HomeMy WebLinkAboutChannel Landfill Inc. Juneau, Ak. Energy Recovery Feasibility Report 1997CHANNEL LANDFILL, INC.
JUNEAU, ALASKA
ENERGY RECOVERY FEASIBILITY REPORT
prepared by:
Harris Group Inc.
With Associated Consultants:
Power Management Corp.
EnviroMech
EMCON, Inc.
August 11, 1997
DISCLAIMER
This report entitled “Channel Landfill Inc., Juneau, Alaska, Energy Recovery
Feasibility Report” was prepared with the support of United States Department
of Energy Grant DE-FG51-94R020022. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or
recommendations expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the State of Alaska, or U.S. Department of Energy. Neither
the United States Government nor the State of Alaska’s agencies or employees
makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of information in this report.
97-1013\1013disc.doc 8 Sept 97
REPORT NO. 97-1013/1
ENERGY RECOVERY FEASIBILITY REPORT
PROJECT NO. 97-1013 CHANNEL LANDFILL, INC.
POWER GENERATION FEASIBILITY STUDY JUNEAU, ALASKA
DATE: AUGUST 8, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS F 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Authority
2.2 Scope of Work
2.3 Methodology
2.4 Report Structure
3: DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Phase 1
4.1.1 Pre-Study Services
4.1.2 Assessment of the Energy Market
4.1.2.1 Electricity
4.1.2.2 Thermal Energy
4.1.3 Assessment of the Waste Disposal Market
4.1.4 Project Definition
4.1.5 Preliminary Economic Analysis
4.2 Phase 2
4.2.1 Project Review
4.2.2 Waste Flow Analysis for Channel Landfill Options
4.2.2.1 Introduction
4.2.2.2 Options Description
4.2.2.3 Waste Flow Projections
4.2.2.4 Analysis and Findings
4.2.3 Landfill Operations and Reclamation Plan Outline
4.2.3.1 Introduction
4.2.3.2 Landfill Mining
4.2.4 Incineration, Air Pollution Control and Related Topics
4.2.4.1 Null Option
4.2.4.2 Option 2
4.2.4.3 Option 3
4.2.5 Economic Analysis
4.2.5.1 Electric Power Generation and Sale
4.2.5.2 Thermal Energy Generation and Sale
4.2.5.3 Landfill Operations and Land Commercialization
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
APPENDICES
8.1 Drawings
A. Channel Sanitation - Proposed Expansion and Air Pollution Control System - Options
3A/3B - Drawing No. 1013SK-1
B. Channel Sanitation - Proposed Expansion and Air Pollution Control System - General
Arrangement - Drawing No. 1013SK-2
8.2 Waste Generation Projections for Channel Landfill
8.3 Project Definition - Power Generation
8.4 ASME Paper: Skagit County Resource Recovery Facility
Design of a 178 TPD Waste-to-Energy Plant
REPORT NO. 97-1013/1
ENERGY RECOVERY FEASIBILITY REPORT
PROJECT NO. 97-1013 CHANNEL LANDFILL, INC.
POWER GENERATION FEASIBILITY STUDY JUNEAU, ALASKA
DATE: AUGUST 8, 1997
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Study determined that, while the options presented for consideration in the Scope were
technically feasible, they are not economically attractive at this time.
The Study concludes that the present mode of operation, with two incinerators, no mining,
and no waste heat recovery, should be continued at the present time.
A possible opportunity for the future is identified: When demand for electrical base load
increases to where the full year’s output of electric power can be sold for an average price at
or above the midpoint between the present Avoided Cost for hydro and the present Avoided
Cost for diesel generation, it appears likely that a 3rd incinerator with air pollution controls
together with a power generation facility could be profitably installed. The power market
should be monitored in order to be prepared to proceed with this option at the appropriate
time.
At that time, a mining and land reclamation program can also be considered. The benefits
would include extended life for the landfill, reclaimed land suitable for industrial/commercial
use, a state-of-the-art facility, and a long-term profitable enterprise. The power market
should be monitored in order to be prepared to proceed with this option at the appropriate
time. .
Recovery and sale of thermal energy may become economically feasible at some future time,
with increases in heating oil prices or for use at new construction in the area.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Authority
In October, 1996, Channel Landfill, Inc. (“Owner”). issued a Request for Proposals to
perform a Power Generation Feasibility Study (the “Study”) of the Channel Landfill
in Juneau, Alaska. Harris Group Inc. (“HGI”’) responded with a proposal (the
“Proposal”) on November 27, 1996. The contract for the Study was awarded to HGI
on February 3, 1997. HGI subsequently awarded subcontracts to EMCON, Inc.
(“EMCON”), Power Management Corporation (“PMC”) and Enviromech. The Study
97-1013/1013R1.doc 1 11 Aug 97
is funded by the Owner and the Division of Energy, Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, State of Alaska.
2.2 Scope of Work
The Scope of Work of the Study is set forth in the contract between the Owner and
HGI and may be summarized as follows:
Determine the feasibility of recovering heat off the existing two incinerators plus a
third incinerator to be installed at the facility; recovered heat to be used to power a
steam turbine generator with sales of electric energy to a local gold mine, and
recovery of low grade thermal energy for sale or use by the owner. The Study will be
the main document to support financing of any equipment additions recommended by
the Study.
Evaluate the economics of installing various sized incinerators to optimize revenue
from sales of energy and recyclables.
The Scope of Work was amended at the completion of Phase 1 when it was
determined that power generation would not be feasible under present conditions.
Accordingly, HGI proposed, in a letter dated April 28, 1997, that the emphasis of the
Study should be changed to focus on the feasibility of reclamation of the landfill site
for commercial land use under two alternative scenarios, with and without the
addition of a third incinerator. The amended Phase 2 Scope was sent to the Owner’s
Engineer, Mr. Ronald Hansen, Hansen Engineering by fax dated May 7, 1997, and
accepted in Mr. Hansen’s email message of May 8, 1997
2.3 Methodology
The work was under the direction of Arthur Butler, P.E., Senior Project Manager,
HGI. Close coordination and reporting (including bi-weekly reports) was maintained
with Mr. Hansen, the Owners Engineer.
The work was divided into Phases 1, 2 and 3; and responsibility for performing each
element of the work was subdivided among the selected specialists assigned to the
Study Team for each area.
Principal members of Study Team were:
Arthur Butler, P.E., Senior Project Manager, HGI.
Terrill Chang, P.E., President, Enviromech.
Ward Sanders, P.E., President, PMC.
Jeffery Mach, Manager, Juneau Branch Office, EMCON.
Norman Dahl, Senior Planner, Bothell Office, EMCON.
97-1013/1013R1.doc 2 11 Aug 97
Throughout this report, they are referred to as “HGI”, Emech, PMC, or EMCON; and
collectively as the “Study Team”.
2.4 Report Structure
The organization of the report is intended to lead the reader through the process
followed by the Study Team.
Phase 1 includes work to be done up to project definition and included Pre-Study
Services, Assessment of Energy and Disposal Markets, and Feasibility Analysis (the
latter including a preliminary economic analysis. A Project Review was held with the
Owner’s Engineer at the completion of Phase 1, and adjustments in Phase 2 scope
were made pursuant to that meeting to reflect findings to that date.
Phase 2, as modified and approved to reflect the findings of Phase 1, focuses on
assessing the advantages and disadvantages of three major options: 1) Null Option
(continuing unchanged the present operation of the landfill), 2) Phased conversion of
much of the existing landfill to commercial land use, and 3) Adding a third
incinerator plus converting much of the existing landfill to commercial land use.
Concurrently, sub-options considering the sale of thermal and/or electrical energy
were considered.
Phase 3 includes preparation and coordination with Owner and Owners Engineer of
a draft report; then modification, finalization and production of the final report.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY
The existing facility was constructed in 1985 on the 35-acre landfill site. It consists of a
truck scale for incoming waste, and a building which houses the tipping floor, two Consumat
CS-1600) incinerators, ash handling conveyors, auxiliary equipment and controls. An
electrostatic precipitator, which controls particulate emissions, is located outside the building.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Phase 1 - Collect Information, Assess Markets, Preliminary Assessment
4.1.1 Pre-Study Services
Pre-Study Services consisted of 1) Finalizing the agreements between
Channel and HGI, and concluding agreements between HGI and sub-
consultants, and 2) Visiting the Site and meeting with Channel.
All agreements were signed in a timely manner.
Preliminary work on the Study began at the Study Kickoff Meeting held at the
Owner’s offices in Juneau. The meeting was attended by Mr. Butler, Mr.
97-1013/1013R1.doc 3 11 Aug 97
4.1.2
97-1013/1013R1.doc
Chang and Mr. Mach for the Study Team, and by Mr. Tonsgard, President,
Channel Landfill, Inc. (Owner) and Mr. Hansen, Owner’s Engineer.
Information gathering began at the Kickoff Meeting and continued by
telephone and written contact. Copies of relevant prior studies were obtained.
A list of reference documents are shown in Section 7, Reference Documents.
Assessment of the Energy Market
4.1.2.1 Electricity
PMC had planned to meet with Echo Bay mine personnel to assess the
likelihood that the mine would be permitted, to assess the likelihood
that a power purchase contract could be negotiated with Echo Bay, and
to determine whether the likely power rate of such a contract would be
consistent with the economic objectives of the project. Unfortunately,
the Study Team learned at the start of the Study that work would be
discontinued on the Echo Bay mine.
Based on AEL&P projections (see Reference 7.1 Reference
Documents - Electric Power), if the Echo Bay Mine Project had
proceeded to completion, the AEL&P system would have been short of
power; however, without the Mine Project, the system has sufficient
base load generation capacity from hydroelectric sources for a number
of years.
At a meeting between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Corbus, CEO of AEL&P,
Mr. Corbus confirmed that for Channel, Inc. to install electric power
generation at this time would simply cause additional water to “spill”
at Snettisham for most of the year; that is, the Channel power would
simply displace available hydro power, with no benefit to the system.
AEL&P uses presently installed diesel generators to meet peaking
requirements or in the event of a “dry year” with reduced hydro
capacity. Records furnished by AEL&P show that the diesels provide
a very small percentage of the power. Since a Channel power plant
would be have to be a base load facility to be economically
worthwhile, it would not reduce in any appreciable amount the usage
of the diesels.
There are two Avoided Cost rates filed with the Alaska Public Utility
Commission:
Rate A = $0.0347 per kilowatt-hour and is for energy
competing with Snettisham hydro. ,
4 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
Rate B = $0.0898 per kilowatt-hour and is for energy
competing with generating facilities using diesel fuel.
At such time that energy from Snettisham is insufficient for base load
system needs, and AEL&P finds it necessary to generate increasing
amounts of power with diesels, a generating facility at the Channel
facility could be more economically attractive (see Table 13).
AEL&P estimates that, assuming a 2.5% load growth, present base
load will start to become insufficient after the year 2004.
The possibility of providing electricity directly to customers of
AEL&P was briefly explored. Although the concept of “retail
wheeling” is being widely discussed in the electric power industry, at
the present time there are no states in the United States that allow retail
wheeling. At the present time, this is not a feasible option in Alaska.
See Appendix 8.3 Project Definition Study - Power Generation for a
further discussion of these issues.
4.1.2.2 Thermal Energy
Incinerator plants typically produce 6 to 8 pounds of flue gas per
pound of waste incinerated. The flue gas temperature is at as high as
1800 degrees F, and must be cooled to 300-400 degrees for air
pollution control. The heat which must be removed from the flue gas
can be recovered and transported to nearby heating users, displacing
heating oil which they would otherwise have burned.
Potential Heating Oil Replacement Capacity
The proposed incineration capacity of 122 tons/day (Option’3A or 3B)
for the expanded Channel Landfills plant, would be a heat input of
about 45 million Btu per hour, assuming waste with a heating value of
4,500 Btu/Ib. About 60% of this heat could be recovered as useful
heat in steam or hot water. At 136,000 Btu/gallon of heating oil and
78.5% efficiency, this could displace about 6000 gallons of heating oil
per day, for immediate use.
EMCON made a survey of the heat users within a one-mile radius of
the Channel Landfills site (see Table 12). The total fuel oil
consumption indicated was over 300,000 gallons per year.
Energy Availability
Heat supply from W-T-E plants is subject to the inherent nature of the
incineration process; it depends on the severe operating conditions of
5 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
the incineration process, and corresponding severe duty of the heat
recovery boilers or heat exchangers. As a result, its reliability cannot
be assured and users must have backup heating equipment and fuel
storage.
The heat must be generated, and sold, when the MSW is being
incinerated. If it cannot be sold when the MSW is being incinerated,
e.g. during the summer months, the heat must be wasted to the
atmosphere through a dump condenser or other heat exchanger.
Referring to Table 12, any consideration of heat sales must be
responsive to the needs of the various potential customers. In
particular, the heat delivery must be compatible with the customers’
existing equipment and heat uses. For instance, it is unlikely that a
district heating system could replace the heat input to the grain drier at
the brewery.
Also, the economics of supplying heating loads must reflect the
seasonal nature of the load. The capacity of the heat delivery system
must contend with the need to have capacity for the cold days, even
though the “load factor’ is probably on the order of 25 percent which
means up to 75 percent of the heat is wasted.
District Heating
The Alaska Energy Authority made a study in 1993 entitled “Lemon
Creek Waste to Energy Prefeasibility Assessment” of a proposed
supply of heat from the incinerators to the Lemon Creek Correctional
Center. The operating parameters, capital and operating costs
developed in that study were “scaled up” in Table 5_ to show the effect
of serving heat loads using 300,000 gallons/year. Note that this table
relies on prefeasibility-level cost estimates developed in the 1993
assessment which are inherently rough (+/- 30%). Further study would
require participation of parties with expertise in the area of district
heating.
