiler facilities in the United States since 1970. In the earlier stages of development of solid waste stoker fired boilers, problems were encountered with erosion and corrosion of boiler tubes, and failure of stoker grates and ash conveyors. These have been greatly overcome 1 by new designs and the selection of better material of construction for this application. The advantages of the stoker fired units are that they are available in larger sizes than the controlled -air modules and are similar in design to conventional stoker fired boilers used in the coal-fired power plants. Also, efficiencies are higher than for the controlled -air modular incinerator/boilers. Heat recovery approximates 70 percent, and burnout is 75 percent by weight and 90 percent by volume. Although reliability is considered good, maintenance costs of the stoker and ash handling equipment are high. Also, more frequent replacement of boiler tubes should be expected than for a boiler burning low sulfur coal or fossil fuels. REFUSE 1 COMBUSTION GASES 2 GRATE 3 ASH MARTIN -REVERSE RECIPROCATING VON ROLL 3 FI"GURE III - D VKW- DUSSELDORF EXAMPLES OF EUROPEAN MASS FIRING GRATES Primary control would be via steam'pressure rather than combustion chamber temperature as used by the controlled -air modular incinerators, thus assuring a more uniform steam pressure being delivered by the boiler. Also, an energy plant having fewer but larger units would have simpler controls and would be easier to operate with fewer personnel. Stoker fired units have demonstrated excellent capabilities to produce both superheated steam and electricity, even though steam producing applications are more common. However, stoker fired units are capital intensive, heavily constructed power plant -like units. High excess air requirements necessitate large boilers and air pollution equipment. Most appropriate for large capacity applications, stoker fired units in operation average 700 TPD for steam producing units and 1,200 TPD for electricity producing units. Rotary Furnaces Rotary kiln furnaces have been in use in a number of countries through the world as well as the United States. The Volund Company of Denmark has installations dating back to 1932. The Volund design uses a refractory lined stoker fired furnace followed by a refractory lined rotary kiln for maximum burnout of organic matter in the furnace residue. In the past few years, a United States' based firm called O'Connor Envirbtech Corporation developed a waterwall rotary furnace. The first installations were in Japan, and recently a 200 TPD plant was completed in Gallatin, Tennessee. While the technology looks promising, there are only a few years of operating experience to evaluate the reliability of the system. The O'Connor system uses a rotating, water-cooled cylinder in the combustion zone in lieu of the conventional stoker used with other waterwall boilers. The 8- to 10-foot diameter cylinder is made up of axial tubes carrying pressurized cooling water connected by perforated spacer plates. The cylinder is tilted downward slightly from the horizontal plane to promote movement of the burning wastes toward the boiler as the cylinder rotates slowly at 1/6 RPM. The cylinder is enclosed in an insulated metal housing. Combustion air enters the rotating cylinder from damper -controlled wind boxes through the holes in the perforated plates. Figure III-E portrays the rotary combustor/boiler system. The pressurized cooling water circulating through the rotating cylinder is supplied from the lower drum of the boiler and returned to the upper boiler drum where a portion is flashed into steam. Approximately 30 percent of the F net energy derived from the solid waste is produced from the water circulated through the tubes of the rotary combustor. The remaining 70 percent is captured by the boiler. Wastes are fed to a hopper and charging chute by a crane. The combustor is fed from the charging chute by a hydraulic ram. The ash and other noncombustibles are discharged into an ash quench tank at the base of the furnace section of the boiler. Comparison points regarding the rotary combustion/boiler system are: ° The simple rotating cylinder has no internal moving parts as compared to the stoker and controlled -air incinerators and is easy to maintain. III-13 H H N I r F FIGUREIZL - E O'CONNOR WATER-COOLED ROTARY COMBUSTOR im MAW m woomaw m&w,ter m 4r m vw so son* rs we ° Preheated combustion air entering the combustor promotes drying of the waste, as well as burning. ° Cooling water circulated through the tubes in the combustor prevents high metal temperatures and "burn outs" which are experienced with stokers cooled with air. ° operating experience indicates little or no wear inside the combustor and low maintenance costs. ° Since approximately 30 percent of the available heat from the municipal solid waste is transferred to the water circulating through the tubes of the combustor, a smaller boiler can be used for a plant having the same capacity as compared with a stoker fired boiler. ° Energy efficiency and burnout compare well with stoker fired units. ° The low temperatures and absence of refractory material do not require long cool -down or start-up times during maintenance. ° The units are well suited to continuous operations, and the availability of multiple units allows for alternating maintenance schedules. ° Factory assembly of units reduces construction costs. (Costa Mesa location would provide extra cost savings to Newport Beach.) The O'Connor facility in Gallatin, Tennessee, has exhibited little corrosion and has shown availability approaching 90 percent. An aluminum slagging problem in the ash hopper has been solved. Heat recovery or energy efficiency is rated at 70 percent, and ash residue is 27 percent by weight and 10 percent by volume. Steam can be produced at 600 psig and 600°F, but reports indicate fluctuations in the steaming rate. More operating data will become available in the near future. RDF Fired Units Several types of incinerator/boiler combinations require the processing of refuse into pellets or other easily handled form called refuse derived fuel (RDF). This RDF process is discussed earlier in this chapter. RDF fired incinerators/boilers include conventional stoker spreader boilers which normally burn coal. Unlike mass burning units, spreader stoker boilers require a reduction of refuse to a maximum size of four to six inches. This size reduction allows the injection of the refuse through feed ports above a traveling grate. Some of the refuse burns in suspension while the remainder is spread over the grate near the back wall of the boiler. The grate, moving toward the injection ports, supports the ash and burning fuel until complete burnout is achieved. After traversing the boiler, the ash is dumped in ash hoppers. III-15 Spreader stoker boilers have been in successful operation for decades, utilizing coal and low-grade fuels. In recent years, an adaptation of the design has been used for the firing of RDF in various locations. Six spreader stoker RDF units are currently operating. Spreader stoker RDF systems offer some advantages over mass -fired technology. The use of a thin fast burning fuel bed provides rapid response to variations in load superior to that found in the mass -fired boiler. Spreader stoker units operate with a lower excess air requirement than mass -fired units and with higher efficiencies. Because of front-end preparation, the distribution of fuel on the grate is more precise and residue quantities from the boiler less. It would generally be found that spreader stoker units arel correspondingly less costly than a mass -fired unit of equivalent heat input. To date, problems associated with spreader stoker installations have revolved around the refinement of the refuse -derived fuel. When in operation, boilers have performed satisfactorily. The front-end preparation and storage requirements needed would usually incur additional capital -and -operating costs relative to similar functions for mass -burning. However, low boiler costs and higher operating efficiencies should be expected to provide an offset. Fluidized bed combustion is another process requiring RDF. Research into the fluidized bed combustion concept has been ongoing for many years in all parts of the world. Advantages include: low excess air requirements; high efficiency; dual fuel capability; combustion of low grade fuels (including RDF). Difficulties have included poor turn -down control, and carry-over of grit and other particulates causing boiler erosion problems. For municipal solid waste disposal, the concept includes the preparation of a refuse -derived fuel for injection into a fluid bed combustor. The combustor would be constructed of carbon steel with refractory brick and ceramic fiber insulation. A bed of sand is used as a fluidizing medium. RDF would become included in the dynamic condition of the fluidized bed. High temperature gases are transported to a waste heat boiler for steam generation. Fluidized bed combustion of RDF occurred in 1977 at Bournville, Birmingham, England. By 1978, the unit had been shut down and dismantled. Carry-over of ash and sand from the fluidized bed had completely eroded the boilers. In the fall of 1979, a fluidized bed co -disposal facility located in Duluth, Minnesota, began shakedown operations. Design had commenced in 1974. Two 100 percent capacity fluidized bed reactors are installed to burn 340 tons per day of sludge cake and 200 tons per day of RDF. Initial start-up of the Duluth project immediately identified the problem common to all fluidized bed reactors to date. excess carry-over of sand into the waste heat boiler. Other problems of an equipment nature are not considered to be substantial. At Duluth, fluidized bed combustor off -gases are used for the generation of low pressure steam for electrical power generation. steam is fed to turbine generators at a 250-pound saturated condition. Exhaust from the turbine generators is at 5 psig which is used for building heating. Generated power is used to run high pressure blowers for the fluidized bed reactor and other miscellaneous uses within the facility. Net available energy for sale by the facility is not available, but in the view of engineers associated with the project, it is minimal. The principal design criterion for the Duluth facility is sludge disposal not resource recovery. III-16 Fluidized bed combustion has long been viewed as the most promising new technology in the solid waste disposal field. Problems as noted above have plagued the technology, but all concerned with the Duluth plant are optimistic that these problems are being solved. The technology, however, is still in its infancy and, as a result, subject to refinement as operating data is collected at the demonstration plant. A further disadvantage is that the leading contractor in this field has removed itself from further work. Suspension -fired waterwall technology also requires the preparation of a highly refined RDF. It will