In the event of a significant increase in the cost of heating oil it, would
be desirable to reconsider selling heat from the Channel incinerators. In
such a case, the extra cost of heating a public facility like the correction
center might make public funds available for investment in the capital
cost of the heating transport system.
It might be very good public policy for the state or local government to
own the distribution system, for a number of reasons.
6 8 Sept 97
Public ownership or financing of such a system would require a lower
rate of return on investment than private ownership. It has been
suggested that this would be a good forward-looking project for a
public agency to sponsor. It could serve as a demonstration project for
others to emulate in case of future escalating costs of heating oil.
There is another, probably more pressing, reason why government
participation would probably be necessary for district heating to
become a reality. To obtain project financing for a privately-owned
facility, lenders usually require assurance of the costs and revenues
from the project for the length of the financing term. The sale of heat
is strikingly different from the sale of power, because electric utilities
can sign long-term power purchase contracts; but private entities, such
as those listed in Table 12, would be very unlikely to make long-term
commitments to purchase heat.
Other Potential Heat Markets
A dry kiln for a sawmill was mentioned as a possible market for waste
heat from the incinerators. Plans for the sawmill had not proceeded to
the point that the economics could be evaluated. A dry kiln would use
from 5 to 8 pounds of steam per board foot. Depending on the
technique used, it could be a steady demand or vary over the drying
period; and the drying period could vary from one to several days per
batch. Because the incinerators would operate best with a steady steam
output, it may be difficult to match a varying steam demands from the
kiln. For example, steam demand would drop to zero when wood was
being loaded or unloaded from the kiln. Here again, it would be very
unlikely for a dry kiln operation to sign a long-term purchase contract
for heat.
4.1.3 Assessment of the Waste Disposal Market
97-1013/1013R1.doc
The waste disposal market is discussed in Appendix 8.2. Waste Generation
Projections. See also Table 1 Channel Landfill MSW Tonnage - 1996, Table 2
Average and Peak Generation Rates - 1996, Table 3 CBJ Population and
Waste Projection - MSW Only, (Constant Waste Generation Rate Per Capita),
and Table 4 CBJ Population and Waste Projection - MSW Only - (0.5%
Annual Increase in Waste Generation Rate_a Per Capita.
7 8 Sept 97
4.1.4
4.1.5
Project Definition
A preliminary Project definition was prepared in this Phase 1. This was then
finalized and is presented in completed form in Phase 2. See also Table 6
Incinerator & Air Pollution Control Capital Costs and Table 7 Options 3A/3B
Operating Costs.
Preliminary Economic Analysis
Preliminary analysis of using waste heat from the incinerators to generate
electric power indicates that this option could be economically attractive, if
the power can be sold at or near the Rate B Avoided Cost of $0.0898 per
kilowatt-hour (see Reference Document 7.1.F Alaska PUC, Schedule No. 44
Purchase of Non-Firm Power from a Qualifying Facility. Unfortunately, as
described earlier, a market for this power does not exist at this time. The
economic analysis is further discussed in Section 4.2.
Preliminary analysis of using waste heat from the incinerators to heat existing
buildings in the Lemon Creek area indicates that this option is economically
unattractive. While the heat supply is “free”, the cost of installing piping
through a presently developed area and retrofitting buildings to utilize the
waste heat, while retaining backup systems to provide heat when the
incinerators are shut down, results in an extremely low rate of return on
invested capital, using commercial sources of financing. This could be
reexamined if and when grant funds could be found to pay for a significant
part of the capital costs. Note that AIDEA expects that any loan it guarantees
will be justified economically. The economic analysis is further discussed in
Section 4.2.
4.2 Phase 2 - Clarify Options, Analyze Feasibility of Alternative Options, Economic
Analysis
4.2.1
97-1013/1013R1.doc
Project Review
A Project Review was held on April 3, 1997, at the HGI office in Seattle. It
was attended by all members of the Study Team and Mr. Ronald Hansen,
Owners Engineer and chaired by Mr. Butler, Project Manager.
Ward Sanders, PMC, held a series of meetings in Alaska on April 16, 17 and
18. On April he met with Channel Corporation executives including Mr.
W.R. (Shorty) Tonsgard, Jr., Chairman of the Board, William (Bill)
Cheeseman, Vice Chairman, Frank Guertin, Controller, and Jerry Wilkerson,
Assistant Controller; and Ronald Hansen, P.E., Owners Engineer.
Mr. Sanders presented and discussed a preliminary analysis of alternatives
(see Table #8 Analysis of Economic Alternatives) as follows:
8 11 Aug 97
4.2.2
97-1013/1013R1.doc
Option #1, Null Option - Continue operating the landfill and incineration
facility as at present.
Sub-Option 1.1. - Modify for sale of waste heat.
Sub-Option 1.2. - Modify for sale of electric power.
Option #2, Phased Conversion to Commercial Land Use, using the
Present Two Incinerators
Sub-Option 2.1. - Modify for sale of waste heat.
Sub-Option 2.2. - Modify for sale of electric power.
Option #3, Add Third Incinerator, with Phased Conversion to
Commercial Land Use
Sub-Option 3.1. - Modify for sale of waste heat.
Sub-Option 3.2. - Modify for sale of electric power.
Mr. Sanders also presented and discussed a preliminary economic analysis of
the sale of thermal and electric power. This has now been superseded by
Table 13.
On April 17, Mr. Sanders met with William A. Corbus, President and General
Manager of AEL&P and with Peter Bibb, Vice President and Director of
Consumer Affairs. Mr. Corbus clearly expressed his view that, with the loss
of the Echo Bay Mine, he sees no need for additional power generation such
as might be supplied from a steam turbine/generator using waste heat from the
Channel incinerators.
On April 18, Mr. Sanders met with Mr. Peter Crimp at his office in
Anchorage. Mr. Crimp was very helpful in providing resource documents
needed for the Study. Mr. Crimp made clear that his interest in the Channel
Project is as a source of energy.
Based on the foregoing, and on a series of discussions between Mr. Butler and
Mr. Hansen, the Phase 2 scope of the Study was modified as shown in
Paragraph 2.2 Scope of Work. Work proceeded to further evaluate the options
presented to Channel executives on April 16 which were considered to be
worthy of further analysis.
Waste Flow Analysis for Channel Landfill Options
4.2.2.1 Introduction
The feasibility study project team developed a spreadsheet model that
compares the weekly capacity of the incinerator with projected weekly
9 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
quantities of waste received at the facility and excavated from the
landfill. Excavation would be conducted to convert the landfill to
industrial development and use. The model projects the quantities of
waste incinerated, ash produced, remaining incinerator capacity, and
waste shipped off-site due to a lack of incinerator capacity.
The waste flow analysis model is used in later sections of this study to
project the financial feasibility of the options by applying estimated
costs per ton for each waste or ash handling operation. The project
period is defined as twenty years, beginning in 1998 and continuing
until 2017. The basis for annual and weekly municipal solid waste
(MSW) quantity projections is the weekly record of waste received by
Channel Landfill, Inc. in 1996.
4.2.2.2 Options Description
The quantity of waste and ash flowing to each operation is projected
for each of three scenarios in which incineration capacity is unchanged
or increased, and the landfill is converted to industrial land over ten
years or twenty years. The options analyzed include the following:
Null Option. This option assumes no change in capacity of the
incinerator and no waste excavation from the landfill. The analysis
examines projected waste flows during the twenty-year project period
assuming no change from the current waste handling system. Weekly
quantities of MSW received are projected based on the weekly
distribution of waste received during 1996. Annual waste quantities
are projected based on population increase projections and 0.5 percent
per year growth in per capita waste generation, for a total annual waste
increase of 1.1 percent.
Option 2. This option assumes no change in incinerator capacity from
the present 72 tons per day, but previously landfilled MSW would be
excavated beginning in 1998 and excavated at a uniform rate to
complete excavation in 10-years (Option 2A), or 20 years (Option
2B). Waste quantities including received and excavated MSW which
exceed incinerator capacity, would be shipped out of the area for
disposal. Ash would continue to be landfilled, but only up to a
maximum of 7,300 tons per year to avoid triggering state and federal
requirement for constructing a lined landfill with leachate collection,
treatment and disposal.
The quantity of waste to be excavated is estimated to be 210,000 tons
based on an estimated 30 acres of landfilled area having an average of
7,000 tons of MSW per acre. Channel’s engineer, Mr. Ron Hansen,
P.E. provided this estimate in his analysis of the feasibility of landfill
mining.
10 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
Option 3. Under this option, incinerator capacity would be increased
to 122 tons per day by adding a third solid waste combustor unit
having a capacity of 50 tons per day. Excavation of the landfill would
be accomplished over 10 years (Option 3A) or 20 years (Option 3B).
Waste quantities exceeding incinerator capacity would be shipped out
of the area for disposal. Up to 7,300 tons of ash would be landfilled
per year and amounts over that quantity would be shipped out of the
area for disposal.
4.2.2.3 Waste Flow Projections
Waste generation and flow projections have been summarized on
Tables 1 - 4 and Tables 10 and 11. Tables 1 - 4 show baseline and
projected waste generation in tons. Table 10 presents a typical weekly
waste flow distribution analysis, and Table 11 shows the annual
summaries of the weekly waste distribution analyses for each option.
° The data presented in Table 10 are the projected weekly
tonnage of MSW and ash handled by each waste handling
system of Channel Landfill during a twenty-year project period
starting in 1998. The projected tons of waste generated each
year during the project period remain the same for each option.
The incinerator capacity and rate of waste excavation vary with
each option, resulting in differing quantities of:
° Waste Incinerated, including all MSW received and excavated,
up to the weekly capacity limit of the incinerator
° MSW Shipped, the amount of received and excavated MSW
which exceeds the incinerator capacity
e Ash Generated, tons of ash produced, projected based on
current operating experience which has shown that the ash
quantity is 30 percent of the weight of waste incinerated.
° Ash Shipped, the quantity of ash produced which is in excess
of 7,300 tons per year, the regulatory limit for a Class II
landfill.
e Remaining Available Incinerator Capacity, the sum of the
differences between waste received plus waste excavated
during each week when the sum is less than the weekly
incinerator capacity
Table 10 is an example of how the spreadsheet model is used, based on
the weekly waste quantities from Table 1 with the annual waste
projections over 20 years from Table 4 and projects the weekly waste
i 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
flows for each of the options examined. The weekly tonnage of MSW
received varies according to seasonal waste generation patterns, with
winter tonnage falling below current incinerator capacity of 72 tons per
day and summer peak weeks exceeding capacity.
Comparing weekly waste flows to weekly incinerator capacity
produces two important data. The first is the annual total of available
incinerator capacity. The second is the annual total of waste which
exceeds incinerator capacity. Waste exceeding capacity is assumed to
be shipped out of the area for disposal. Available incinerator capacity
indicates the potential for incinerating excavated waste from the
landfill or waste from sources other than the CBJ deliveries.
The following paragraphs describe the methods for projecting the
quantities of waste, ash, and incinerator capacity resulting from each of
the options. The descriptions are made by column headings in Table
11, the Data Summary, with references to the weekly analysis sheets
such as Table 10.
MSW Tons/Year is the projected quantity of MSW generated by the
CBJ and delivered to Channel Landfill. This projection is shown in
Table 4 and is based on expected population increases, plus an increase
in waste generation rates of 0.5 percent per capita per year, for an
overall waste increase of 1.1 percent per year. The recorded tonnage
of MSW (Table 1) received by Channel Landfill in 1996 is used as the
base year for the MSW tonnage projections.
Waste Excavated (applies to Options 2 and 3) is the quantity of waste
that would be excavated from the landfill to complete the removal of
previously landfilled MSW over a 10-year or 20-year period. The
assumption is made that the landfill contains 210,000 tons of MSW
that will be removed in the landfill conversion process. Excavated
waste is assumed to be produced in equal amounts weekly and
incinerated when capacity is available, otherwise, it is shipped out of
the area for disposal.
MSW Incinerated is the sum of waste received and excavated for
each week, up to the scheduled incinerator capacity of 432 tons per
week for the existing two 36 tpd incinerators operating 6 days per
week; or 732 tons per week with a third 50 tpd incinerator. The
analysis includes an annual two-week maintenance shutdown
scheduled for the end of September (weeks 38 and 39). During this
period, it is assumed that all waste received (and excavated) is shipped
out of the area for disposal.
During 1996, records indicated that 22,285 tons of waste were
incinerated. The calculated annual incinerator capacity is based on an
12 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
18-shift per week, 6-day per week operation. By operating additional
shifts during 1996, total waste incinerated exceeded the calculated
annual capacity by 562 tons.
Annual incinerator capacity for the 72-ton per day plant is calculated
as 21,723 tons per year (50 and 2/7 weeks, multiplied by 432 tons per
week). Annual capacity for the three-burner, 122-ton per day plant is
calculated as 36,809 tons per year, including the two-week shutdown.
MSW Shipped is the estimated weekly waste tonnage (including
excavated waste) that exceeds of the weekly incinerator capacity. The
annual total includes all waste received during the two-week shutdown
period. The 1996 tonnage shipped, 1,595 tons, is the actual record of
tonnage shipped. All subsequent projections are estimated by the
method described above.
Ash Generated is the expected quantity produced based on the waste-
to-ash ratio produced in 1996. Ash is limited to a maximum of 7,300
tons per year for a Class II unlined landfill under Alaska Solid Waste
Regulations. In 1996, 6,684 tons of ash (wet weight) were produced
from 22,285 tons of MSW incinerated. Ash quantities in subsequent
years are projected based on the same proportion. .
Ash Shipped, (Options 3A and 3B), is the ash quantity in excess of
7,300 tons per year. The excess is assumed to be shipped to another
disposal location. Alternatively, metal recovery from ash may be
implemented, reducing the total weight of ash generated by an
estimated 17 percent. This could reduce ash shipments by 73 and 59
percent in Options 3A and 3B respectively. Also, future approval of
ash utilization methods could eliminate all ash shipment.
If incinerator capacity is increased (Options 3A and 3B) lime injection
in the air pollution control section would add to the weight of ash. At
a rate of 20 pounds of lime per ton of waste incinerated, 368 tons per
year of lime would be used if the incinerator operated at capacity all
year. Neither metals recovery nor lime injection effects on ash
generation are included in the projections for ash generated or shipped.
Remaining Incinerator Capacity is the difference between waste
received and/or excavated and incinerator capacity.
4.2.2.4 Analysis and Findings
Null Option. The waste flow projection data indicate that in the null
option, waste shipped during the 20-year project period would total
120,000 tons, or about one fifth of the total waste received. The
minimal remaining incinerator capacity indicates that the plant is
13 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
operating very near capacity even during the seasonally low flow
periods.
Option 2A. Excavating 210,000 tons of landfilled waste over ten
years results in shipping virtually all of the excavated waste plus the
120,000 tons of waste determined to be in excess of incinerator
capacity as calculated in the null option.
Option 2B. Extending the excavation period to twenty years results in
shipping the same quantity of waste, but delays the time and cost for
shipping half of the excavated waste until the second ten-year period
of the project, No ash is shipped and the incinerator runs near capacity
in either option 2A or 2B.
Option 3A. With the added 50 ton per day incineration capacity, and
landfill excavation in 10 years, total tonnage of waste shipped would
be reduced to approximately half of the quantity of waste excavated.
However, the quantity of ash generated increases to more than 7,300
tons as a result of operating the third incinerator, requiring significant
quantities of ash to be shipped..
During the second ten-year period, after excavation has been
completed, available incinerator capacity increases and capacity is
exceeded only during peak summer weeks, while low flow periods
offer significant available incinerator capacity.
Option 3B. By excavating the landfill over twenty years instead of
ten, the tonnage of waste and ash shipped is reduced by 22 percent
overall and is significantly less (62 percent less) during the first ten
year period. Available incinerator capacity is less than half of the
capacity available in Option 3A, but most of it (25,200 tons of 34,700
tons) is available during the first ten-year period, comparéd to none
during the same period in Option 3A.
Option 3B.1. A slightly different method of analyzing the waste flow
was used in Option 3B.1 to reflect making full use of the incinerator
capacity for mined waste by increasing the rate of waste excavation
early in the project period rather than assuming a constant weekly and
annual excavation rate over 20 years as in Option 3B. During each
week, enough waste would be excavated to use all incinerator capacity
which was not required for the MSW delivered from the CBJ. The
effect of revising the analysis method on projected waste flows
compared to Option 3B are:
e reduces Available Incinerator Capacity to zero during the
project period
14 11 Aug 97
e reduces the predicted amount of MSW Shipped by 34,700 tons
over the project period
e increases Ash Shipped by 10,400 tons over the project period
e __ the total projected tonnage of ash and waste shipped is reduced
by 25,000 tons over the 20-year period, resulting in a decrease
in projected shipping and disposal costs of $2.1 million.
The purpose of this alternate analysis is to represent the most efficient
use of incinerator capacity for landfill reclamation while incinerating
all of the CBJ-generated wastes. Neither Options 2A and 2B, nor
Option 3A benefit from projecting accelerated landfill excavation as
does Option 3B because incinerator capacity is less than required for
the total of delivered waste and waste scheduled for excavation.
4.2.3 Landfill Operations and Reclamation Plan Outline
97-1013/1013R1.doc
4.2.3.1 Introduction
Continued use of the Channel Landfill is essential to the future waste
management operations of Channel Landfill Inc. (Channel). The
operation includes receiving and incinerating municipal solid waste
(MSW), and providing on-site disposal of construction and demolition
waste (C and D), inert waste, and land clearing debris (LCD).
Efficient use of the 35 acre disposal site should be guided by a
comprehensive operations plan that leads to a phased closure and
eventual conversion of the property to industrial use as the fill reaches
final design grades.
This section outlines elements of a potential operating, closure, and
reclamation plan for at least the twenty-year period addressed by this
Waste to Energy Feasibility Study. This plan outline addresses the
following issues:
e long-term objectives of Channel Landfill Inc. such as the time
frame for continued landfill operations, timing for closure, and
opportunities for development of the 35-acre site
e economic findings of the Harris Group study and their
relationship to Channel’s long-term objectives
e regulatory and permit requirements of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) as they relate to operation,
closure and land reclamation
15 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
During the study , Channel has stipulated that the quantity of landfilled
waste will be limited to 7,300 tons per year (20 tons per day) of
qualifying waste (ash or MSW). This will be done to retain Class II
landfill status which includes unlined landfill design status available
under Alaska Solid Waste Regulations in 18 AAC 60.
Municipal waste combustor ash (MWC ash) will be deposited as the
priority waste at the site. MSW received in excess of current or future
incinerator capacity will be shipped to a legally established and
operated disposal site located elsewhere. None will be deposited in the
Channel landfill. Ash quantities in excess of 7,300 tons per year will
also be shipped off-site, if necessary, to comply with regulatory
interpretations of the Class II landfill limit. The ash quantity produced
will not exceed the current rate of 6,700 tons per year unless the
constructed incinerator capacity is increased from the current 72 tons
per day.
Objectives of the Channel Landfill Inc. operating plan, reclamation
plan and closure plan include the following:
a Maintain capacity for disposal of MWC ash for an indefinite
period into the future
2, Continue to operate under Class II landfill standards rather than
design, permit and construct new lined landfill cells with
leachate collection, treatment and disposal systems
3: Continue to provide landfill disposal capacity for C and D
waste, unburnable wastes (non-putrescible), and inert wastes
for the maximum period possible that is consistent with a
grading plan that produces final grades compatible with
eventual conversion of the site to industrial land uses. This
objective assumes that C and D wastes are not included in the
7,300 ton per year limit of on-site disposal.
4. Sequentially apply final cover to areas of inert waste and C and
D waste that have reached final design grades to convert the
land to industrial use. Consider pre-loading waste fill areas to
improve foundation conditions for site development.
5; Excavate and incinerate, or excavate and ship, previously
landfilled MSW to produce additional landfill capacity. This
should only be done if it becomes economically advantageous
to do so. A detailed economic analysis would be required to
determine the economic conditions under which this objective
can be met.
16 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
6. Remove waste materials, including MSW or other wastes that
may contribute contaminants to soil and water, to achieve a
“clean closure” and to provide property with increased
development opportunity and value.
ae Demonstrate that clean closure has been achieved where
waste has been removed so that clean closed areas may be
filled with soil and rock or inert waste and ultimately sold on
the open market for industrial land. The significance of clean
closure is reducing potential future environmental liability or
use restrictions.
Achieving these objectives requires a detailed plan for waste
placement, a closure plan with designed landfill grades, and a
sequential plan for area closures and reclamation of the site. This plan
will require refined projections of waste quantities by type, volumes of
landfill capacity consumed and geotechnical engineering to determine
foundation characteristics of ash, C and D waste, or soil backfill.
Compatibility of landfilling operations with reclamation and industrial
development activities also must be considered in the operating plan.
4.2.3.2 Landfill Mining
The concept of excavating previously deposited MSW and incinerating
or shipping the waste has been proposed by Channel to achieve the
following goals:
e Eliminate a potential source of future groundwater contamination
and its associated liability. Alternative remedial measures may
include landfill closure by capping to reduce infiltration of
precipitation and associated leachate generation
e Reduce or eliminate the need for and cost of landfill closure and
capping that may require a gas collection and disposal system
e Increase the potential capacity and longevity of the landfill for
receiving and disposing of MWC ash, inert waste, and C and D
waste
e Recover and sell scrap metals previously disposed of in the fill
e Improve the development potential of the landfilled area for
industrial or commercial use
These goals are achievable, however, a number of uncertainties will
remain until the project is well under way, including: the regulatory
requirements and clean-up standards for clean closure, the cost of
17 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
waste removal and alternate disposal, and results of analysis of
residual soil contaminants following waste removal. Since the area,
quantity, and types of waste present are not well defined, it is
impossible to resolve these uncertainties at this time. The following
subsections address issues relating to the proposed landfill mining
concept.
Projected Landfill Capacity and Current Fill Rate
A goal of the landfill mining project is to increase the capacity of the
landfill for MWC ash, C and D waste and inert waste since local
landfill disposal is the lowest cost disposal alternative available to the
CBJ. According to the Closure Study Report for Channel Landfill,
EMCON 1991, ultimate capacity for the landfill was estimated at over
1 million cubic yards, assuming development of the landfill to the
proposed final grading plan. The grading design did not incorporated
future industrial uses, therefore fill side slopes were designed at
4H:1V, with maximum elevations reaching 60 feet in the east fill area
and 85 feet in the west fill area.
The estimated capacity included approximately 240,000 cubic yards to
fill the east area settling pond to an elevation 2 feet above the water
surface. This filling may only be with “...non-decomposable and inert
materials...” according to landfill permit 8511 BA016. The permit
specifically prohibits “...ash and combustible residue...”.disposal in
this area.
A modified final grading plan with reduced perimeter slopes and
flatter finished surface grades suitable for development would reduce
the ultimate capacity of the landfill, however, the previous grading
plan analysis shows that landfill capacity (in 1991) would total
560,000 cubic yards to elevation 45 and 800,000 cubic yards to
elevation 50. Existing fill surfaces on the landfill are between
elevations 30 and 35 feet.
The annual rate of capacity used in 1996 are estimated based on scale
data collected by Channel and in-place densities estimated by
EMCON.
Waste Type 1996 Tons Density 1996 Volume (cu yd)
MWC Ash 6,684 2,400 lb/cy 5,570
Bypass Waste 4,032 tons 1,200 lb/cy 6,720
C and D Waste* 3,650 tons 1,000 Ib/cy 7,300
Annual Capacity Used 19,590
* Annual quantity limit per current landfill permit
18 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
At an annual fill rate of 30,000 cubic yards, more than the current rate,
800,000 cubic yards of capacity (minus 170,000 cubic yards for final
cover) to elevation 50 would last until 2012 without excavation.
Economics and Timing of Landfill Mining
e A decision to undertake landfill mining will depend on the
economics of the project. Key economic factors include:
e the cost of waste excavation,
e the cost of waste disposal by incineration or shipping,
e the cost of demonstrating that clean closure of the site has met a
pre-determined regulatory standard,
e The cost of fill required to raise the surface to the design grade of
the reclaimed area.
e the value of the recovered capacity and the economic benefits of
converting an MSW landfill to an inert waste fill or a clean site.
The benefits of the recovered capacity would accrue at the time the
space is utilized for disposal of revenue-producing waste. The present
value of the recovered capacity, (the cost that could be incurred now)
would depend on the discount rate used and the time before the space
is needed. Changes in the future costs of excavation and disposal in
the future would also influence the economic benefits of landfill
mining.
Alternative demand for the incinerator capacity may become available
in the future. This could result from greater population and waste
generation increases than are currently projected, or new sources of
waste may arise, such as additional cruise ship waste or new industrial
development The gross revenue could potentially be $1.47 million
annually if the estimated mined landfill tonnage of 10,500 tons per
year (option 3B) were displaced by a waste source paying the posted
gate fee of $140 per ton.
The full economic benefits of landfill mining, including reduced or
eliminated closure and post-closure costs, will be difficult to achieve
over the whole site because of latent impacts of waste disposal. The
following issues should be anticipated:
1. Excavation of all MSW has been proposed, however, MWC ash
disposal will continue, increasing the total ash deposit(s) present at
the landfill. These ash deposits may require closure according to
the standards of an MSW fill unless an alternate or lower standard
19 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
applicable to monofills is proposed by Channel Landfill Inc. and
accepted by ADEC.
2. Monofills standards for C and D waste, which is included in the
definition of inert waste under 18 AAC 60 do not apply where C
and D wastes are deposited within the same boundaries as a MSW
landfill. An agreement with ADEC to revise the Channel Landfill
MSW boundary upon successful clean closure, or to accept an
alternate closure standard where C and D waste was placed
exclusively would be necessary to obtain the cost savings benefit
of a reduced closure standard.
3. Continued ground water monitoring is likely regardless of the
clean closure results. The hydrogeologic study (EMCON, 1991)
estimated groundwater flow at 10 feet per year, with a potential
variability of from 1 to 100 feet per year. This rate implies that
ongoing groundwater monitoring would be maintained for a period
after clean closure on the same basis as for a closed MSW landfill
to detect potentially slow-moving contaminants at the facility
boundary
These issues may cause some of the economic benefits of landfill
mining to be reduced from the ideal of completely eliminating the
existence of an MSW landfill. Operations and reclamation planning
must account for these potentials and incorporate measures to optimize
the economics of waste excavation, recovered capacity, eventual
closure requirements and development. A matrix of regulatory
information applicable to closure or reclamation is shown in Table 17,
Channel Landfill Conversion and Closure Requirements.
Steps to a Negotiated Clean-up Standard and Clean-up Procedure
Landfill excavation and clean closure (or remediation) by a facility
owner on a voluntary basis would be regulated under jurisdiction of
ADEC. The model for a landfill clean-up project would be federal site
remediation projects conducted under CERCLA (Superfund) or
RCRA, however, recent policies developed at the federal level have
made the procedure more flexible to suit site-specific conditions.