normally be expected that a suspension -fired boiler would operate at a higher thermal efficiency than mass -firing or spreader stoker firing. However, a major penalty is incurred when the cost of waste processing, storage, and firing systems are included. A small number of facilities in the United States burn RDF in combination with coal as outlined earlier in this chapter. Only one operating full suspension -fired RDF unit in the United States utilizes waste as a fuel exclusively. This is a facility owned by the Eastman Kodak Company, Kodak Park, Rochester, New York. The Kodak system was put on-line in 1972 and during its shakedown phase underwent some modifications. Since that time, operation has been continuous. The Kodak installation was a trailblazing operation in which many of the material handling problems associated with suspension firing were identified and solved by the efforts of Eastman Kodak, its engineers, and equipment suppliers. It is worthy to note, however, that the principal manufacture of suspension -fired RDF units, Combustion Engineering, Inc., has itself prepared bids on a number of refuse -to -energy projects on the basis of performance -type specifications which do not have mandatory equipment criteria. Combustion Engineering has found, through its own analysis, that mass -fired and. spreader stoker operated units offer more attractive economics than the suspension -fired unit. CMI-ENCON COMBINATION Energy Conversion Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of the large CMI heavy equipment manufacturing company, is building and marketing a waste -to -energy system which combines several technologies. One such facility is near completion in Oklahoma City, another is planned in Ventura County, California, and seven such facilities have been proposed for Orange County to handle all solid wastes. CMI-ENCON has proposed to build and operate such a facility in Newport Beach. The ENCON technology processes municipal wastes through several recovery and sorting mechanisms similar to refuse derived fuel processing. The unrecoverable and lighter fraction that comprises 80 percent of the refuse is digested with raw waste water to produce a gas which is cleaned to pipeline quality methane (980 Btu per cubic foot). Sludge from the digestion process is dewatered and incinerated in a rotary furnace to produce steam or electricity. The Southern California Edison Company appears to have a great degree of confidence in the system and is actively participating in the development of the facility in Ventura, California. SCE also participated in ENCON's proposal to the Orange County Board of Supervisors to invest over $500 million to build and operate seven such facilities to handle all of the County's solid waste. Because the system is so new, there is little operating experience available to assess performance. However, some general observations can be made. The system appears to require greater acreages than other systems, but the buildings are somewhat lower in height. The sorting and separating pretreatment appears to be complicated and to require some hand sorting. All the constituent parts of the system have been tested, but the results of intermingling and upsizing are still unknown. For instance, the gas producing digesters have been successfully operated only at 50 gallon and 2000 gallon sizes. The process requires 7,000,000 gallon size units which have not yet been built or successfully operated. Energy efficiencies and sales revenues, although purportedly guaranteed, have yet to be demonstrated. New operating data on this system is expected on a continuing basis over the coming years. I I I 11 1 CHAPTER IV ENERGY MARKETS The conversion of refuse to energy will be cost effective only if the energy can be sold. Therefore, this chapter identifies available markets for energy and recovered materials, the product requirements, and the expected prices. ELECTRICITY Measured in kilowatt hours (kwh), electricity can be produced by refuse -fired steam turbine generators. Typical municipal waste incinerated at a 70 percent heat recovery rate in- a facility available 310 days per year can produce electricity at an average rate of approximately 475 kwh per ton. Thus, a typical day of Newport Beach collected refuse (125 tons) can produce approximately 60,000 kwh of electricity each day. This is equivalent to the power used by 7500 homes. This power can be used by the owner/operator of the producing plant or sold to the utility. Regulations implementing the Federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA), and a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decision require that utilities pay the full "avoided cost" or "marginal cost" for power purchased from all "qualifying small power production facilities." A waste to energy facility would qualify as both a cogenerator and as a solid waste plant. Any electricity produced could be sold to the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) under the above -referenced requirements. SCE has developed a rate schedule to conform with these regulations which has been submitted to the CPUC for approval. The purchase price SCE will pay is divided into an energy payment and a capacity payment. The energy payment is equal to the "avoided cost of fuel" and the capacity payment is equal to SCE's defrayed cost of building new generating capacity. Tables IV-1 and IV-2 provide SCE's payment schedule for energy and capacity respectively. After the capacity payment of $/KW/year from Table IV-2 is established, it remains unchanged throughout the life of the contract. The energy payment is dependent on the time of day, day of the week, and month of the year. These payments, however, can be presented for an average continuous generation rate. The capacity payment can be calculated on the same basis as follows: Capacity Payment (cents/KW-hour) _ $/KW/year (Table 3-2) 365 days/yr x 24 hr/day IV-1 Using the rates presented in Table IV-1, and the amount shown in Table IV-2, for a 20-year contract beginning in 1983, the total payment would be: Total Payment = 5.4 cents/KW-hour + 1.22 cents/KW-hour (CAP) = 6.62 cents/KW-hour 8CE is an excellent energy market. They will purchase any and all electricity produced and will enter into a contract from 1 to 30 years in length. Since SCE is a large utility, they can be expected to remain in business for the duration of any proposed waste -to -energy project. Table IV-1 SCE's Energy Payment Schedules On -Peak 5.9 cents/KW-HR Mid -Peak 5.4 cents/KW-HR Off -Peak 5.2 cents/KW-HR Time Weighted Average 5.4 cents/KW-HR 1Rates effective November 1, 1982, to January 31, 1983 Table IV-2 SCE's Capacity Payment Schedules $/KW/Year (Based on 100% On -Line Factor) First Year of Contract Term Years , Delivery 1 5 10 15 20 30 1983 24 47 75 93 107 127 1984 24 64 90 108 123 145 r 1985 24 84 108 126 142 165 1986 92 109 129 147 164 189 1Rates effective September 17, 1982 Future avoided costs of electricity are uncertain. Avoided costs decreased during 1982. Each quarter both energy and capacity payments vary according to a complex formula involving fuel costs, interest rates, outages, and many other items. The oil glut and the availability of natural gas during 1982 contributed to falling prices. Historical rates are presented on Table IV-3. , Past projections of exponentially rising energy costs are being reconsidered. Despite coming deregulation, natural gas prices are not expected to rise dramatically, The forecasts of Southern California Edison for avoided costs reveal a moderate rise in nominal costs from 50-60 per KWH in 1982 to 84-96 , IV-2 'I 1 1 II per KWH in 1991. In real 1982 values, however, SCE forecasts a drop to approximately 4C in 1991. Considering the current unpredictability of the national economy, all forecasts of avoided costs are speculative. Newport Beach used nearly $800,000 of electricity in 1981-82 for street lighting, water pumping, and other municipal services. This electricity is metered at approximately 170 locations. A City -owned waste -to -energy facility could provide this electrical requirement, but connection and transmission costs might be prohibitive. Table IV-3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST ENERGY PAYMENTS (cents/KWH) ON -PEAK NEAR -PEAK OFF-PEAK RATES RATES RATES February - April 1980 4.0 4.0 3.9 May - July 1980 4.7 4.7 4.6 August - September 1980 5.0 5.0 4.9 October 1980 - January 1981 5.0 5.0 4.9 February - April 1981 5.9 5.5 5.3 May - July 1981 6.6 6.0 5.8 August - September 1981 7.7 7.1 6.9 October 1981 7.7 7.1 6.9 November - December 1981 8.0 7.3 7.1 January - April 1982 8.0, 7.3 7.1 May - July 1982 5.3 4.9 4.7 August - October 1982 5.6 5.2 5.0 November 1982 - January 1983 5.9 5.4 5.3 STEAM Sale of steam can be more profitable than the sale of electricity because efficiency is increased by the elimination of the interim turbine generator. Steam markets in the Newport Beach area, however, are few. Measured in pounds by temperature and pressure (psig), steam can be used for heating, cooling, or industrial processes. Typical municipal waste incinerated at 70 percent heat recovery rate can generate steam at a rate of approximately 600 1Bs at 400-600 psig and 400-600OF of steam per ton. A typical day of Newport Beach collected trash (125 tons) therefore could produce 750,000 1Bs of steam per day. The sale price of steam is directly related to the price for the fuel used to generate steam. Steam generated by a waste -to -energy facility is often sold at a discount from oil or gas generated steam as an inducement to the user. Oil and natural gas are the primary fuels used to produce steam in the Newport Beach area. Natural gas in November, 1982, was selling at approximately $0.56 per term (100,00 Btu). At that price, steam costs approximately $5.68 per 1,000 iBs. Fuel oil in November, 1982, was selling at approximately $36 per IV-3 barrel. At that price, steam cost approximately $6.57 per 1,000 pounds. These costs are exclusive of maintenance, operating, and water treatment costs. Rapidly depleted during transmission, steam energy must be sold to customers relatively close to the producing facility to ensure profitability. Construction of steam transmission lines can also be very expensive. Potential steam customers are, therefore, dependent on the location of the waste -to -energy facility. Almost any large building or group of buildings that require heating and cooling could be a steam user with the appropriate equipment. Any shopping center or industrial area could be built or converted to use steam. Three potential steam customers were located in Newport Beach and are discussed below. Mobil Oil Corporation Mobil oil uses large amount of steam to extract oil from its leases on the Banning property in west Newport. Natural gas purchased from the Southern California Gas Company and digester gas purchased from the sewage treatment plant in Huntington Beach is burned to produce approximately 41,000 1Bs per hour of steam at 600 psig and 4890F. The fuel