These policies as they relate to Channel Landfill may include:
e Setting clean-up standards at levels that take into account the
planned use of the land
e Considering the pathways for exposure to humans and associated
potential health risks
20 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
e Considering the potential for exposures of wildlife to toxic
contaminants
e Targeting clean-up standards to background quality and the value
of affected groundwater
Channel’s expectations that would result from incurring the expense of
landfill excavation and clean closure is that the site would no longer be
treated as a MSW landfill under state regulatory requirements.
Achieving this will require Channel to take several procedural steps
with ADEC that will result in agreed-upon clean closure standards.
When the clean closure standard has been met for part or all of the
facility, Channel must have assurance that the requirements and
restrictions applicable to an MSW landfill will no longer be applied,
and that no further clean-up will be required.
Steps that may be required for achieving “clean closure” or
reclassification from MSW landfill to an inert waste landfill could
include:
1. Preliminary site assessment, including test borings to delineate
areas to be excavated, and sampling and analysis of soil and
groundwater immediately below the MSW fill
2. Assessment of existing soil and groundwater chemistry data and
comparison to analyses of samples affected by waste disposal
activities
3. Development of proposed clean-up standards for soil and possibly
groundwater in areas affected by waste disposal, including
selection of constituents of concern
4. Developing a comprehensive written description of the clean
closure operations including:
e Methods for waste removal under routine conditions and
potential adverse conditions such as encountering waste
deposited below groundwater, conditions of extreme weather
when snowfall or stormwater management obstruct operations
¢ Methods for separating soil from waste, including sampling
recovered soil to demonstrate clean closure standards are met
e Methods for handling, storage, and disposal of excavated
waste with plans to minimize exposed waste.
e Screening methods for detecting hazardous waste materials
that require special handling, and that includes procedures for
21 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
isolating the waste, protecting workers and other site
personnel from exposure, and methods for shipping and
disposal. Methods for control of environmental and nuisance
impacts
e A program to protect worker health and safety protection
program to guard against physical hazards, exposure to toxic
or dangerous materials, including explosive gas, fumes,
infectious agents, sharps, or other hazards. The program
should include operating procedures for decontaminating
personnel and equipment, monitoring and _ recording
environmental conditions and protecting other persons on the
site from hazards.
e Methods for verification sampling and analysis, including
chain of custody, quality control, and data reporting
5. Proposed timetable for project completion
6. A detailed cost estimate for proposed activities
Documentation of these methods should be expected as part of a
negotiated agreement with ADEC.
Channel Landfill may find clean closure to negotiated standards may
be operationally difficult or financially unfeasible due to physical
conditions at the site resulting from earlier waste disposal practice. It
will be appropriate to anticipate these difficulties during the clean
closure operations and be prepared to propose alternate standards that
will be acceptable to ADEC before the situation results in crisis-based
negotiations.
Preparation for Industrial Site Development
Developing land for industrial use will require physical characteristics
that exceed the constructed features of a closed inert waste fill.
Providing these added development requirements must be factored into
the cost of the landfill conversion The following topics discuss these
requirements:
Workable Soil Depth. Industrial facilities that require sewer and
water for domestic and fire water supply installed as underground
utilities would require 6 feet or more of soil above the final cover.
This is required to allow adequate depth for freeze protection, establish
gravity flow, and, possibly, spread footing foundations for structures.
This could require a total of 9,680 cubic yards of soil fill per acre. Ata
cost of $6 per cubic yard in place, this would add $58,000 per acre to
22 11 Aug 97
the conversion cost. The development design would also need to
preserve or reconstruct stormwater management features constructed
as part of landfill closure.
Settlement and Foundation Conditions. Depending on the
subsurface waste material and the type of industrial development
anticipated, settlement is a serious issue affecting design and
construction of industrial structures. Settlement may be reduced by the
passage of time, the six-foot fill described above, or by pre-loading the
surface with stockpiled rock or earth materials. If MSW remains after
closure, an impermeable membrane with an active gas collection,
venting and disposal system may be required.
The membrane and gas collection system would reduce or eliminate
methane gas accumulation and resulting explosion hazards in buildings
constructed on or near the fill. Landfill closure with either a clay soil
cover or a synthetic membrane is acceptable under applicable closure
regulations, but a synthetic membrane would provide greater
protection against gas migration than would a clay soil cover.
Stormwater Management. Conversion of filled areas to industrial
use will require a stormwater management design to suit the surface
use as well as convey stormwater to collection and detention
structures.
Operations Plan
The operations plan for the Channel Landfill must address the
regulatory requirements of 18 AAC 60.340 through 380. Briefly,
those topics include: access control, surface water management, vector
and animal control, record-keeping, hazardous waste exclusion, cover
requirements, explosive gas control, open burning restrictions, liquid
restrictions, controlling effects outside the facility boundary, and
corrective action when required. A brief operating plan addressing
these topics has been submitted and accepted by ADEC.
An operations plan leading to conversion of the landfill would
integrate waste and ash disposal operations, landfill mining. clean
closure, site reclamation, and conversion to industrial development.
Such a plan would be based on a detailed map of historic fill by waste
type, current use rates for each waste type, volume requirements and
final grading design.
4.2.4 Incineration, Air Pollution Control and Related Topics
97-1013/1013R1.doc 23 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
See also Table 6 Incinerator & Air Pollution Control Capital Costs and Table
7 Options 3A/3B Operating Costs.
4.2.4.1 Null Option
Incinerators
Under this Option, the two existing Consumat CS1600 controlled-air
type incinerators will continue to burn municipal solid waste (MSW)
from the CBJ and seasonal tour ships. Installed in 1985, each
incinerator has a burning capacity of 36 tons/day, for a facility capacity
of 72 tons/day.
In February of 1997, Channel staff indicated that the incinerators were
operated 3 shifts/day and were shut down for routine maintenance 2
shifts a week. Major maintenance and parts replacement is conducted
during planned, extended shutdowns several times a year. Because it
is located outdoors, major work on the electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
generally occurs during the summer. Emergency repairs occur on an
as-needed basis. Channel staff indicated that they would prefer a 3
shift/day, 6 day/week operation, giving more time for routine
maintenance. Thus, an 18 shift/week operation is assumed for the
purposes of this analysis. In addition, 11 days a year are allowed for
scheduled maintenance/replacement of major equipment items such as
the ash conveyor, underfire air tubes, ash shrouds, refractory, transfer
and ash rams, etc., as well as emergency repairs.
Air Pollution Control System
The original facility (1985) was intended to limit particulate emissions
through control of the combustion process alone. The electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) was not part of the original installation, but was
added in 1986. Channel’s current air quality permit regulates only
particulate matter (allowing .08 grains/dry standard cubic foot of flue
gas) and opacity (maximum 20%). Limits on emissions of acid gases
(hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide), nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins are not part of
Channel’s current permit.
Because of a recent court case, it appears that the U.S.E.P.A. will be
required to write new air emissions regulations for individual
incinerators with capacities of less than 250 ton/day. These new
regulations might affect Channel’s incinerators; however, industry
opinion is that existing units would not have to comply with the new
regulations until sometime after the year 2000. In the meantime, as
long as Channel does not modify either the incinerators or the ESP, it
24 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
is not expected that there will be any changes to Channel’s air permit
conditions in the near future.
4.2.4.2 Option 2
Incinerators
Under Options 2A and 2B, the two existing incinerators will continue
to operate as described above for the Null Option.
Air Pollution Control System
As discussed under the Null Option, it does not appear that there will
be any changes to Channel’s air permit conditions in the near future.
Tires
Used tires are a nuisance waste. When buried in landfills, they tend to
“float” to the surface of the landfill. Because of their high energy
content, tires release large amounts of heat when burned. While MSW
in general has a low sulfur content, tires have a relatively high sulfur
content that creates sulfur dioxide emissions when burned. Other than
dedicated tire incinerators in a couple of locations (e.g. Modesto, CA),
American incinerators burn tires only on an incidental basis. Tires are
not burned in batches, but are mixed with other MSW to minimize the
effects of sudden heat and sulfur release caused by burning tires. Tire
reinforcing wires (steel belts) can become entangled and cause
jamming of ash removal systems.
On a positive note, tires can be used to raise the heating value of wet
waste, making it burn more easily and consistently. In some locations,
government-imposed tire recycling/disposal fees provide, in effect, a
higher tipping fee for tires.
Channel burns tires on an intermittent basis, mixed with other MSW.
Automobile and truck tires will continue to be burned at the facility.
Storage of these tires in a segregated spot on the tipping floor will
make it easier for the incinerator operator to pick a tire for mixing with
a charge of MSW. Oversized tires (e.g. from earth-moving equipment)
must be cut to a size that fits the incinerator feed hopper, necessitating
large, capital-intensive equipment. Based on the relatively small
number of such oversized tires being disposed in Juneau, it does not
appear to be cost-effective to install such equipment.
Channel’s incinerators have the capacity to burn a greater number of
tires than they do at present. However, because each pound of tires
contains the same amount of heat energy as 2-3 pounds of MSW,
burning a 20-pound tire will “use up” the capacity to burn 40-60
pounds of MSW. Thus, burning too many tires could have the effect
25 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
of decreasing Channel’s ability to burn MSW. If Channel receives an
average of $125/ton to burn MSW, this equates to about $3.13 for the
capacity to burn 50 pounds of MSW, which equals one tire. If the
tipping fee for a tire is less than about $3, it may not be economical to
burn large numbers of tires. On the other hand, Channel should
probably continue to burn single tires interspersed with MSW, as their
high heat release helps dry out wet waste, promotes more consistent
and more complete burning, and helps decrease the amount of
unburned carbon in the ash.
Metals Recovery from Incinerator Ash
Channel presently removes up to 2,500 tons/year of oversized metal
pieces from the incoming waste stream. Bottom ash from Channel’s
incinerators is an untapped source of additional ferrous metal (e.g.
“tin” food and beverage cans) that could be removed magnetically.
Ferrous metal generally makes roughly up 2-6% of the disposed
residential waste stream, depending on the amount of recycling that
occurs. If Channel burns about 22,000 tons/year, the amount of
potentially recoverable ferrous metal could range from 440 to 1,320
tons/year.
Representatives of Dings Co. Magnetic Group and Eriez Magnetics,
two well-known firms in the incineration and recycling field, were
contacted regarding magnetic separation of ferrous metal from the ash.
It was suggested that an elevated vibrating screen be installed between
the gravity discharge of the ash drag conveyor and the top of the ash
dump truck. The vibrating screen would catch objects about the size
of a soup can lid, while ash, broken glass, small stones, and other small
non-combusted items would fall into the bed of the dump truck. The
screen would incline towards an area adjacent to the dump truck,
where an overhead belt-type magnetic separator or deep-draw drum
would lift ferrous materials off the screen and deposit them in a
dumpster. The magnetic separator itself could cost from $10-20,000,
depending on the specific design. Another $15-25,000 might be
required for the vibrating screen, steel support structure, electrical
wiring and controls. Thus, depending on whether new or used
screening equipment were utilized, the total cost of the ferrous metal
recovery system could range from about $25-45,000. Because this
system removes ferrous metal from the ash as it leaves the drag
conveyor, it is probably among the lowest-cost and most convenient
from an operations standpoint. However, because of its location, it
would not be able to process any of the thousands of cubic yards of
metal-filled ash that are already in the landfill.
To determine whether ferrous metal recovery from incinerator makes
economic sense for Channel, it is recommended that Channel conduct
26 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
a brief investigation. First, it should screen 5-10 tons of ash to
determine average metals content. A large hand-held magnet may be
required to separate the metals into ferrous and non-ferrous fractions.
The resulting weight data could be used to calculate a range of
expected values for ferrous metals per ton of ash. A test conducted on
a smaller ash sample produced separated metals that comprised 17
percent of the ash by weight (wet weight basis).
Second, Channel should submit samples of this recovered metal (both
ferrous and non-ferrous) to prospective metals brokers to determine
current prices. Channel should also obtain historical prices to assess
the effects of price fluctuations, which have been significant in the
recycling business. In February 1997, Channel staff suggested that
metal recovered from ash by screening could fetch $85/ton delivered to
Tacoma, WA. The June 2, 1997 issue of Waste News indicates a range
of $15-40 per ton for steel cans in the Seattle area, with an average of
$30. It is likely that the market is relatively small, as there are only a
few local producers of this grade of ferrous metal, such as the
incinerators in Spokane and Bellingham, Washington. Based on a
refined estimate of the available ferrous quantities and price
projections, Channel could then determine whether it was
economically feasible to design and install a ferrous recovery system.
4.2.4.3 Option 3
General
Channel’s present air quality permit requires them to meet particulate
matter standards of .08 gr/dscf and 20% opacity. It is assumed that he
two incinerators are essentially “grandfathered” and do not have to
meet current Federal air quality standards. At present, the applicable
regulations are under litigation. Therefore, it is difficult or impossible
to predict the requirements for permitting a third incinerator. To be
conservative, it has been assumed for the purpose of this study that the
installation of a third incinerator would be considered as a major
facility modification and would require that the entire facility be
brought up to a fairly rigorous level of BACT (Best Available Control
Technology), including acid gas scrubbing, which cannot be
accomplished using the existing ESP. Instead of adding an acid gas
scrubber to the ESP, it is recommended that a totally new air pollution
control (APC) system be installed. Consisting of a dry lime injection
system (for acid gas removal) and a fabric filter system (for particulate
removal), it would provide better particulate removal than the ESP.
This type of system was successfully retrofitted to the Coos County,
Oregon incineration facility.
27 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
In 1996, Coos County completed an incineration project that has many
similarities to Channel Landfill’s project. The County had two 50 tpd
Consumat incinerators with no APC system. Their retrofit included
adding a third 50 tpd Consumat and installation of a dry lime injection
APC system. Interel, the APC manufacturer, served as general
contractor. The experience of the Coos County project has been used
as areference for the following description, including assumed permit
requirements, and for cost estimating purposes.
Incinerator and Related Equipment
Option 3 centers on the addition of a third incinerator to increase
Channel’s burning capacity. Design burning capacity was calculated
at 724 ton/week, the average of the five highest weeks in year 2017;
this results in a daily capacity of 121 ton/day (tpd), based on 6
day/week operation. Since the two existing units have a combined
capacity of 72 tpd, the new unit should have a capacity of about 50
tpd; 50 tpd is a standard size for modular incinerators.
For consistency of operation, spare parts, and operator familiarity, it
would be logical to install another Consumat incinerator (model CS-
2000, rated at 50 tpd). It would be a controlled air, modular (shop-
assembled) incinerator with primary and secondary chambers. Based
on the permit requirements at Coos County, it has been assumed that
tertiary combustion chambers may be required on all three incinerators
to increase retention time to 1 or 2 seconds. The new unit would have
a hydraulic waste feeder and transfer and ash removal rams similar to
the existing units.
The two existing incinerators would probably require the following
upgrades:
e rebuild/upgrade of dump stacks, dampers, and secondary chamber
end walls
e addition of tertiary chambers to increase flue gas retention time (a
likely permit requirement)
e larger burners to maintain 1,800 deg. F. in the secondary chambers
(a likely permit requirement)
e replacement of primary instrumentation and/or modification to
operate with a central programmable logic controller (PLC) that
also operates the air pollution control equipment.
e a new, climate-controlled, fully enclosed control room for
operating and monitoring the incinerators and APC equipment, as
well as housing the CEMS equipment.
The existing ash conveyor is steeper and longer than those found in a
typical controlled-air incinerator facility. A steep and long conveyor
28 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
will generally tend to have more operational problems and require
more maintenance. However, Channel staff indicated that this
conveyor has had relatively few problems. While the installation of a
new incinerator presents an opportunity to modify the existing ash
conveyor, it does not appear to be justified in terms of improved
operation.
Instead of modifying the existing conveyor, it is recommended that a
separate new ash conveyor be constructed to serve just the new
incinerator. This provides a degree of redundancy in case the existing
ash conveyor is temporarily disabled: unit #3 could continue to burn
waste while #1 and #2 are shut down to repair the conveyor. It also
allows the existing facility to continue to operate while the new
incinerator is being installed. A second dump truck to receive the ash
would also be required.
Flue Gas Conditioning
Flue gases exit the incinerators’ secondary chambers at 1,800 deg. F.,
losing some heat through the ductwork and cooling to about 1,600 deg.
F. New refractory-lined breeching (ductwork) would be constructed to
connect the existing and new incinerators with a single refractory-lined
hot gas mixing chamber with hot gas isolation dampers. Downstream
of the mixing chamber, the flue gas would be split, flowing into two
air pollution control (APC) equipment trains. This redundancy
provides partial incineration capability in the event one train becomes
disabled, i.e., about half the incineration capacity could be used with
the remaining flue gas train. It also would favor keeping the existing
incinerators in operation as long as possible (with the ESP) while the
first train is being installed. (See Drawings)
To neutralize acid gases by injecting powdered lime, the-flue gases
must be “conditioned” by cooling to about 300 deg. F before it can
enter the acid gas scrubbing portion of the APC train. This cooling
would be accomplished by a closed loop, gas-to-liquid hot gas cooler
(heat exchanger) in each APC train, using synthetic heat-transfer oil
circulated to two air-cooled radiators that reject heat to the atmosphere.
An equipment skid would hold the oil pumps and an expansion tank
for the heat-transfer oil.
Waste Heat Boiler
If power generation becomes economical at some time in the future,
the cooling equipment in the preceding paragraph could be removed
and replaced with two heat recovery boilers and economizers, which
would perform the equivalent function of cooling the gas prior to acid
gas scrubbing. Two boilers would be used for the same reasons cited
above for redundancy. The space allowed for each gas conditioning
29 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
train would be ample for the boiler and economizer. (See Section
4.2.1 and Drawings).
Air Pollution Control (APC) System
As mentioned previously, there would be two identical APC trains that
inject dry lime into the flue gases to neutralize acid gases, inject
powdered activated carbon to capture dioxins and furans, then catch
the resulting particulate matter in a fabric filter (baghouse) system. In
each APC train, hydrated lime is injected into the gases before they
pass through a second heat exchanger. Gases exit from this flat tube,
gas-to-ambient air heat exchanger at about 250-350 deg. F. and enter a
vertical, two-pass dry reactor which allows longer contact time
between the lime and flue gases, increasing acid gas removal. If
required by the air quality permit to assist in removing dioxins, furans,
and volatilized metals, powdered activated carbon (PAC) will be
injected into the flue gas stream at a point between the heat exchanger
and the dry reactor. Particulate matter and lime/acid particles are then
collected on a series of fabric filters (baghouse). The filter “cake” that
builds up on the bags contains unreacted lime, which provides short-
term scrubbing capacity of acid gas spikes, or in the event that the lime
injection system shuts down due to power outage or mechanical
failure. A portion of the dust and lime is recirculated to a flue gas
conditioning drum located at the base of the dry reactor.
Each train would have its own induced draft fan to draw flue gases
through the train. There would be a storage silo for hydrated lime (and
PAC, if utilized) and associated metering pumps, housed in a sheet
metal enclosure. A PLC-based central control system would control
and coordinate the operation of all three incinerators, the APC
equipment, and the ash conveyors.
When the incinerators and APC system are shut down (e.g. for
maintenance), acid gases can condense in the ductwork and APC
equipment, causing corrosion. Moisture can condense on the fabric
filters, creating a “mud” that could “blind” the filters and reduces air
movement through them. To prevent these condensation-related
problems, an oil-fired duct heater would provide warm air in the
ductwork and APC system.
The residue from the APC system, called fly ash, consists of
particulate matter removed from the flue gases, spent lime, and a small
amount of unreacted lime. Fly ash is automatically removed from the
baghouse. In most U.S. incineration facilities, the fly ash is
automatically combined with bottom ash prior to disposal via
landfilling. The lime in the fly ash has been shown to contribute to the
chemical stability of the ash, minimizing the leaching of metals under
30 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP test) required for
incinerator ash.
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS)
Again based on the Coos County experience, it is conservatively
assumed that continuous emission monitoring would be a permit
requirement. The CEMS equipment would allow continuous and
automatic sampling, analyzing, monitoring, and recording of oxygen,
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and opacity readings from flue gases
in the main stack. The CEMS records data on a computer; this data
can be used to confirm the operation of the incinerators and air
pollution equipment, as well provide documentation for regulatory
agencies. The CEMS analytical and recording equipment would be
housed in a totally enclosed, climate-controlled room.
Main Stack
A new, dual-wall exhaust stack would combine the gases of both APC
trains and exhaust them to the atmosphere. The stack would have a
ladder and platform to allow access to the continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) probes and for periodic air emissions
source-testing.
Associated Building Modifications
Required Modifications
Interel, the APC equipment vendor that performed the incinerator
retrofit at Coos County, has suggested that the new 50 tpd incinerator
be installed to the south (right-hand side) of the existing incinerators.
The centerline of the new unit would be approximately the centerline
of the existing driveway that leads to the scale platform. This location
is preferred because it requires less large-diameter breeching (to
connect the new unit to the existing ones) than would a location to the
left (north side) of the existing units.
The APC system at Coos County occupied an area approximately 40
ft. by 80 ft.; this is about twice as wide as the area currently occupied
by the ESP and induced draft fan. It appears there is adequate room to
the east of the incinerator building to install the suggested APC
system. Some regrading towards the east property line may be
required to preserve vehicle access around the APC equipment.
Installation of new APC equipment will require the demolition and
removal of the existing ESP, induced draft fan, and associated
equipment pads. However, it is desirable to keep the incinerators
operating continuously with the ESP in place for as long as possible.
Therefore, the APC contractor will need to carefully schedule and
31 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
coordinate the installation of new equipment and removal of existing
equipment to minimize the impact to Channel’s burning operations.
To make room for the new incinerator, the driveway to the scales
would be excavated to allow construction of a new ash ram pit
(elevation 19.0) and equipment floor (elevation 24.5). The entire 120
ft. long building wall would be relocated approximately 20 ft. to the
south, aligning with the north wall of the office building, and enlarging
the tipping floor by about 1,200 sq. ft.. The building expansion would
entail placement of new building columns and footings, relocation or
replacement of the metal building panels, and construction of new
concrete pushwalls.
After relocating the wall, the estimated waste storage capacity would
be about 247 tons, or two peak days’ worth of storage. The calculation
is based on stacking waste 10 ft. high against the north, south, and
west walls, assuming a density of 500 Ib/cu. yd. and a 45-degree angle
of repose. A 30 ft. wide east-west lane would be left open for
residential and commercial haulers to dump their waste; a 20 ft. wide
lane would be kept clear in front of unit #3 to allow the front-end
loader to push waste to the feed hopper. These dimensions and
assumptions are generous, and the estimate of tipping floor storage
space is probably conservative. Storage capacity could also be
increased by raising the pushwalls to 12 ft. in height.
Access to the tipping floor could be improved by the addition of a
second rollup door in the west wall. This would allow one door to be
used by customers dropping off solid waste, while the other could be
used to receive bypass or mined waste.
New wiring will be required to serve the new incinerator and APC
equipment. The electrical service to the facility may need to be
upgraded to handle the increased electrical load, as the induced draft
fans have large (approximately 100 hp) motors. Compressed air,
water, and drainage piping will be extended to serve the new
equipment.
Suggested Modifications
Over the years, some of the incinerator building’s steel support
columns have sustained damage either to the steel itself or to their
bolted concrete supports. It is recommended that the columns be
checked by a structural engineer to ascertain whether the damage is
significant. In the future, the columns could be protected from impact
and rust by encasing them in concrete to a height of at least five feet.
32 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
During the February 1997 site visit, it was noted that the tipping floor
appears to be in reasonably good condition, although showing some
wear in certain areas. Channel may wish to consider resurfacing the
tipping floor with a sacrificial 4” layer of asphalt pavement, on top of
the existing concrete. While asphalt paving is not as wear-resistant as
concrete, it is low-cost, can be installed in a day, and requires no
extended curing period.
Scales
If the new incinerator is installed on the south side of the building, the
scales should be relocated further south, to a point approximating the
current main driveway and parking lot. While many incineration
facilities have a free-standing scalehouse and a full-time scale
attendant, this may not be cost-effective if the number of vehicles
using the facility each day is relatively small. It may be more practical
for Channel to continue the current practice where office staff
periodically perform scale attendant duties.
Traffic Circulation
Relocation of the scales to the south of the office building would still
allow reasonable customer access to the tipping floor from the west
side of the incinerator building. However, depending on the volume of
traffic, there may be increased congestion in the existing parking lot as
customers drive through.
Processing of Bypassed Waste
For this facility, “bypass waste” consists of waste that is too large to fit
into the incinerators, or cannot be burned within a reasonable time of
receipt, due to a temporary oversupply of waste. In the past, Channel
disposed of bypass waste by either landfilling it on-site, or shipping it
to an out-of-state landfill. In the future, Channel will attempt to
minimize the amount of waste disposed of by landfilling. It will
reduce burnable waste to a size that will easily fit into the incinerator
feed hoppers. The low-cost, low-tech approach would require staff to
use chain saws or electric cutoff saws to cut up oversized plywood,
chipboard, lumber, and other wooden objects. Metal supports or
sawhorses would simplify the task.
A more sophisticated, semi-automated method would involve the use
of a low-rpm shear shredder (e.g. Shredding Systems) or opposing-
screw shredder (e.g. Iggesund). A relatively coarse shred (e.g. about
12 inches) is all that is required for ease of loading and burning. Both
the shear and screw shredders experience. less wear than do
hammermills; hence, maintenance costs should be lower. For this type
of operation, the shredder is typically furnished as part of a packaged
system that includes in-feed and out-feed conveyors that simplify
33 11 Aug 97
loading and removing the material to be shredded. A shredder is not a
necessity for burning bypassed waste, and may not be cost-effective.
Processing bypass waste will be a batch operation; that is, it will take
place subject to availability of bypass waste, of personnel, and of
adequate burning capacity.
A shed roof structure would probably be required for weather
protection of the workers and shredding equipment. For example, the
western-most 40 ft. section of the north wall could be moved 30 ft.
north to construct the shed. Alternatively, the shredder could be
located on the existing tipping floor, but this would reduce the space
available for storing tires or summer waste surges.
Processing of Mined Waste
According to Channel staff, mined waste would have the first priority
for shipping out-of-state. This is logical since the waste will likely be
wetter and dirtier than incoming MSW, hence less burnable. Before it
could be burned, mined waste would also require processing to remove
rocks and dirt, to prevent abrasion of the incinerator refractory.
Oversized mined waste would require size reduction either with
chainsaws, a shear shredder, or opposing screw shredder prior to
burning. It is unlikely that much mined waste will be burned.
Spending 300 days/year, 8 hours/day to mine 21,000 tons/year of
waste equates to excavating some 8.75 tons/hour. This rate is probably
not unreasonable for earthmoving equipment, or for the screening
equipment used to remove rocks and dirt from the waste. However, if
the waste consisted of 50% burnables (i.e. wood), the resulting 4.4
tons/hour would be a fairly ambitious undertaking for Ld shredding
equipment used to reduce the size of the wood.
4.2.5 Economic Analysis
97-1013/1013R1.doc
4.2.5.1 Electrical Power Generation and Sale
The assumptions used in Phase 1 were reviewed. Capital costs were
increased based on latest engineering estimates. The findings of Phase
1 were reconfirmed. This option is expected to become attractive, at
such time as a need for additional base load power generation in the
region becomes apparent, and power rates in the region of Avoided
Cost Rate B can be negotiated.