equivalent value of this steam ranges between $2.0 million and $2.4 million per year. Contacts within Mobil Oil Corporation have indicated a willingness to consider use of steam from a waste -to -energy facility to "... provide significant cost savings and environmental improvements." The existing lease for oil extraction expires in 1994, but representative of both the oil company and the property owner have indicated the possibility of extending the lease term. Hoag Memorial Hospital Hoag Hospital operates two natural gas fired boilers to produce steam for both heating and cooling. Amounts of steam are relatively low averaging 6-16,000 1Bs per hour at 80 psig and 3500F. Steam usage increases during the night and during the winter. Natural gas usage can vary from 35,000 therms in August to 80,000 therms in January. Natural gas usage in 1982 is estimated at 643,000 therms, and 95 percent of that amount is used to produce steam. At a price of $0.56 per therm, the fuel equivalent price of the steam used at Hoag Hospital in 1982 is approximately $342,000. This figure does not include maintenance, operation, or water treatment. Hoag Hospital has retained the ANCO Engineering Company to study cogeneration and other energy savings techniques. The study will resume in April, 1983, after winter historical data is collected. Hughes Aircraft Company The Hughes facility near the City Yard on Superior Avenue operates two natural gas fired boilers to produce steam primarily for cooling. Each boiler produces up to 6900 iBs per hour at low temperature and low pressure. Steam is required 24 hours per day, and usage rises when the weather is warmer. The 1981 cost for natural gas to fuel the boilers was approximately $95,000. IV-4 I ' METHANE GAS ' The market for high quality methane gas is very good. "Pipeline quality" gas can be distributed and sold to any user of natural gas purchased from the utility. Southern California Edison has indicated a strong willingness to buy gas from a waste -to -energy process. Anaerobic digestion of municipal "waste to produce methane gas requires the addition of raw waste water. One ton of typical refuse combined with 1,000 gallons of waste water can produce approximately 72 therms of gas. (1 Therm equals 100,000 BTU). The selling price of natural gas in November, 1982, was approximately $0.56 per therm. A typical day of Newport Beach collected refuse (125 tons) has the potential of producing 9000 therms of gas each day. This equivalent to the space heating and cooking requirements for 4500 homes. REFUSE DERIVED FUEL The market for fuel derived from the processing of refuse is virtually non-existent near Newport Beach. Refuse derived fuel (RDF) processing is described in Chapter III. RDF has been used as a supplement to coal in specially converted boilers in other parts of the nation. Because of air pollution restrictions, no coal is burned in the South Coast Air Basin. Southern California Edison investigated the possibility of converting their oil and natural gas fired boilers to RDF and found that it would require complete rebuilding and would, therefore, be prohibitively expensive. RDF may be burned profitably in a dedicated boiler to produce electricity or steam, but there is no currently available market for RDF by itself. SOIL AMENDMENTS Composting of municipal waste produces a low nutrient mulch suitable as a soil amendment or conditioner. More nutritive amendments such as manure and sludge are abundant and competiyely eliminate this market in an increasingly non ' agricultural area such as Orange County. Shipping compost to other areas is also uneconomical. DESALINATED WATER Electricity generated from incinerating wastes can power a reverse osmosis ' (RO) desalination plant. RO is currently used by the Orange County Sanitation District in Fountain Valley to treat waste water before it is injected into the ground. ' A study, published in July 1982, indicates that advances in RO technology and use of brackish water in place of sea water can produce good economics. Sea water typically contains 35,000 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids (tds), but brackish water used in the study contains only 1,000 to 4,000 ppm tds. Long life membranes in the RO process, which reduce operating costs, are also considered in the study. The study suggests that one ton of typical municipal refuse can produce enough electricity to desalinate 60,000 gallons of brackish water to drinking quality. Therefore, a typical day of Newport Beach collected refuse (125 tons) could desalinate 7.5 million gallons per day or 2,737.5 million gallons per year. 1 • ' IV-5 The Water Department of Newport Beach purchases approximately 18,000 acre feet of water each year from the Metropolitan Water District. The City paid $140.00 for each acre foot in November, 1982. One acre foot equals 325,851 gallons. Therefore, the 2,737.5 million gallons which could be desalinated, using the trash collected by the City, would equal 8,400 acre feet and would be worth $1,176,150. Such economics are dependent, however, on an adequate supply of brackish water and the acceptability of desalinated water by the City's consumers. SECONDARY MATERIALS MARKET in orange County, there are 49 organizations which accept secondary materials for recycling. Included in this number are 20 recyclers which accept more than one type of material, 5 paper recyclers, 1 glass recycler, 3 plastic recyclers, and 20 metal salvagers. The types of organizations doing recycling include large firths operating on a brokerage basis, smaller buy-back operations, and local drop-off center. Secondary materials markets in Orange County are subject to substantial fluctuations, and are currently depressed due to the world-wide economic recession. Recycled paper markets were much stronger during the 1970's. In particular, the formerly strong international demand for recycled paper from the U.S. has dropped off sharply in the last year. The ferrous metals market remains quite stable, except for a very weak market for bimetal and tin cans (the main ferrous component captured by resource recovery programs). The nonferrous market is also relatively weak at present, as are the glass and plastic markets. It should be noted, however, that an improvement in the general economy would probably be reflected in improved markets for secondary materials. Recent (March 1982) prices paid for recovered materials in Orange County are indicated in Table IV-4. IV-6 Table IV-4 MARKET PRICES FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS IN ORANGE COUNTY (MARCH 1982) Market Price Range WASTE MATERIAL (dollars/ton) Newsprint 10-30 Cardboard 15-25 Computer Paper and Cards 120-160 White Paper 40-80 Colored Paper 30-40 FERROUS SCRAP 16-20 NONFERROUS METALS Aluminum 400-550 Copper 1000-1300 Brass 400-700 GLASS Clear Glass 20-40 Color -sorted Glass 30-40 Mixed -color Glass 10 IV-7 CHAPTER V LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. A waste -to -energy facility is a major public work, requiring permits and approvals from a variety of institutions and requiring extensive contractual and financial assurances. Many risks and potential liabilities require careful consideration. This chapter summarizes the various institutional requirements confronting a waste -to -energy facility. WASTE STREAM GUARANTEES Both the quantity and composition of MSW must be guaranteed for the projected life of the project. Accurate accounting of existing and projected volumes is essential. Potential problems are many. The City of Newport Beach, in effect, owns the MSW it collects, but greater volumes may be necessary to provide economies of scale. If additional volumes are needed from commercial haulers, firm and long term, so-called "put or pay," contracts would need to be negotiated. Typically, waste products attain greater value when they are in demand. Private haulers most likely will demand some cost saving in exchange for guaranteed deliveries of MSW. Local ordinances to force delivery to waste -to -energy facilities have been met with anti-trust suits. Competitive waste -to -energy or resource -recovery facilities are also a real possibility, and delivery of the requisite amount of MSW must be guaranteed. Volumes may decrease due to recycling efforts. Metals, glass, and paper, in particular, may be more profitable for consumers to recycle in the future. Al waste -to -energy facility, depending on materials removed from the waste stream, would be adversely affected. Composition of MSW can drastically alter waste -to -energy efficiencies. Insufficient heating values, excessive moisture, toxic or explosive characteristics, oversized items, and other properties can wreak havoc on a waste -to -energy facility. To prevent this, several precautions must be taken. A sampling survey is conducted to estimate the caloric or BTU content of collected wastes. This data helps predict energy efficiencies and resource recovery rates. Many precautions are necessary in the design and operation of the facilities to prevent damage to the equipment and prevent human exposure to hazardous materials. However, unexpected arrival of dangerous materials at the facility can increase operating expenses. V-1 In summary, accurate accounting of existing and projected waste volumes and composition, coupled with contractual guarantees are required to assure an adequate waste stream to the facility. MARKET GUARANTEES Purchase of the energy or recovered material must be reasonably assured for the life of the project. The financial stability of the purchaser and the competitive position of the product must be examined. Special equipment purchases, additional operating expenses, and compatibility between production and use rates are important considerations. Electricity and natural gas sales to large utilities pose less of a problem than sale of steam or recovered materials to private industry. As noted in Chapter IV, future energy prices are subject to much speculation and will be affected by many, as yet unknoym, factors. Steam and recovered materials' markets can be affected to a much greater extent than electricity or natural gas markets by economic conditions and substitute fuels. Demand for recovered materials has been low during the economic recession of 1981-82. Fuel and energy prices also declined in that period. Future fluctuations may cause similar or more pronounced effects. Accordingly, one of the most important requirements for a waste -to -energy facility is a reasonably assured market for its products. SITE GUARANTEES More waste -to -energy facilities have been negated because of siting problems than for any other reason. In California, well -planned, environmentally -sensitive, and financially -secure projects have been denied by referendum in Brisbane, Gardena, and Berkeley. Resident opposition is threatening many others across the nation. Many communities have spent much time and money planning a facility only to find that they have no acceptable site. in addition to all the formal permits