Table 13 Pro Forma Electrical Power Generation and Sale shows
analyses under various scenarios. All were based on Option 3, three
34 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
incinerators, since for Options 1 and 2, the power outputs were lower
and the capital costs were higher.
The rate of return based on Avoided Cost Rate A is only 6% which
makes this scenario uneconomical even if financed with 100% tax-
exempt debt. However, the rate of return based on Avoided Cost Rate
B is 35%, a very robust return.
Rates C and D are further discussed in 4.2.5.4.
4.2.5.2 Thermal Energy Generation and Sale
The findings in Phase 1 were reviewed and reconfirmed. Latest pro
forma is shown in Table 14. At a projected 6% rate of return, this
option does not appear economically attractive, even if financed with
100% tax-exempt debt and even assuming that essentially all of the
buildings within a one-mile radius are included in the heating network.
If new industrial or commercial facilities are identified in the planning
stage, the possibility of providing them with thermal energy should be
carefully examined. An example is the contemplated cold storage
facility, now in the early planning stage.
4.2.5.3 Landfill Operations and Land Commercialization
Three major options were evaluated during Phase 2. Pro formas for
each option appear in Table 15. The first page of Table 15 contains
the major assumptions used and a summary of results (Total Net Cash
Flow and Net Present Value of the Net Cash Flows). Page two shows
the Null Option - Closure in 20 Years and Null Option - Closure in 5
Years. Page three shows Option 2A (completion of mining in 10
years) and Option 2B (completion of mining in 20 years). Page four
shows Option 3A (adding a 3rd incinerator and completion of mining
in 10 years) and Option 3B (adding a 3rd incinerator and completion
of mining in 20 years). Pages 5 and 6 shows Option 3B1, an
optimized version of Option 3B.
Each option is discussed below.
Null Option.
The Null Option assumes that Channel Landfill continues to operate in
the same mode as at present. The two incinerators continue to operate.
No mining is done, and none of the landfill is commercialized. It is
assumed that the landfill will close at the end of 20 years, and landfill
closure costs are included as an expense in year 20.
35 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
A variation on the Null Option was also tested, on the assumption that
the landfill may be forced for reasons of environmental regulation to
close at the end of 5 years.
The Null Option shows the best Cash Flow and the best Net Present
Value of the options studied in Table 15. The Null Option-5 Years to
Closure shows clearly the cost of early closure, and the importance of
avoiding early closure.
Option 2A/2B
This option assumes that two incinerators continue to operate;
however, mining of the landfill and conversion to commercial use
occurs over a 20 year period. Most of the mined material is shipped,
since the incinerators operate at near capacity to incinerate incoming
waste. It is assumed that land is sold in 6 acre plots as it is reclaimed.
Option 2A assumes that mining is accomplished in a 10 year period,
excavating 21,000 tons per year from 1998 through 2007.
Option 2B assumes that mining occurs at a slower rate, excavating
210,000 tons over a 20 year period.
Option 2A/2B appears on the surface to have advantages -- no capital
cost for a 3rd incinerator -- while reclaiming and commercializing the
land in 10 to 20 years. However, the cost of shipping the excavated
material when compared to the value of the reclaimed land makes both
Option 2A and 2B unattractive.
Option 3A/3B
This option assumes that a 3rd incinerator, together with an air
pollution control system for the three incinerators is purchased and
installed in 1998.
Option 3A assumes that mining is accomplished in a 10 year period,
excavating 21,000 tons per year from 1998 through 2007.
Option 3B assumes that mining occurs at a slower rate, excavating
210,000 tons over a 20 year period.
Option 3A/3B has the advantage over 2A/2B in that much less waste is
shipped, reducing that expense. Land is reclaimed and
commercialized. The Landfill should be able to continue to operate for
many years after 20 years. However, this option must absorb the
capital cost of the third incinerator and related equipment.
36 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc
Option 3B1 is an optimization of Option 3B; reducing the amount of
waste shipped over the 20 year period from 67,248 tons to 31,816 tons
and thereby reducing shipping costs. Four variations of Option 3B1
are shown. First, it is assumed that the 3rd incinerator is purchased as
a lump sum cost. Second, it is assumed that the 3rd incinerator is
financed with 10 year commercial debt at 1% over prime or 9.5%.
Third, it is assumed that the 3rd incinerator is financed with 20 year
tax-exempt debt at 6.5%. Fourth, it is assumed that the 3rd incinerator
is financed with 10 year tax-exempt debt at 6.5%.
Summary
The Null Option-Closure in 20 Years shows good cash flow and the
best NPV of all options. Cash flows are positive for each of the 20
years. However, there is the risk of a forced early closure and the
landfill would likely close in about 20 years.
Option 2A and 2B are both less than satisfactory, with lower total cash
flows and lower NPV’s. Each of these options experience numerous
and substantial negative cash flows.
Option 3B shows total 20 year cash flow that is superior to the Null
Option, however the NPV is less, due to the front end load of the
Incinerator capital cost. Annual net cash flows of Option 3B are
positive (note that Option 3A is unsatisfactory due to shipping costs to
accommodate the 10 year reclamation cycle). Reclamation of land
provides some income and, perhaps more importantly, landfill life is
extended. Note that substantially more waste could be processed than
is presently projected.
Financing costs of the incinerator and other capital equipment were not
included in Options Null, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B or 3B1. Financing costs
were included in the financed versions of 3B1. Capping/closure costs
must be much more thoroughly defined before considering 3B.
The land reclamation occurring in Options 2 and 3 incorporate capping
costs (very roughly estimated) as excavation occurs. This tends to
reduce the risk of a forced closure which might occur if a closure plan
has not been developed and approved by the proper authorities.
4.2.5.4 Landfill Operations and Land Commercialization Combined with
Electric Power Generation
The possibility of adding electric power generation to Option 3B1 (3
incinerators with the 3rd financed with 20-year tax-exempt debt) was
then considered. This analysis appears in Table 16 and 13.
37 11 Aug 97
Rate A - This option, adding a 3rd incinerator and a power generation
facility, is not attractive at the present Avoided Cost of power (Rate A).
Rate B - The option becomes very attractive at Rate B, with a net cash
flow over 20 years of nearly 15 million dollars.
Rate C - Rate C is Rate A escalated at 1.35% per year. This rate was
selected by trial and error, searching for a rate that would give an
approximate break-even for total Net Cash Flow over 20 years. In
theory, this power rate would allow the facility to break even over 20
years, while paying off the capital cost of the 3rd incinerator and the
power generation facility. Negative cash flows in a number of years
indicates that this power rate is inadequate to justify the risks.
Rate D - Rate D, 5.5 cents per kwhr, was selected as a point at which
to seriously consider adding the 3rd incinerator and the power
generation facility. Negative cash flows remain in some years, but the
facility shows a positive cash flow of nearly 6 million dollars over the
20 years, while retiring the capital costs while positioning the landfill
for many more years of operation.
Note that these options assume the ability to finance capital costs with
tax-exempt debt.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1
5.2
3)
5.4
3:5)
Production and sale of electricity is not feasible at this time, due to an existing surplus
of base load generating capacity in the AEL&P and connected systems.
Sale of waste heat to existing potential users is not commercially attractive at present
heating oil prices at existing installations.
The Null Option (continue as is with 2 incinerators, no mining, no sale of electrical or
thermal energy) represents the least risky course of action and the probable best
financial return at the present time; particularly if actions are taken as needed to
minimize the possibility of early closure.
Mining and land reclamation, considered by itself, is not a particularly attractive
option. The value of the reclaimed land tends to be offset either by a) the cost of
shipping the mined waste, or b) the capital cost of an additional incinerator.
A potentially attractive future opportunity for power generation would be a step
increase in base load electrical demand, such as was anticipated if the Echo Bay mine
project had been carried out; or, eventually, if the base load of the AEL&P and
connected systems grows beyond the capacity of the hydro resources. Under such
97-1013/1013R1.doc 38 11 Aug 97
5.6
conditions a power generation facility, coupled with a 3rd incinerator, and
(preferably) financed with tax-exempt debt, could become attractive.
Another potential opportunity would be for heat sales, if heating oil prices rise. This
would probably require public financing or ownership of the distribution system.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Continue with the Null Option at this time.
A long range plan for closure of the Landfill over time should be developed,
regulatory approvals obtained, and the continuing requirements of the plan should be
carried out. This should reduce the risk of premature, unplanned closure by
regulatory authorities.
Monitor supply vs. demand for base load electrical energy. Monitor heating oil costs.
Watch for opportunities to supply thermal energy to new industrial/commercial
installations.
If conditions in the future should indicate that one of the suggested opportunities may
appear attractive, recognize that before commitment to the multi-million dollar capital
investment in such a project considerable development effort should be mandatory.
The effort would need to include:
a) Firmly establishing the solid waste and air pollution control regulatory
requirements
b) Developing preliminary designs and cost estimates (with firm bids if possible)
c) Contractual arrangements necessary for business continuation, valid for the length
of the financing period.
d) Recognize that such development can cost two to five percent of the capital cost
of the project, at risk until/unless the project is financed; and lead time may be
several years.
Ts REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
71 Reference Documents - Electric Power
A. AEL&P Peak Load Forecast and Annual Energy Demand Forecast, May
1997
B. AEL&P Rates in Effect as of November 1, 1996
Cc. AEL&P Electrical Supply and Demand, 1995 and 1996, December 1996
97-1013/1013R1.doc 39 11 Aug 97
D. AEL&P - Juneau Historical and Projected Energy Use, November 1996
E. Telecon Ronald Hansen, Hansen Engineering, and Paul Morrison, Chief
Engineer, Alaska PUC, February 1997
re Alaska PUC, Schedule No. 44 Purchase of Non-Firm Power from a
Qualifying Facility
G. Juneau 20-Year Power Supply Plan Update, August 1990
H. Energy Conservation and Management Plan Update, Volume 1:
Electrical Energy Conservation Plan, November 1996
Ib Alaska Statutes AS 42.05 (Public Utilities)
J. Alaska Administrative Code, Title 3 (Public Utilities Commission)
K. Alaska Statute 42, Chapter 45, Rural and Statewide Energy Programs,
Article 1 Power Assistance Programs, Sec. 42.45.010 Power Project Fund
L. Regional Biomass Energy Program, 1996 Yearbook for Pacific Northwest
and Alaska
M. Alaska Electric Light and Power Brochure
N. Alaska Power Administration, The Role of Electric Power in the
Southeast Alaska Energy Economy - Phase II, 1981 Juneau Energy
Balance, February 1982
7.2 Reference Documents - Financing
A. Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Loan Programs
B. Economic Development Resource Guide
7.3 Reference Documents - Thermal Energy
A. State of Alaska 1996 Revenue Forecast, Table 20, Projected and
Historical Crude Oil Prices
B. Juneau - Lemon Creek Waste to Energy Prefeasibility Assessment
C. South Tongass Wood Waste Fuel Resource Assessment
7.4 Reference Documents - Solid Waste
97-1013/1013R1.doc 40 11 Aug 97
H.
Closure Study Report - Channel Landfill - Juneau, Alaska, July 1991
Phase I Report - Evaluation of Channel Facilities, October 1991
Preliminary Engineering Report on Energy Recovery Alternatives at the
Incinerator Facility, October 1986
Landfill Mining Plan for Channel Landfill, November 1992
Landfill Test Mining, January 1993
Municipal Solid Waste: A Resource Assessment for Energy Recovery in
Alaska, September 1991
Fairbanks North Star Borough Solid Waste Management Plan -
Alternatives Evaluation, July 1994
Fairbanks North Star Borough Solid Waste Management Plan -
Implementation Plan, July 1994
75 Reference Documents - Information from Channel 2/20-21/97 Bp SF fo a G.
H.
Weekly/Monthly Tonnages for 1996
Solid Waste Permit
Operating & Maintenance Plan
Power Usage - Landfill Site
Groundwater Pollution
Air Permit
Contaminated Soil Incineration
Recyclables/Used Oil/Hazardous Waste
7.6 Reference Documents - Drawings
A.
B.
97-1013/1013R1.doc
Landfill Topography - Channel Landfill, May 1996
Proposed Disposal Sites for Unburnables, Putrescibles, and Incinerator
Ash in the 1990’s, May 1990 - Latest Rev. January 1993
41 11 Aug 97
Cc.
D.
Channel Landfill - Final Grading Plan, July 1991
Channel Landfill - Historical Site Use, July 1991
8. APPENDICES
8.1 Drawings
A. Channel Sanitation - Proposed Expansion and Air Pollution Control System -
Options 3A/3B - Drawing No. 1013SK-1
Channel Sanitation - Proposed Expansion and Air Pollution Control System -
General Arrangement - Drawing No. 1013SK-2
8.2 Waste Generation Projections for Channel Landfill
8.3 Project Definition Study - Power Generation
8.4 ASME Paper:
Skagit County Resource Recovery Facility
Design of a 178 TPD Waste-to-Energy Plant
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
97-1013/1013R1.doc
Channel Landfill MSW Tonnage - 1996
Average and Peak Generation Rates - 1996
CBJ Population and Waste Projection - MSW Only
(Constant Waste Generation Per Capita)
CBJ Population and Waste Projection - MSW Only
(0.5% Annual Increase in Waste Generation Per Capita)
Potential Heat Sales Operations Serving Lemon Creek Area
Incinerators & Air Pollution Control Capital Costs
Options 3A/3B Operating Costs
Definition of Economic Alternatives
Power Generation Capital Costs
Typical Weekly Waste Flow Analysis
Summary Data - Six Options
Survey of Annual Heating Oil Use by Facilities Within One Mile of Channel
Landfill, March 1997
Pro Forma - Electrical Power Generation and Sale
Pro Forma - Heat Generation and Sale Lemon Creek Area
Pro Forma - Landfill Operations and Land Commercialization
Pro Forma - Analysis of Landfill Operations and Land Commercialization
Plus Electrical Power Generation and Sale
Channel Landfill Conversion and Closure Requirements Matrix
42 11 Aug 97
97-1013/1013R1.doc 43 11 Aug 97
=
EXISTING
INCINERATORS
36 TPD
36 TPD y
EXISTING ASH
CONVEYOR
NEW ASH
CONVEYOR
NEW INCINERATOR
De SQo@®
GAS MIXING CHAMBER
HOT GAS COOLER (HEAT TRANSFER OIL)
ALT — HEAT RECOVERY RADIATOR BOILERS (2)
GAS-—TO—AIR HEAT EXCHANGER
DRY REACTOR
FABRIC FILTER (BAGHOUSE)
INDUCED DRAFT FAN
COMMON STACK
ENviroMEcH 2040 217th PLACE N.E. REDMOND, WA 98053-4052
CHANNEL SANITATION — PROPOSED EXPANSION
REV DATE BY APP'D DESCRIPTION
AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
OPTIONS 3A / 3B
1013SK-1 PROJ: 97-1013 _|SCALE: NONE DWG No:
AIR POLLUTION AIR POLLUTION re CONTROL CONTROL TRAIN NO. 2 TRAIN NO. 1
— — —> 7
GAS reheat GAS CONDITIONING | TRAIN NO. 2 | JT TRAIN NO. 1 °
TO BE toe ESP
REMOVED |eyist ID FAN ; i a NEW ASH | EXISTING €p- LOADOUT | ASH | LOADOUT EXISTING | EL 32.5" INCINERATOR | | (CS1600)
ve wn 35 TPD
EXISTING | |- ni EQUIPMENT ; = ¢ NEW 50 TPD FLOOR INCINERATOR EL 24.5’ | | | | 2 ee et
12’x20" | CONTROL RM | AND CEMS BUILDING EXTENSION
| | |
REMOVE EXISTING | EXISTING OFFICE | SCALE BUILDING
EXISTING
TIPPING FLOOR TRUE EL 32.5’
Aladin — NEW 20' SCALE: 1”=20'-0" ROLLUP DOOR ROLLUP DOOR BUILDING
CHANNEL SANITATION — PROPOSED EXPANSION AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
SCALE: AS NOTED
ENviroMEcH 2040 217th PLACE N.E.
REDMOND, WA 98053-4052 DESCRIPTION PROJ: 97-1013 1013SK—2
REPORT NO. 97-1013/1
ENERGY RECOVERY FEASIBILITY REPORT
PROJECT NO. 97-1013 CHANNEL LANDFILL, INC.
POWER GENERATION FEASIBILITY STUDY JUNEAU, ALASKA
1.0
DATE: AUGUST 8, 1997
APPENDIX 8.2
WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Generating heat and power at the Channel Landfills incinerator facility by combustion of solid wastes requires understanding the current and future quantity of the available waste streams and their potential heat values. This study provides:
e Waste quantities currently available
e Seasonal variation in the waste generation rate
e Peak and average rates currently observed at the Channel Landfills facility
e Projected quantities to be available in the future, and
e Heat values of the wastes to be combusted
An understanding of waste disposal by incineration in the CBJ has been acquired by Channel
during the 10 years of operating the existing two-burner facility. That understanding leads to
the conclusion that continued disposal by incineration will require additional burner capacity
because peak summer waste generation exceeds the existing 72-ton per day continuous rating
(incineration capacity) of the two existing 36-ton units.
Records of the quantities of waste received at the Channel Landfill facility have been
provided to the Harris Group and EMCON by Channel Landfill, Inc. for the 1996 calendar
year. The data provide a breakdown of the following waste types:
e waste which is incinerated or shipped out of the area,
e landfilled waste
e waste delivered as separated and recoverable scrap metal
These data, with CBJ population forecasts, are used in this study to project the future
quantities of waste requiring disposal and available for energy recovery.
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.2-1 11 Aug 97
2.0 Categories of Waste Currently Received
The Channel Landfill facility provides the only disposal opportunity for municipal solid
waste available in the CBJ. It therefore receives all types of discarded materials. Most waste
generated is disposed of by incineration or, in peak summer months, some is shipped to
landfills out of the area. Other waste is categorized and recorded at the facility, but because it
is either not burnable or not sized for the incinerator, it must be landfilled or recycled.
A brief description of the waste classes received at the Channel Landfill facility for which
data are available is provided below.
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Data for MSW received for incineration during 1996 is shown in Table 1. The quantities
include waste which was either incinerated or shipped out of the area. This waste originates
from the commercial collection operator, Arrow Refuse, Inc., commercial businesses hauling
their own waste, cruise ship wastes, and individual residents hauling their own wastes. This
waste includes the putrescible organic fraction common to residential and commercial MSW.
The 1996 total was 23,880 tons. Delivery rates fluctuated from a one-week low of 360 tons
per week during February to a high of 628 tons during the first week of July. The year-long
average was 459 tons per week. The last week of June and the first two weeks of July had
three of the five highest weeks of waste disposal. The other two highest were in August.
For purposes of this study, the peak week is defined as the average of the five highest weeks
during 1996, weeks that ranged from 539 tons to 628 tons, with an average (peak week as
defined) of 564 tons (Table 2). Expressed in tons per day during a 6-day, 18-shift week, the
peak week is equal to 94.0 tons per day.
Variation month-to-month ranged from 1,620 tons in February to 2,520 tons in July.
Average monthly deliveries were just under 2,000 tons (1,990) per month.
Bypass Waste
This is waste currently bypassed from the incinerators to the landfill because it consists of
items which are physically too large to feed into the incinerators without processing. The
waste is discarded furniture, construction and demolition waste, and wood waste not suitable
for incineration due to size or shape, such as logs, tree trunks or discarded structural timber.
Table 2 shows that 4,032 tons of bypass waste were received for 1996. For this study, the
assumption is made that 50 percent of this material is burnable after processing for size
reduction. A monthly or weekly breakdown of the total quantity was not provided.
Additional materials in this category are expected during the next year when restrictions on
outdoor burning are expected to become effective.
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.2-2 11 Aug 97
3.0
Scrap Metal
Scrap metals are accepted at the facility at no charge if segregated from other wastes. This
includes discarded appliances, metal sheet, and structural items. Lead-acid batteries are
categorized separately. These materials are relevant to this study only as a component of the
total waste stream and per capita waste generation comparisons.
Factors That Affect Waste Quantity Projections
Planning for increased disposal capacity and energy recovery requires that a supportable
projection of expected future waste quantities be developed based on factors that can be
agreed upon by all participants in the project. The single most significant determinant of
waste quantity is population because per capita waste generation rates change slowly while
total population may change rapidly. Other factors that enter into waste generation rates and
overall waste quantities include the types and effectiveness of recycling programs, local and
regional economic activity, tourism and recreation, types and levels of commercial and
industrial activity, the relative affluence of the community, and trends in materials and
methods used in packaging and producing consumer products.
The factors of economic activity, including commercial, industrial, tourist and recreation are
reflected by, or dependent on population. Higher levels of tourism, economic activity,
industrial activity, and community affluence result in population changes in response to
changes in economic opportunity. For this reason, the population projection and the
assumptions on which they are based is the major element in the waste quantity projection.
3.1 Projections of Waste Generation Rates
Waste generation nationwide on a per capita basis has a history of increasing rapidly
during the 1970 to 1990 period. The increase was from 3.2 pounds per capita per day
(pped) in 1970 to 3.7 pped in 1980, and to 4.3 ppced in 1990, increases of 15.6 and
16.2 percent over the ten-year periods respectively. Future increases in generation
rates are projected by EPA to grow more slowly, increasing to 4.5 ppcd by the year
2000, an increase of 4.7 percent during the period. Reduced growth in projected per
capita generation nationally is due in large part to rapid growth in waste reduction and
recycling activities.
The 1996 waste generation rate in the CBJ is 5.33 ppcd for the total waste stream..
For the purposes of this study, we assumed an increase in CBJ generation rates of 5.1
percent over each ten year period, or an increase of 0.5 percent annually. This is
higher than EPA national projections because of the higher proportion of packing
materials used in shipping goods to and from the CBJ.
The portion that is currently incinerated is 4.33 pped, and the burnable bypass portion
is 0.37 pped, for a total of 4.70 ppcd The 0.5 percent rate of increase in per capita
waste results in the generation rate of burnable wastes from increasing from 4.70 ppced
in 1996 to 4.97 ppcd in 2007 and 5.22 ppcd in 2017.
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.2 -3 11 Aug 97
Arguments that waste reduction and recycling programs will reduce the rate of per
capita increase in the CBJ are discounted for this study because of the marginal to
negative economics for post-consumer recyclable materials, and because waste
reduction programs in other areas are not clearly resulting in declining waste
generation rates. Several small volunteer recycling programs for post-consumer
waste materials are currently operating, but no significant new programs are in the
planning stages.
3.2 Population Projected for Juneau
A population projection was performed in January 1997 for the CBJ by Reed Hansen
and Associates (City and Borough of Juneau Baseline Population Projections (1997
through 2013, attached)). Reed Hansen and Associates expects population to grow at
rate lower than during the past twenty years. The lower rate is expected because state
government, which provides over 50 percent of total employment in CBJ, is expected
to decrease. This is based on expected declines in state revenues from oil severance
taxes and royalties both during the near term (three years) and longer term (twenty
years) period.
However, near-term employment growth is expected to continue the current strong
10-year upward trend in service and trade employment, along with increases in
construction, manufacturing and mining. According to Reed-Hansen, this is expected
to offset declines in state government employment, setting the stage for slow steady
growth. The 1996 estimated population of 30,209 is projected to increase to 32,889
in 2007 and 34,091 in 2013.
Tables 3 and 4 incorporate the Reed Hansen population projections into the waste
quantity projections. The baseline projection is a point of reference, but does not
include the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed Kensington Mine
development 45 miles north of Juneau. According to the socioeconomic study, CBJ
population would increase by 665 people by 1999, or 2.1 percent, then remain steady
until 2008 when it would decline. :
33 Waste Sources
MSW and Bypass Waste - The primary source for waste incinerated at the Channel
Landfill facility will continue to be MSW collected by Arrow Refuse and waste
delivered by self-haulers from throughout the region. However, bypass waste could
be added. This additional source is available from that fraction of the waste stream
that is currently landfilled due to it being oversized. This additional waste is
contingent on increased incinerator capacity and on procurement and operation of a
shredder for processing the materials prior to incineration. Bypass waste is not
included in the waste projections used in assessing incinerator capacity requirements
because it can be stored for off-peak use.
Excavated Waste - Other sources of waste to fuel the incinerators during off-peak
periods have been discussed by Channel Landfill. The most promising source of
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.2-4 » 11 Aug 97
additional material is the previously landfilled combustible wastes on-site. Tests have
been conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of excavating the material and
processing it in the incinerators. A regular program of excavation and processing is
anticipated to begin when added burner capacity is operational. This excavated waste
is not included in the waste projections because it will be processed only during off-
peak periods, but will be considered in the production of heat and power. Projections
of waste quantities that can be added are dependent upon processing rates, duration of
excavation, and on the increased incineration capacity added.
Cruise Ship Waste - Wastes from cruise ships have become a significant element of
the waste stream processed by the incinerators. Cruise ship waste has been delivered
at rates of up to 200 tons per week during the past year, which is equal to 35 percent
of the peak weekly waste load. It typically coincides with peak waste generation
periods from the CBJ, making it a significant element in assessing the need for added
incinerator capacity. Cruise ship wastes are already incorporated into the waste
generation data and no specific projections for cruise ship wastes are made in this
study or added to the incinerator capacity requirement.
Cruise ship traffic has increased at rates of up to 22% year-to-year, with
approximately 500,000 visitors in 1996. The three largest cruise operators are
Princess Cruises, and Holland America, each with 6 ships in the southeast Alaska
market, and Royal Caribbean Cruises with 2 ships. The season runs 16 to 20 weeks
from May through September. Ships carry from 1,000 to 2,000 passengers. Port
calls totaled 487 in 1996. Four or five ships may arrive per day. The port call usually
lasts 8 to 12 hours.
Ships unload solid waste by transferring it to two 40-yard containers, totaling about
10 tons of waste. The wastes are similar to restaurant/hotel wastes, in that they
contain a higher than average proportion is organic food waste, plastic film and
corrugated (cardboard) containers.
A survey of the three largest operators of cruise ship tours in Southeast Alaska was
done to determine the potential for attracting additional waste and revenues to use
increased incinerator capacity at the Channel Landfills Inc. facility. These three
cruise lines account for 14 of the 18 ships that stop at Juneau on a regular basis during
the May to September season.
Princess Cruise Lines. According to the Vice President of Port Operations, Mr.
Nordin, all six of the ships that make port calls to Juneau have on-board incinerators,
grinders and extensive recycling storage. The waste that is off-loaded for disposal is
a very small percentage of total waste by weight, consisting mainly of the larger
plastic containers that are not easily incinerated. These wastes and incinerator ash are
off-loaded in Vancouver BC when the ships are resupplied between cruises. Recycled
materials are also off-loaded in Vancouver.
Holland America Cruise Lines. The Director of Port Operations, Mr. Bill Sharp,
indicated that three of their six ships operate on a 7-day circuit from Vancouver where
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.2-5 11 Aug 97
waste is off-loaded weekly. Off-loading waste at Juneau during their regular port call
could be done but not as conveniently as when the ship is being resupplied in
Vancouver. The three other ships operate 5-day tours from Vancouver to Seward and
Seward to Vancouver with stops in Juneau each way. Each ship unloads
approximately 10 to 12 tons of waste per week, not counting recyclables.