and technical conditions, a suitable site requires approval by local communities. Aesthetics and truck traffic appear to generate the most objections, even though many other problems are cited. (See Chapter VII Environmental Impacts). Waste -to -energy facilities often are opposed in the same manner as landfills. Consequently, finding a suitable site and gaining the necessary approvals are required early in the planning process. PROCUREMENT Procurement of a waste -to -energy facility consists of two principal decision -making stages which address the approach and the procedure to be utilized. The approach dictates how the responsibilities for the project engineering, design, construction, start-up and operation will be assigned between the public and private sectors. The procedure determines which method will be employed to select the private contractors. V-2 A/E Approach The most conventional approach is to retain an Architect/Engineer to plan and design the project. The A/E, acting as agent for the agency, prepares equipment and system specifications to be let out for public bidding. Following bid evaluation, the same, or a different A/E, is retained to supervise construction of the project in order to ensure the use of proper materials, supplies, equipment, etc. Upon completion of construction, the A/E assists in plant start-up and testing and may be required to prepare operating manuals for the facility. Once the facility has passed acceptance testing, operational responsibility becomes that of the procuring agency who might either operate the facility itself or contract out its operation to a private firm. The A/E approach offers the advantage of allowing for complete definition of exactly what is to be constructed before any construction is initiated. Through the design review process, both the owner of the facilities and the A/E have the opportunity to make modifications and corrections based on review of detailed final construction drawings. Because the work is well defined, construction bidding is often highly competitive. An additional advantage is that during construction, the A/E can exercise some measure of control on the quality of construction by approval or disapproval of shop drawings and by on -site inspection control. The primary disadvantage of the conventional approach is that this procedure normally takes longer than other methods and may in fact result in a higher total project cost in spite of savings achieved due to competitive construction bidding. It may also be argued that it is a disadvantage to have separate design and construction responsibilities and thereby separate liability for the problems associated with the final product. Turnkey Approach In a turnkey approach, a single contractor is retained to design, construct, and start-up the facility. The turnkey contractor selects the equipment and supplies to be used and may either design and construct the facility itself or subcontract portions of the work. In either case, the contractor assumes sole responsibility for the project. Upon completion of construction and start-up and successful testing, the project is accepted by the procuring agency who then assumes responsibility for full-scale operation. The primary advantages of this approach are: 1) allowance for a shorter total completion time frame and potential corresponding cost savings to the owner, 2) potential cost savings in design due to diminished necessity for detail, 3) more expedient resolution of problems encountered during construction, and 4) placement of a singular responsibility for the adequacy of the completed product. Full Service Approach In a full service approach, a single contracting entity assumes responsibility for the design, construction, and operation of system facilities. The advantages and disadvantages associated with the design and construction phases are the same as for the turnkey approach. The additional advantage to the owner is that the systems vendor has clear operational performance responsibility and must make the system operate effectively. V-3 The disadvantage of this procedure, with total performance dependency upon a single entity, is that it does not allow for the possible savings in competitive bidding relative to operational service contracts. The full service approach is presently the most popular development method for waste -to -energy facilities. Several large system vendors, mainly representing established European mass -burning technologies, are offering their facilities on a full service basis. Private Approach An extension of the full service approach is to permit a private party to plan, design, build, and operate the facility like any other business. The procuring agency simply participates like any other paying customer. Typically, a jurisdiction would only enter a "put or pay" type contract for its wastes at a specified tipping fee. This is the only approach where the procuring agency would not participate in the financing arrangements. Competitive Sealed Bidding Procedure Competitive sealed bidding, also known as Formal Advertising, is the most commonly used method for acquiring supplies, services, and construction for public use. Use of this method requires the preparation and issuance of an Invitation for Bids (IFB) containing detailed specifications and a purchase description of the desired item or service. Upon receipt of bids, judgmental factors may only be used to determine if the item or service being offered satisfies the requirements of the IFB. No change in bids is permitted once they have been opened (with limited exceptions). once bid evaluation is completed, award is made solely on an objective basis to the lowest responsive bidder. Competitive Negotiation Procedure The use of the competitive negotiation method of procurement is generally reserved for those situations where the item or service desired requires extensive discussions with offerors to determine the fairness and reasonableness of offers. Also known as competitive sealed proposals, this process is used generally to create a marketplace where price is ultimately established by bargaining between the procuring agency and a number of qualified offerors. Under this procedure, a Request for Proposals (RFP), as opposed to an IFB, is issued containing general system and performance specifications and indicating the evaluation criteria to be used (pricing being only one), and the relative importance of each. The contents of proposals received are not publicly disclosed and information contained in any proposal is not divulged to competing offerors. This process differs from competitive sealed bidding in two major respects: first, judgmental factors are used to determine not only compliance with the requirements of the RFP, but also to evaluate competitive proposals. The effect of this is that the quality of competing proposals may be compared and trade-offs made between the price and quality of offers; second, discussions are permitted after the submittal of proposals, and changes in proposals may be made to arrive at final offers which are most responsive to the procuring agency's needs. Award is made, after negotiations, to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the agency based upon price and other evaluation factors. V-4 Two -Step Formal Advertising Procedure The two-step formal advertising procedure was developed by the Federal Government and is used chiefly in situations where the complexity of the system or service desired precludes the preparation of detailed specifications by the procuring agency. This procedure incorporates features of both the competitive sealed bidding and competitive negotiation methods and involves the issuance of two solicitation documents. In Step One, an RFP is issued requesting the submittal of unpriced technical proposals. Discussions are conducted separately with all offerors to ensure complete understanding by the procuring agency of what is being offered and to enable offerors to change proposals so as to render them responsive to the RFP. All offerors whose proposals are accepted, either as submitted or following modifications based on these discussions, are then issued an IFB in Step Two. Thereafter, the procedure is identical to that in competitive sealed bidding with award of the contract to the responsible bidder whose bid is most advantageous to the procuring agency. Sole Source Negotiation Procedure Sole source negotiation involves no competition and is used when the procuring agency determines that there is only one source for the desired supply, service, or construction item. A proposal is made in response to an RFP, the terms and conditions of the contract are negotiated, and award is made. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION GUARANTEES Like many other large operating industrial plants, a waste -to -energy facility is subject to construction delays, cost overruns, and system failures. Unexpected inflation, labor strikes, delivery delays, productivity losses, and equipment failures are possible. Many waste -to -energy facilities have been dramatic failures and have resulted in large financial losses. To prevent or minimize such problems, a variety of guarantees and -insurances are required. Appropriate warranties and indemnifications can be required of each party in the procurement process, as shown on Table V - 1. V-5 TABLE V - 1 RISK SHARING UNDER ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT APPROACHES Full Private A & E Turnkey Service Owner Completion of Project Construction Within Specified Time Frame E C C C Construction Cost Overruns PA C C C Satisfaction of Acceptance Test E C C C Changes in Laws and Regulations Requiring Additional Capital Investment PA PA PA C Operating and Maintenance Costs PA PA PA C System Performance During Operation PA PA PA C E = Engineer C = Contractor PA = Public Agency FINANCING OPTIONS Each of the following financing alternatives are discussed in this section: ° Conventional Revenue Bonds ° Industrial Development Bonds ° Lease Revenue Bonds ° Leveraged Leasing • Private Debt and Equity Conventional Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds are debt securities that may be issued by local government entities. They are payable solely from revenues derived from operating facilities that have been acquired or constructed with the proceeds from the bonds. The taxing power of the local government entity is not pledged or committed to pay debt service on the bonds nor do the bonds represent a charge against the issuer's General Fund. Regardless of who the issuer might be, the bonds would be secured by a pledge or assignment of all tipping fees and energy sales revenues from the operation of the project so as to benefit the bondholders. A key consideration of a conventional revenue bond financing is the control over the waste stream. Revenues would be secured by a convenant to set rates and backed by various reserve funds to protect against shortfalls in the project revenues or unexpected maintenance costs. V-6 Several other issues should be considered with the conventional revenue bond alternative. From a tax standpoint, financing the facility through the issuance of revenue bonds will result in the loss of all potential tax benefits associated with the project because the City, as the owner, is a tax-exempt entity and thus unable to claim investment tax credits or depreciation deductions. Regarding accounting rules, the debt incurred by conventional revenue bond financing need not be capitalized and fully disclosed in the issuer's financial statements, if the issuer's credit is not pledged as support. Revenue bonds pay tax free interest and are usually sold somewhat below prevailing rates. Industrial Development Bonds Industrial development bonds differ from other types of municipal securities in that they are backed solely by a taxable entity such as an industrial corporation and not by any governmental unit. The proceeds of the bonds are used to finance facilities constructed for the business operations of these taxable entities. There are, however, certain activities that are considered exempt from taxation under Section 103(4)(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, including the financing of solid waste disposal facilities with revenue bonds. These bonds are normally termed "Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Bonds," and are typically issued by an agency or other political subdivision for the purpose of financing a facility which will benefit the local area. The California Pollution Control Financing Authority (CPCFA) is the only entity in California authorized to issue industrial development bonds for a resource recovery project. Bonds issued by CPCFA are limited obligations of the Authority, payable only from payments made by the private company for whom the financing has been arranged. The source of payments is tipping fees and revenues from energy sales. They are secured by liens, guarantees or other arrangements, and may be used in connection with leveraged leases or project financing. The only application of these bonds regarding Newport Beach would be in connection with a full service procurement approach, using a "put or pay" contract with the City. A major issue concerning solid waste disposal revenue bonds is the extent to which a project qualifies for tax-exempt financing. Since the basic IRS rule states that the project will be exempt up to the point where the refuse has been converted into a marketable product having value. Non -qualifying equipment must not exceed 10 percent of the cost of the project. Such non -qualifying equipment typically includes electricity -turbine generators, steam condensers, and steam lines. Tax benefits associated with the project may be claimed by the taxable entity which uses the project. These credits would normally include rapid depreciation and the standard investment tax credit of 10 percent of all qualified property and an additional energy tax credit of 5 .percent. Under leveraged leases, full tax benefits would be made available to equity investors. In the event that the City is deemed a substantial user of the project, no investment tax credit would be available. Industrial Development Bonds are generally considered to be debt obligations of the entity involved in the financing. For accounting purposes, the bonds are included as long-term debt of the CPCFA. V-7 Lease Revenue Bonds Lease Revenue Bonds are issued by a public agency to finance the cost of constructing a facility to be leased to a public entity such as the City. These bonds are secured solely by annual rental payments equal to at least the principal and interest on the bonds. This type of financing allows the bonds to obtain the credit backing of the lessee public entity which is usually about one level beneath the public entity's general obligation credit rating. There are several major advantages to lease revenue bond financing. Voter approval is usually not required, for example, and lease payments made by the lessee are not considered debt counted against statutory debt limitations. In addition, a lower interest rate than the rate on conventional revenue bonds is obtainable because the lessee's credit is utilized. The lessee will also typically have greater flexibility in the imposition of rates and charges, but this income need not provide additional debt service coverage as required when using conventional revenue bond financing. Proposition 4 could impact on the financing; however, it is assumed that this is unlikely and that the receipt of lease payments from the lessee is probably not includable as "proceeds of taxes." The payment of lease rentals will not likely be funded from within the lessee's "appropriation limit," if lease payments are derived from "proceeds of taxes." This means that the lessee entity could use revenues from operation of the facility to pay rentals, without a charge against its "appropriation limit," but use of tax revenues for that purpose would be charged against the "appropriation limit." Under current accounting practices, lease payments are treated as an operating expense of the lessee. Lease revenue bonds do not represent a debt of either issuer or the lessee. Advantages: ° Bonds obtain the credit backing of the lessee ° Lower annual costs of the project ° Voter approval not needed ° Lease payments not considered debt of the lessee ° No need for additional debt service coverage Disadvantages: ° May be subject to interest rate limitations ° Use of tax revenues by lessee to make rental payments is charged against appropriations limit Leveraged Leasing A leveraged lease is a form of "true leasing" where the lessor is considered to be the owner of the asset for tax purposes, and the tax benefits are magnified by leveraging his investment in the asset through the sale of debt. This creates an additional tax benefit in the form of an interest deduction. It also improves the lessor's yield or rate of return by increasing the total amount of tax benefits for each dollar of the lessor's investment. V-B A leveraged lease financing of a waste -to -energy facility would be a complex transaction involving numerous parties. The lessee would be a tax -paying entity acting as a full service contractor, a subsidiary of a full service contractor, or a participant in a joint venture of the contractor and some tax-exempt entity such as the City. The lessor would probably be a trust formed by one or more "equity participants" which would be corporations, such as commercial banks, with a large capacity for tax benefits. Other parties to the transaction would include the purchasers of the bonds, their trustee, the CPCFA, and the trustee of the owner trust. Many variations of leveraged leasing are available for a waste -to -energy project. Construction expenditures can be financed, for example, by requiring - the equity participants to acquire title to the project at or near the beginning of construction. They would then be able to claim progress payments on investment tax credits and construction period interest deductions. This would result in lower rental costs to the lessee. Additionally, the lessee may be permitted to defer all payments of rent and, therefore, all financing charges, until completion of the construction period. Another variation might be longer or shorter lease terms which cede the investment tax credit to the lessee and capitalize construction period interest from the beginning of construction. In leveraged leasing, matters of tax law are especially critical. In most large leveraged leasing transactions, rulings are sought from the IRS to the effect that the benefits will be available. In all cases, qualified legal counsel is generally required. Although guidelines have been issued by the IRS, for properly issuing leverage lease bonds, it should be noted the interpretation of these guidelines is difficult and may become problematic. It is also important to note that the project must not be a "limited use property," that an additional tax issue will be presented if the lessee is a highly capitalized corporation, and if a full service approach is selected, it will be necessary for the contractor's legal staff to analyze whether the lessee can consummate this type of financing. Regarding accounting procedures, it should be anticipated that any potential lessee will have the goal of limiting the impact of the financing of the project on its financial statements. whether the lease is a capital lease or an operating lease will be the critical factor. A capital lease is one which is determined by a measurement of the present value of the facility rentals. If this amount exceeds 90 percent of the asset value, the lease will be, considered a capital lease and treated as capitalized debt. If the amount is less than 90 percent, the lease will be an operating lease and subject to "off -balance sheet" accounting. The rate used to discount the rentals is generally the lessee's incremental borrowing rate or the "implicit rate used by the lessor," whichever is lower. Private Debt and Equity This alternative assumes a private company would invest funds to build and operate a facility like any other operating plant and expect a suitable return from energy sales and tipping fees. Although possible, this method is unlikely because the potential returns are much less than those associated with leveraged leasing. V-9 PERMITS A variety of permits from several institutions will be required to construct and operate a waste -to -energy facility. The exact requirements will depend on the location and the design of the facility. Permits which may be required for a facility in Newport Beach are discussed in this section. City of Newport Beach Permits A waste -to -energy facility would be classified as a medium or heavy industrial land use for which there are no provisions in the City's plans or ordinances. Specifically, the M-1 District of the Zoning Code prohibits "incineration or reduction of garbage, sewage, ... or refuse." Accordingly, the following items would be required within the City: ° General Plan Amendment ° Local Coastal Plan Amendment ° Zoning Text and Map Amendment ° Use Permit ° Building Permit ° CEQA Documentation Air Pollution Permits Every type of waste -to -energy facility will require some sort of Air Pollution permit, and the incineration types will require the most difficult to obtain permits. The siting of a mass burning waste -to -energy project in the South Coast Air Basin would require air pollution review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The applicable standards are complicated and subject to discretionary review. Difficult standards dealing with Best Available Control Technology and emission offsets will confront a waste -to -energy system. Many air pollution control devices have not yet been proven over long periods on waste -to -energy facilities. Air pollution control and construction occurs concurrently with final design. It is anticipated that air pollution control equipment will be a large and expensive portion of any waste -to -energy facility in the South Coast Air Basin. It is also anticipated that final permits will not be secured until a system is on-line and its performance is verified. This creates the possibility that a waste -to -energy facility could be built and then shut down for failure to control air pollution. This has occurred on occasion in other parts of the nation. Air emissions are described in Chapter Sr Environmental Impacts, and detailed descriptions of air pollution control permit requirements are contained in several documents on file in the City Manager's office. Air pollution permits for a Waste -to -energy facility will be required as early as possible in the development process. A Permit to Construct must be followed by a Permit to Operate. Specifications and negotiations to obtain these permits will require special consultants. V-10 Ash Disposal Authorization Any ash residues from incineration of NSW currently are classified as a hazardous waste by the California Department of Health Services. Disposal in a Class I or II - 1 landfill, plus special handling procedures are required. The closest hazardous waste disposal site is the BKK facility in West Covina. Efforts are underway to change these regulations. The composition and leaching properties of MSW ash residue are being analyzed. It is anticipated that separate analysis of the ash from each waste -to -energy facility will be required, and that an Ash Disposal Authorization will need to be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Orange County Health Care Agency. Solid Waste Facility Permit Issued by the California Solid Waste Management Board through the Orange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency, this permit would require conformance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan. This plan currently encourages waste -to -energy facilities. A finding by the Orange County Waste Management Commission would be required to confirm consistency of a Newport Beach waste -to -energy facility with the County Plan. The Solid Waste Facility Permit would require conformance with all State health and safety standards. V-11 II 7 CHAPTER VI ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY Waste -to -energy economics can be simply expressed as follows: Capital Costs Recovered Energy Disposal + = and Materials + Fee Operating and Income Income Maintenance Costs The disposal fee is the key to economic feasibility. The tipping fee, as it is called, is similar to landfill dumping fees and is the price paid for disposing of waste. For Newport Beach, an economically feasible waste -to -energy facility must have a tipping fee which reduces the City's current and projected disposal costs as described in Chapters I and II. This chapter examines the economics of each waste -to -energy technology to determine its economic feasibility for Newport Beach. COMPOSTING The economics of composting promise little advantage to Newport Beach. There is little market for the material and only small savings would be realized in hauling and dump fee costs. The capital and operating costs of a composting operation would exceed the minor cost savings. For these reasons, detailed consideration of this technology is not included in this report. ANAEROBIC DIGESTION The economics of anaerobic digestion to produce methane gas are promising. Natural gas is readily marketed, and pilot scale plants have demonstrated good production rates from MSW. Detailed economic consideration of this technology is included later in this chapter with discussion of the CMI-ENCON technology. PYROLYSIS The economics of pyrolysis are not attractive. No system has been operated successfully, and large financial losses have been experienced in the development process. Detailed consideration of this technology is, therefore, not included in this report. VI-1 REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF) The economics of producing RDF for sale as a supplement to conventional fuels have been successful in some areas of the nation. However, as shown in Chapter IV, Energy Markets, there are no opportunities for use of RDF by itself in Southern California. However, the use of RDF in dedicated furnaces or boilers to produce steam and electricity is possible in Newport Beach. Consequently, economic consideration of RDF is limited to its use in a dedicated facility. The following data is derived from the feasibility report for the SERRF project in Long Beach, California which plans a MSW fired spreader stoker unit. Construction Costs For RDF The building and equipment costs for a Newport Beach -sized RDF facility (175-250 TPD) are difficult to determine because all such existing or planned facilities are much larger. Many economics of scale would be lost on a small-scale facility. The SERRF project (South East Resource Recovery Facility) in Long Beach, California expects that the 1985 costs for their plant construction and engineering will cost approximately $90,000 for each ton per day (TPD) of capacity. The capacity of SERRF is 900 TPD. A similar, but downsized facility, for Newport Beach is expected to cost $130,000 for each ton per day of capacity. Land Costs For RDF An RDF facility for Newport Beach would require approximately ten acres of land. The preprocessing equipment, the storage areas, and the several loading areas demand considerable ground area. Costs for suitable land in Newport Beach are estimated at $325,000 per acre. Accordingly, land costs for an RDF facility might total $3.25 million. Operating And Maintenance Costs For RDF The experience of many RDF facilities is that the preprocessing equipment is prone to failure and breakdown, and the O&M have been very high. However, the few successfully operating plants and the plans for such plants demonstrate operating and maintenance costs including labor at approximately $8,000 per year for each ton per day of capacity. Revenue From RDF Sales of both energy and recovered material provide revenue from a RDF facility. The pre-treatment and separation of refuse before incineration increase the energy recovery efficiency above overall mass burning rates. The materials and dollar flows for a typical RDF facility producing electricity and steam are as follows. VI-2 II One RDF Ton __> Processing Line Boilers MSW �z Ferrous Residue Electricity Steam Ash to Metals to Land- 433 Kwh 500 lbs. Land- $0.80 fill $36.00 $3.00 fill ($1.04) ($0.53) RDF FACILITY YIELDS $38.23 PER TON MSW Summary Of RDF Economics Assuming a 200 TPD facility, the economics of an RDF unit are calculated on Table VI-1. A conventionally financed 200 TPD RDF unit would require a tipping fee of approximately $40 per ton. No groups or companies are currently offering to finance or construct RDF units using unconventional financing methods. Therefore, even assuming a large margin of variability in the figures on Table VI-1, the $40 per ton fee for RDF units indicates that this technology is not economically feasible for Newport Beach. TABLE VI - 1 ECONOMICS OF A 200 TPD RDF UNIT (1982 FIGURES) ITEM Construction $26,000,000 Land 3,250,000 Interest during construction (3 yr. @ 10&) 8,775,000 TOTAL $38,025,000 ANNUAL COSTS Debt Service (25 years) $ 4,146,000 (@ 10%) O & M 1,600,000 TOTAL $ 5,746,000 REVENUE Energy and Material Sales $ 2,791,000 Tipping Fees 2,955,000 (@ 40.47/ton) TOTAL $ 5,746,000 VI-3 MASS BURNING STOKER UNITS The economics of the large European -type stoker units are very similar to those of the RDF units. Most operating and planned stoker units have large capacities averaging 700 TPD for those generating steam and 1,200 TPD for those generating electricity. Economics of scale are lost on smaller units. Construction costs for mass burning units are somewhat less than RDF-fired units because no preprocessing equipment is necessary. However, energy recovery efficiency is somewhat lower and residue handling costs are greater. The following economic data is derived from a variety of recent studies and bids on large mass burning stoker units. Construction Costs For Stoker Units Recent bids and plans for large capacity stoker units indicate that construction and engineering costs have averaged $50,000 to $80,000 for each ton per day of capacity. The higher end of the range reflects expensive air pollution controls which would be necessary in California. A similar, but downsized, 200 TPD unit for Newport Beach is expected to cost $110,000 for each top per day of capacity. Land Costs For Stoker Units A 200 TPD stoker unit would require approximately five acres of land. Less storage and loading areas are needed for this type unit than for RDF units. The five acres provide for truck queuing areas and employee parking. Suitable land in Newport Beach is estimated to cost $325,000 per acre, and a five -acre site might cost $1,625,000. Operating And Maintenance Costs For Stoker Units Successfully operating units and those units that are planned to be successful demonstrate or forecast annual 0&M costs at $6,500 annually for each ton per day of capacity. Revenue From Stoker Units Sales of energy and possibly recovered ferrous metal provide revenue from stoker units. For each ton of refuse, stoker units produce approximately 475 Kwh of electricity and approximately 88 pounds of ferrous metal for sale. The materials and dollar flows of a typical stoker unit producing both steam and electricity are as follows: One Ton Stoker Unit/ %sh MSW Boiler �Residue� Electricity Steam Ferrous Landfills 475 Kwh 500 lbs. 88 lbs. 412 lbs. $31.45 $3.00 $0.80 ($1.44) A stoker unit would yield approximately $33.81 in revenue for each ton of MSW. vI-4 J Summary Of Stoker Unit Economics Assuming a 200 TPD facility, the economics of a stoker unit are calculated on Table VI-2. A conventionally financed 200 TPD stoker unit would require a tipping fee of approximately $30 per ton. No groups or companies are currently offering to finance or construct stoker units using unconventional financing methods. Therefore, even assuming a large margin of variability in the figures on Table VI-2, the $30 per ton fee for stoker units indicates that this technology is not economically feasible for Newport Beach. TABLE VI - 2 ECONOMICS OF A 200 TPD STOKER UNIT (1982 Figures) Item Construction $22,000,000 Land 1,625,000 Interest During Construction (3 yr. @ 10%) 7,088,000 Total Capital $30,713,000 Annual Costs Debt Service (25 yrs. @ 10%) $ 3,350,000 0 & M 1,300,000 Total $ 4,650,000 Annual Revenue Energy and Material Sales $ 2,468,000 Tipping Fees (@ $29.89/ton) 2,182,000 Total $ 4,650,000 MODULAR CONTROLLED - AIR UNITS The economics of this type technology are not attractive to Newport Beach. Even though construction costs are relatively low, the energy recovery efficiency and burnout ratio of modular units are poor. Additionally, no modular unit has successfully produced electricity. The information presented below is based on manufacturer's expectations. VI-5 I Construction Costs For Modular Units Most modular units in operation were relatively inexpensive to build. However, no modular units built to date have produced electricity or have been required to install expensive air pollution equipment. Consequently, even though cost of units now in operation cost only $10,000 to $20,000 per ton per day capacity, recent estimates for electricity -producing units of the type needed in Newport Beach indicate that construction costs will average $45,000 per ton per day capacity. Operation And Maintenance Costs For Modular Units Modular units require extensive maintenance and supplemental fuels. Consequently 0&M costs for modular units of the type required are higher than what might be expected and are estimated to average $9,000 annually for each ton per day of capacity. Land Costs For Modular Units Approximately eight acres would be required for a 200 TPD modular unit. Because a tipping floor, instead of a pit, and at least two and possibly four incineration units are needed, this technology would require more space than a stoker unit. At $325,000 per acre, land costs might total $2,600,000. Revenue From Modular Units Sales of energy and possibly recovered ferrous metal would provide revenue from modular units. A system recently investigated for Modesto, California would produce 242 Xwh of electricity and 1400 lbs. of steam for each ton of MSW. The material and dollar flows for such a system are as follows: Ton Modular MSW ---> Incinerator �46 Boiler 0 -4 lir 4 Ferrous Ash to Steam Electricity 88 lbs. Landfill 1400 lbs. 242 Kwh $0.80 712 lbs. $8.40 $16.02 $2.50 A modular unit would yield $22.72 in revenue for each ton of MSW. Summary Of Modular Unit Economics Assuming a 200 TPD facility, the economics of a modular unit are calculated on Table VI-3. A conventionally financed, 200 TPD modular unit would require a tipping fee of nearly $24.00 per ton. An alternate calculation assuming no land cost and no interest during construction still yields a fee of over $15.00 per ton. No groups or Companies are currently proposing to finance or construct modular units using unconventional financing methods. Therefore, even assuming a large margin of variability in the figures presented on Table VI-3, the $24 per ton fee for modular units indicates that this technology is not economically feasible for Newport Beach. VI-6 TABLE VI - 3 ECONOMICS OF A 200 TPD MODULAR UNIT (1982 Figures) Item Construction $ 9,000,000 Land 2,600,000 Interest during Construction (2 yrs. @ 10%) 2,320,000 Total Capital $13,920,000 Annual Costs Debt Service (25 yrs. @ 10%) O & M 0 Annual Revenues Energy and Materials Tipping Fees VI-7 $ 1,518,000 1,800,000 Total $ 3,398,000 $ 1,659,000 1,739,000 (@ $23.82/ton) Total $ 3,398,000 Alternate $9,000,000 -0- -0- $9,000,000 $ 981,400 1,800,000 $2,781,400 $1,659,000 1,122,400 (@ $15.38/ton) $2,781,400 CMI-ENCON The economics of this technology are very good because of the private, unconventional financing arrangements. In December, 1982, the City received a proposal from CMI-ENCON supported by Southern California Edison to finance, construct, and operate a waste -to -energy facility. Detailed economic data is presented in the proposal document. A summary of some of that information is presented here. CMI-ENCON proposed a beginning tipping fee of $4.57 based on a 250 TPD facility. The City would guarantee delivery of MSW and wastewater on a put -or -pay basis and provide the land. The City might have to fund some sewer' connections and would provide reimbursable funds for the permitting process. On the basis of projections and guarantees, the technology may be economically feasible for Newport Beach. Construction Costs For CMI-ENCON The capital cost cited in the proposal for buildings and equipment is $35,159,300. This translates to over $140,000 for each ton per day of capacity. Land Cost For CMI-ENCON The proposal cites a need for thirteen acres for a 250 TPD plant, but the City is to provide this land at a "nominal" base rate. In other words, the City provides the land at virtually no cost to CMI-ENCON. Using the $325,000 per acre figure mentioned for other technologies, the City would need to provide land worth approximately $4,225,000. Operation And Maintenance Costs For CMI-ENCON The proposal cites first -year operating expenses of $3,328,600 not including tailings disposal. However, this figure includes only $100,400 for property tax, and considering the $350000,000 investment, this figure should be over $350,000. 0&M costs are therefore estimated at $3,500,000 per year. This equates to $14,000 annually for each ton per day of capacity. Revenues From CMI-ENCON Sales of natural gas, electricity, and recovered materials provide revenues from this technology. The energy efficiencies cited in the proposal reflect optimal performance and may be overly optimistic. However, system guarantee insurance is provided. Also, the proposal uses energy and recovered materials' prices that are higher than 1982 rates. The differing rates and their effect on revenues are presented on Table VI-4. The differences in sale prices could change tipping fees by almost $8 per ton. VI-8 TABLE VI - 4 . CMI-ENCON REVENUES PER TON MSW CMI-ENCON Item • Amount 1982 Price Price Gas 93 therms at $0.56 at $0.5816 ($5.70/MCP with 1 MCP = 9.8 therms) Electricity 355 Kwh at $0.0662 at $0.077 Ferrous .0545 tons at $18 at $35 Non -Ferrous .0075 tons at $500 at $650 Ash to Landfill .148 ton at ($7) at ($7) Net Revenue per Ton (Amount x Price) $79.28 $87.17 Summary Of CMI-ENCON Economics Despite the detailed costing information contained in it, the CMI-ENCON proposal is still a generalized offer to build and operate a facility in exchange for free use of land, a guaranteed waste stream, and a tipping fee of approximately $5.00 per ton. On that basis alone, the CMI-ENCON technology has the potential to be economically feasible for Newport Beach. However, many unanswered questions remain. The City must provide thirteen acres of land somehow. Energy prices will need to rise somewhat to fulfill CMI-ENCON projections.- The location must be pinpointed to determine the City's cost to extend sewer lines to the site. All costs and revenues must be precisely calculated at an early time because a difference of only a few percentage points within a $10 million annual budget can make or break the financial feasibility of the project for the City. VI-9 a O'CONNOR COMBUSTOR The economics of this technology are promising because of private financing arrangements. A project team has been assembled to plan, engineer, construct, and operate a facility using the O'Connor Rotary Combustor, and preliminary economic figures have been generated. The O'Connor proposal is contained in a separate document. Construction Costs for O'Connor Combustor The O'Connor proposal cites four different plant configurations to produce steam and/or electricity in various combinations. The total construction costs including interest payments during construction range between $19,775,913 and $21,227,461. The average cost of $20,431,210 for a 200 TPD facility yields construction costs of $102,156 for each ton per day of capacity. Lana Costs for O'Connor Combustor The O'Connor System would require approximately four acres, and the proposal assumes the use of City land at no cost. Using the $325#000 per acre figure, the City would need to provide land worth approximately $1.3 million. Operation and Maintenance Costs for O'Connor Combustor The O'Connor proposal cites first year 0 & M costs ranging from $1,906,584 to $1,948,214. These figures yield average annual 0 & M costs of $9,637 per ton per day of capacity. Revenues from O'Connor Combustor Sales of electricity, steam, and possibly ferrous metals provide revenue from this technology. The material and dollar flows of the O'Connor System are very similar to stoker and RDF units (see pp VI-3 and VI-4) and would be expected to yield revenue of approximately $35,00 per ton of MSW at 1982 energy prices. However, the proposal submitted by O'Connor cites various combinations of steam and electricity output levels and cites various energy prices to calculate revenues ranging between $42 and $68 per ton. This results from the use of energy prices which are significantly higher than the 1982 prices cited in Chapter IV as shown below: VI-10 I r .1 1982 O'Connor Item Price Price Electricity 6.624/Kwh 9.15�/Kwh Steam (natural gas equivalent) 56C/therm 80�/therm The O'Connor proposal also adds to revenues the earnings on operating revenues which amounts to approximately $337,000 per year. Accordingly, depending on the assumptions used, revenues from the O'Connor system can range from approximately $35 to more than $68 per ton of MSW received. Summary of O'Connor Economics The O'Connor proposal cites four different scenarios with tipping fees ranging from $15.24 per ton to a profit of $13.69 per ton. These figures are subject to verification of various assumptions and forecasts. Nevertheless, the proposal indicates a generalized offer to build and operate a facility in exchange for free use of land, a guaranteed waste stream, and a tipping fee which has the potential to be lower than what the County will charge. On that basis, the O'Connor technology has the potential to be economically feasible for Newport Beach. The same unanswered questions relating to the CMI-ENCON technology also pertain to the O'Connor technology. VI-11 I CONCLUSIONS ON ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY From the foregoing analysis it appears that until cost or revenue factors change substantially, a facility attractive to Newport Beach must be privately financed. Debt service accounts for a large portion of tipping fees, and private owners would be able to reduce those costs by tax leveraging. Consequently, only those technologies supported by private enterprise are considered economically feasible. There is no indication that cost or revenue factors will change soon. Energy demand and prices are falling. Many waste -to -energy and cogeneration facilities are being planned which when built will further reduce energy prices using the "avoided costs" concept. Hauling costs appear to have stabilized for some time due to lower fuel costs and lower increases in labor rates. Interest rates may be falling to some extent but are not expected within the next few years to fall below 8 percent to 10 percent. Consequently, the 1982-83 cost/revenue factors cited above are expected to prevail for two or three years. The tipping fees projected for conventionally financed facilities are much too high for favorable consideration. Cost/revenue factors would need to be dramatically altered to lower a $30 to $40 tipping fee to where it is competitive with a $7 to $10 fee. Even the $4.57 fee proposed by CHI-ENCON is only marginally attractive when considering the other costs and risks to the City. Only private financing offers the potential for an attractive facility. Also, substantial ,financial risks would confront the City. It must be kept in mind that the City seeks to save only a few hundred thousand dollars per year; and, a discrepancy of only a few percentage points on the $5 million to $10 million annual budget required for a facility can make or break the economics. Many cities have lost millions of dollars on poor performing facilities. The willingness of private capital to assume such risks indicates a reliable and desirable system. The only systems offering complete private financing at this time are CMI-ENCON and O'Connor Combustor. VI-12 CHAPTER VII ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A waste -to -energy facility will require an extensive Environmental Impact Report on a specific project at a specific site. This chapter provides a brief summary of the major environmental issues. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The most feasible type of facility for Newport Beach would be either the massburning O'Connor Combustor or the CMI-ENCON combination. Either of these technologies would process 200 TPD to 250 TPD on a seven -day -per -week basis. That means that 280 TPD to 350 TPD would be delivered each weekday. (Some weekend deliveries may occur in summer for beach cleaning.) Descriptions and illustrations of these two technologies are presented in Chapter III. LOCATION OF THE PROJECT Potential sites exist throughout the City. The O'Connor technology requires only three acres and conceivably could be located just about anywhere in the City. The CMI-ENCON facility requires thirteen acres and a supply of waste water. An open area such as that in West Newport would be the most likely location for the CMI-ENCON technology. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Air Quality A waste -to -energy facility will produce various atmospheric pollutants. These include carbon dioxide (CO ), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (Hu), nitrogen oxides (NO ), hydroc9loric acid (HCL), dioxin, and a variety of heavy metals attached to particulates. The amounts of each pollutant vary with each technology. Generally, the CMI-ENCON process is expected to produce less air pollutants for three basic reasons. First, the pretreatment will sort out obviously hazardous items. Second, the biological process will convert many of the constituent elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and sulfur) to natural gas, and the chemical process will filter out impurities. Third, the thermal process uses a controlled air principle to minimize formation of atmospheric pollutants. VII-1 The amounts of atmospheric pollutants released from waste -to -energy facilities are subject to much controversy. Some facilities have been shut down for failure to meet applicable standards. Technology has improved, however, and recent operating results are promising. Amounts of major pollutants such as CO2, CO, HC, NOx, and SO can be measured and controlled fairly well. Trace amounts of toxic heavy meals, HCL and dioxin, receive the most notoriety even though tests have shown that concentrations amount to less than one percent of allowable uptake levels. Mitigation measures may allow an actual reduction in regional air pollutants. In -plant control technologies such as scrubbers, precipitators, and bag houses can eliminate 50 percent to 99 percent of all emissions. Additionally, offsets from decreased hauling times, decreased landfill emissions, and decreased electrical power generation emissions can amount to more than plant emissions resulting in a net loss of air pollutants. The most stringent regulations including New Source Review and Best Available Control Technology will be applicable to the project. The AQMD will issue only a conditional Permit to Operate which will require constant performance monitoring. Should the facility fail to meet operating standards, it would be closed down. Vehicle Traffic The project will attract a variety of refuse -carrying vehicles and will generate traffic from employee and ash residue vehicles. Approximately 50 to 80 assorted refuse -carrying vehicles will visit the site each weekday. These load packer, dump, and pickup type vehicles will therefore account for 100 to 160 trips per weekday. The number of employees required is ten per shift for CMI-ENCON and'four per shift for O'Connor which respectively would generate 60 and 24 vehicle trips per day. Additionally, two loads of ash in 20-ton transfer vehicles and approximately one load per day of recovered materials will need to be hauled away from the site and, therefore, will generate another six vehicle trips per day. Except for the changing of one shift, most vehicle trips will occur during regular working hours on weekdays. The number of vehicle trips will total approximately 130 to 230 on weekdays and 30 to 70 on weekend days. Mitigation of traffic impacts can be achieved by designating specific access roads and off -site employee parking. Depending on the location of the project, traffic impacts in other parts of the City should be eliminated. Noise Vehicle and equipment noise will be generated by the project. Dumping and pretreatment equipment will produce various noises throughout the day. Turbine generators, induced draft fans, and incinerators will produce constant noise. Most of this noise will be mitigated by enclosing all processes within buildings which may include sound -absorbing insulation. Sound levels at operating plants have been limited to 55 to 60 dB(A) measured at the property line. V11-2 I 1 I Odor and Dust No odors or dust are expected to be released from the buildings which are kept at a slight negative air pressure by pulling process air from within. Vectors Because pits and tipping floors are periodically cleaned completely, neither vermin nor insects have been problems at operating facilities. Aesthetics The project is an industrial process using heavy equipment with various stacks, towers, and outlets. The site is visited by large, noisy, and often dirty vehicles. The treatment and processing of trash and sewage is an exceptionally displeasing neighbor. Mitigation of aesthetic impacts have been achieved by enclosing all process within attractive buildings which are further shielded by attractive landscaping. The height of buildings and stacks can be limited by use of subterranean elevations and careful equipment design. Safety A waste -to -energy facility presents various fire, explosion, and break -down hazards. MSW occasionally contains smoldering embers or lighted cigarettes which cause fires. Also, MSW occasionally contains explosives or ammunition which can be sparked by incineration or shredding processes causing explosions. Major breakdowns and spills are possible because of earthquakes or equipment failure. Mitigation of these hazards take several forms. Worker safety is promoted through a variety of protective and shielding devices. Automatic sprinkler systems control fires. Explosion vents and shields are designed into all susceptible equipment. Earthquake damage is minimized through structural designs, and spillages are controlled by troughs, moats, and drains. All industrial health and safety regulations will apply to such a facility. VII-3 i r APPENDIX A CALCULATIONS FOR MSW DISPOSAL COST REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES II II I! II II It It MILEAGE BETWEEN COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL POINTS s To: From: City Yard Coyote HB Tran Bee Canyon Station Canyon City Yard — 9.3 8.9 17 Mon. 1.3 9.3 9.4 18.2 �o v L a Tue. .6 8.5 8.6 17.3 c 0 w Wed. (1) 2.7 6.6 10.1 14.6 0 U >. Wed. (2) 3.2 5.8 11.8 14.9 ra c Thur. (1) 4.8 4.2 10.4 13.1 Thur. (2) 4.8 7.5 12.5 15.8 Fri. 5.8 5.5 12.4 15.1 A-1 TYPICAL WORKDAYI REFUSE VEHICLE MILEAGE TO ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES COYOTE CANYON FROM DAY OF WEEK COLLECTION POINT Vehicle Type Mon Tues W(1 W(2) Th(1 Th(2) Fri Avg Change 29 yd 19.9 18.4 18.6 .3 18.31.6 20.6 19.48 -0- 16 yd 38.5 35.4 31.89.9 26.76.E 31.6 33.6 -0- BEE CANYON 29 yd 36.5 34.9 34.55.1 34.97.E 37.9 36.1 +16.6 16 yd 72.9 69.5 6!3 54.9 61.19.2 68.1 68.0 +34.4 HUNTINGTON BEACH TRANSFER STATION 29 yd 19.E :18.1 21.73.1 24.16.2 27.1 22.47 +3.0 16 yd 38.4 35.3 41.45.1 44.91,8 51.9 43.49 +9.9 NEWPORT BEACH CITY YARD 29 yd 2.6 1.2 5.4 9.6 11.6 6.8 -12.7 .4 .6 16 yd 5.2 2.4 10.82.8 20.20.2 23.2 13.6 -20.0 COYOTE CANYON Vehicle Tvi3e Mon Tues Th(2) Avg 'Change 38 yd 19.9 -- 21.6 20.472 -0- 10 yd 38.5 35.4 -- 36.95 -0- BEE CANYON 38 yd 36.5 -- 37.E 1 136.87z +16.4 10 yd 72 171.25 +34.3 HUNTINGTON BEACH TRANSFER STATION 38 yd 19.E 1 -- 1 1 26.2 21.8 1.33 10 yd 38.4 35.3 -- 36.85 - .01 NEWPORT BEACH CITY YARD 38 yd 2.6 -- 9.6 4.93 -15.54 10 yd 5.2 2.4 -- 3.80 -33.15 -'Assumes 1 trip/day by 38 yd and 29 yd and 2 trips/day by 10 yd and 16 ydj A-2 2Wei ghted 2/3 toward Mon. J LABOR COSTS FOR HAULING MSW PER MILE Vehicle Type 29 yd 16 yd + 10 yd 38 yd Other Field Main Div. Utility Dept. W3 P- Crew 1 lead (+ 15%) 1 lead 1 crew 1 EOII 1 lab. 1 lab (E step) 1 UT. SR. or 1 UT. Const. Sp. 1 G/G or 1 TTI Annual Salary w/40% fringe $35,400 $59,900 $49,320 $25,700 $29,500 y (Average) $26,360 $/Hour at 2,000/ Year $17.7 $29.95 $24.66 $12.83 $14.75 $13.18 A-3 ANNUAL COST DIFFERENTIAL TO HAUL NSW TO BEE CANYON Annual. Miles � $/mile Times Beyond Total Total Total$ Vehicle (Table Mileage Coyote Annual Hours Annua Type I-4) Incurred Canyon Miles @25mph Costil Qen'1 Ser 29 yd 2.04 1512 +16.6 25,099 1004 51,20 16 yd 1.99 2226 +34.4 76,574 3063 152,38 1 10 yd 1.67 102 +34.3 3,499 140 5,843 38 yd 2.01 144 +16.4 2,362 94 4,74 Other 1.51 1608 +16.6 2,669 107 4,03 Utility 1.89 280 +16.6 4,648 186 8178 PBR 1.53 624 +16.6 10,358 414 15,848 Toil 2� i �i REQUIRED NEW VEHICLES AND COSTS BASED ON TOTAL HOURS Anmyal Cnet Vehicle Number Needed Capital Cost Labor Vehicle 0&M Total 29 yd 1 900000 35,400 17,000 52,400 16 yd 2 140,000 119,800 34,000 153,800 Total 3 $2301000 $206,200 ANNUAL COST DIFFERENTIAL TO HAUL MSW TO HUNTINGTON BEACH TRANSFER STATION Annual Miles $/mile Times Beyond Total Vehicle (Table Mileage Coyote Annual Type I-4) Incurred Canyon Miles Gen'l Ser 29 yd 2.04 1512 +3.0 4,536 16 yd 1.99 2226 +9.9 22,037 10 yd 1.67 102 -.1 -10 38 yd 2.01 144 +1.33 191 Other 1.51 1608 +3.0 4,824 Utility 1.89 280 +3.0 840 PBR 1.53 624 +3.0 1,872 REQUIRED NEW BASED ON Number Cap Vehicle Needed C 16 yd 1 $7( Total Hours @25mph Total Annual Cost 181' 9,253 881 43,854 -1 -17 8 385 193 7,284 34 1,588 75 2,864 Total $65,211 ANNUAL COST DIFFERENTIAL TO HAUL MSW TO CITY YARD Annual $/mile Times Vehicle (Table Mileage Type I-4) Incurred Gen'1 Ser 29 yd 2.04 1512 16 yd 1.99 2226 10 yd 1.67 102 38 yd 2.01 144 Other 1.51 1608 Utility 1.89 280 PBR 1.53 624 Miles Beyond Total Total Total Coyote Annual Hours Annua Canyon Miles @25mph Cost -12.7 -19,202 - 768 -39,173 -20.0 -44,520 -1781 -88,59 -33.15 - 3,381 - 135 - 5,64 -15.54 - 2,238 - 89 - 4,49 -12.7 -20,422 - 817 -30,83 -12.7 - 3,556 - 142 - 6,72 -12.7 - 7,925 - 317 -12,12 Total (Savings) - 18 VEHICLES AND COSTS SAVINGS BASED ON TOTAL HOURS Annilml Gnat Number Vehicle Saved Capital I Cost I Labor Vehicle I 0&M I Total 16 yd 2 $140,000 $119,800 $34,000 $153,800 A-6