In Vancouver, the disposal rate is approximately $50 per ton, plus charges for
container lease and hauling. Mr. Sharp reported that the combined charge was
approximately $390 per 30-yard container, of which $190 was the disposal fee. ($US
per ton converted from $Cdn per kilogram).
In Seward, the same service cost from $2,000 to $2,500, or $667 to $833 per
container. According to the service provider in Seward, Jason Enterprises, the waste
is hauled directly to the disposal site at Soldotna, bypassing the transfer station.
According to the service provider in Seward, three or four ships per week discharge
approximately 10 tons per ship. The number of ships off-loading waste have declined
each year because the newer ships have adequate incinerator capacity to avoid waste
discharge except in Vancouver.
Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. Information on their waste handling process was
not available.
It is not clear that the cruise ship industry will continue to be an ever-increasing
source of wastes. According to Don Habeger, of Southeast Stevedoring, the newer
ships have greater capacity to process and store wastes on board until the ship reaches
a preferred location for disposal. These preferred locations include the two terminals
commonly used for cruise passenger embarkation, Vancouver, BC and Seward. The
lower cost of disposal at these two locations is a factor in where the waste is off-
loaded.
Adjacent Communities - The potential for receiving waste from adjacent
communities, including Skagway, Haines, Petersburg and Wrangell was considered
early during this study. Planning for waste disposal capacity at the incinerator facility
does not include wastes potentially available from these communities because of the
uncertainty of obtaining their wastes. However potential waste quantities could be
compiled for consideration in relation to the CBJ waste stream in the event a
significant energy market opportunity or desire for a cooperative disposal system
including adjacent communities occurs in the future.
Summary - The waste generation projections are a major factor in deciding how
large an increase in incinerator capacity will be needed for future waste disposal.
Projected growth in the existing waste stream will dictate the minimum incinerator
capacity to meet the need at a specific point in the future. The availability of other
waste sources for off-peak operations that keep the burners operating at or near
capacity will affect overall energy production potential.
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.2-6 11 Aug 97
4.0
This study and its projected waste quantities and sources should be reviewed and
updated as any new data which may affect waste disposal become available.
Selected Waste Generation Projection
Based on the factors which can affect waste quantities, EMCON has made a preliminary
projection of waste that can be incinerated. Table 4 shows the waste quantity projection
selected as the most likely scenario for evaluating added capacity at the Channel Landfill
facility. No bypass or excavated waste is included in any of the projections.
Table 4 projects expected annual waste quantities based on the Reed-Hansen population
projection and a 0.5-percent growth rate in per capita waste generation. Peak weekly waste
quantity projections are based on the ratio between the average of the five highest weeks in
1996 to the 1996 average week.. Future-year peak weeks are proportional to total annual
waste in the same ratio as in 1996.
Projected Waste Capacity Requirement.
The basic parameter for sizing future incinerator capacity is understood to be the peak weekly
MSW quantity. The peak weekly MSW quantities expressed as tons per day (TPD) during
future intervals are summarized from Table 4 as follows:
Year Peak MSW Quantity (TPD)
1997 95.8
2002 102.4
2007 108.2
2012 114.3
2017 120.7
Potential population increase, projected to be 665 people by 1999 if the proposed Kensington Mine is developed, would increase the capacity requirement listed above. The annual waste quantity would be increased by 533 tons per year in 1999 and the peak week capacity
requirement would be increased by 2.1 tons per day. Capacity required by 2008 would be increased by 2.2 tons per day compared to the projections shown above, with a decline in population and waste expected during the following years.
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.2-7 11 Aug 97
REPORT NO. 97-1013/1
ENERGY RECOVERY FEASIBILITY REPORT
PROJECT NO. 97-1013 CHANNEL LANDFILL, INC.
POWER GENERATION FEASIBILITY STUDY JUNEAU, ALASKA
DATE: AUGUST 8, 1997
APPENDIX 8.3
Project Definition Study-Power Generation
Potential Generation Capacity
The kilowatt output of a waste-to-energy plant is directly related to the incineration capacity, with
the smaller plants producing proportionately less power than the large plants. The Skagit County
plant, described in Appendix 8.4 (ASME paper), was rated to incinerate 178 tons per day of MSW,
and produce 2500 kW.
Considering the proposed incineration capacity of 122 tons/day (Option 3A or 3B) for the expanded
Channel Landfills plant, and using the same ratio of power out put to MSW as Skagit (14 kW per
tpd) reduced slightly for the smaller plant size, would indicate a potential output of about 1600 kW
for power generation at the Channel plant.
Quality of Power Generation
Power from W-T-E plants is subject to the inherent nature of the incineration process; it depends on
the severe operating conditions of the incineration process, and corresponding severe duty of the heat
recovery boilers. As a result, its reliability cannot be assured and it cannot be sold as “capacity” or
“firm power”.
The power must be generated, and sold, when the MSW is being incinerated. Such power cannot be
dispatched, i.e., the power purchaser cannot dictate how much power to generate or when. Therefore
it can only be sold as “energy” to a power system which can accept it at all times, without needing to
rely on its availability. If power cannot be sold when the MSW is being incinerated, the heat must
be wasted to the atmosphere through a dump condenser.
Conceptual Design for Power Generation from Channel Incinerators
A conceptual design similar to the Skagit plant, with two heat recovery boilers and one saturated-
steam turbine generator, would be appropriate for power generation at the Channel incinerators.
Major components would be as listed in Table 9. Please refer to Appendix 8.4 for design details of
the Skagit project. The plant was designed on the basis of 4500 Btu/Ib Higher Heating Value of
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.3-1 11 Aug 97
MSW; the overall “boiler efficiency” (considering the combined incinerator, waste heat boiler and
economizer as the “boiler”) was 60%; and the turbine cycle heat rate was 15,800 Btu/kwhr.
Referring to Section 4.2.4.3 and the flow diagram in this report for Options 3A/3B, the two trains of
gas conditioning equipment would each be replaced by a heat recovery boiler and economizer. A
1600 kW turbine-generator and auxiliary equipment similar to the Skagit plant would be provided.
Increase in Capital Cost
An order-of-magnitude estimate was made of the increased capital cost for adding power generation
to Options 3A/3B , based on the actual costs from the Skagit project; less the saving from the
omitted gas conditioning equipment. The estimated net cost of adding power generation would be
on the order of $2,600,000, as shown in Table 9.. This would be over $1,600 per kW, very
expensive for power generation plants.
Value of Power
Because of the considerations mentioned under “Quality of Power Generation”, power from W-T-E
plants can only be sold to electric utilities, and at a price comparable to other sources of power of
the same quality. This reality is reflected in the Avoided costs of AEL&P as approved by the
Alaska PUC:
Rate A - $0.0347 per kWh. This rate shall be effective at all times that energy available from
AEL&P-owned hydro generators and the Snettisham hydroelectric facility is sufficient to
meet all AEL&P customers’ requirements.
Rate B - $0.0898 per kWh. With the exclusion of exceptions listed, this rate shall be
effective when AEL&P is using diesel fuel to generate electricity. However, diesel
generation for maintenance and testing purposes of two hours or less per day will not cause
this rate to become effective.
The above rates appear to reasonably reflect the economic reality that it would be a burden on
AEL&P’s customers to pay any more for power than Rate A, except when the purchased power
would displace diesel fuel consumption. Rate B appears to reasonably reflect the saving in diesel
fuel cost.
Electricity Produced, Purchased and Sold by AEL&P
Per AEL&P records for the year 1996, the total produced & purchased was 314,367,045 kWh; of
which, 82.80% was purchased from Snettisham, 16.64% was AEL&P hydro production and 1.52%
was AEL&P diesel production. Of the diesel production about 88% was produced by Lemon Creek
Diesel Plant (one of three AEL&P diesel plants). This totals 100.96% of which the 0.96% was used
by AEL&P.
Total sales was 297,399,833 kWh, of which 46% was residential sales, 32% was commercial sales
and the balance was government sales.
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.2-2 11 Aug 97
It seems highly unlikely that a power plant at Channel Landfill can displace a significant amount of
diesel production and thereby qualify for the diesel avoided cost of 8.98 cents/kWh. Although we
do not have actual load duration information for AEL&P, the typical load duration curve following
this page illustrates the situation.
The key to understanding load duration curves is that the area under the curve represents energy,
kWh. The typical curve represents a system with a total of about 120,000,000 kWh/year. This
system would generate only the highest loads with peaking units such as diesels. If it generated
1.5% of its power with diesels, the diesels would only need to operate about 6% of the time, at loads
above about 23 MW, and would be idle the rest of the year except for testing or “spinning reserve”
operation. It is interesting that this system requires 6 megawatts of diesel generating capacity, or
20% of its peak capacity, to serve peak loads for 6% of the time and only 1.5% of the energy sales.
Possible Future Feasibility
It will be remembered that, when this study was first conceived, it was expected that the Echo Bay
Mine project might suddenly present a new base load of over 20 megawatts in the Juneau area. If
this had happened, considering the long lead time for new hydro power capacity, the only way to
serve such load would have been oil-fired equipment, diesels or gas turbine(s). In that case, some or
all of the power from the Channel plant might have been sold at Rate B, at least until new hydro
generation could be constructed.
If Option 3A/3B were adopted, and some similar development like the Echo Bay project should be
developed in the future, it would be worth considering modifying the expanded Channel plant to
generate electric power.
If Option 3A/3B is not adopted at this time, and some similar development like the Echo Bay project
should be developed in the future, it would be worth reconsidering the expansion of the incinerator
plant, including facilities to generate electric power.
97-1013/1013R1.DOC 8.2 -3 11 Aug 97
“PEAKING POWER’
30.0 1.5% OF ENERGY (KWH)
6% OF TIME
20% OF MAXIMUM LOAD
28.0%
24.07 peony 20.0 mw plant
20.0F 16.0 mw plant
16.05 5 12.0 mw plant
12.05 : 8.0 mw plant 8.0 LUAD MEGAWATTS 4.0
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
PERCENT OF TIME EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED
0 1752 3504 Se56 7008 8760
HOURS EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED
LOAD-DURATION CURVE FOR TYPICAL SYSTEM
Reprinted From
National Waste Processing Conference
Fourteenth Biennial Conference
Book No. 100301 — 1990
The American Society of
® Mechanical Engineers
SKAGIT COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY
DESIGN OF A 178 TPD WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANT
ARTHUR J. BUTLER
Harris Group Inc.,
Seattle, Washington
ABSTRACT
The Skagit County Resource Recovery Facility
(SCRRF) went into operation in mid-1988, and since
then has burned all the county’s unrecycled garbage.
Operations have exceeded the design capacity of 178
tons (161 Mg) per day of garbage. The plant has met
all air pollution regulatory criteria—a common mis-
conception is that the plant is out of service because
there is nothing visible coming out of the stack!
The facility is designed around two rotary kilns of
Italian manufacture. The kilns have significant advan-
tages in completeness of combustion attained, and the
simplicity of having only one basic moving part ex-
posed to the fire.
The flue gas from the kilns goes to waste heat boilers
which cool the gas so it can be cleaned. Steam from
the boilers is used to generate power in a turbine gen-
erator.
Successful operation of the plant has demonstrated:
(a) A smaller practical size for a waste-to-energy
plant which meets the latest air pollution control re-
quirements.
(b) The advantages of the rotating kiln technology,
combined with a separate post-combustion chamber.
(c) A small, economical acid gas scrubbing system.
(d) Successful concepts in dry bottom ash and fly
ash handling.
This paper also discusses the constraints on power
353
generation in a plant whose primary purpose is incin-
eration of garbage.
BACKGROUND — PROJECT
REQUIREMENTS
Skagit County, with a population of 70,000, is lo-
cated approximately halfway between Seattle and the
Canadian border to the north. County government,
assisted by R. W. Beck & Associates, conducted a study
of alternatives, with extensive public involvement, be-
fore deciding on the incineration project and selecting
and permitting the site. These efforts were reported by
Sampley and Bingham [1]. Financing the project was
facilitated by a state grant to pay 50% of the cost of
the plant.
Proposals were requested on a full-service basis, in-
cluding a long term contract for operation and main-
tenance of the plant. At least two processing lines were
required, for redundancy. Availability of 90% was to
be guaranteed.
Requirements to control emissions were severe:
(a) 0.02 gr/dscf (0.05 g/Nm’*) particulate emis-
sions ;
(b) 50 ppm HCI
(c) 50 ppm SO,
(d) Maintaining combustion temperature of 1800°F
(980°C) for one second residence time.
QUENCH
REACTOR STACK
AIR FROM
WASTE PIT
METAL SEPARATOR
ASH Sto ASH TO SCRAP TO vanoritt |_| | “REcycLe ASH TURBINE 4 GENERATOR CONDITIONER { C sora STEAM — COOLING TOWER BOILERS
CONDENSER
FIG. 1 PROCESS FLOWS
(e) Continuous emission monitoring (CEM) of schedule was particularly difficult for the designers
opacity, CO, O,, SO,, and gas temperatures. because it required structural designs to be completed
(f) Maximum flue gas exit temperature of 290°F in time for excavation and concrete work to be done
(143°C). in the summer and fall of 1987. The structure of this
(g) The permit specified that tipping areas “‘be op- plant is much more complicated than an ordinary
erated at a negative air pressure to prevent the escape power plant.
of malodors”’. The plant started up on schedule and has processed
The County retained responsibility for disposal of all Skagit County’s garbage since July 1, 1988.
ash, and also required that bottom ash and fly ash be
kept separate. This was because of the possibility that
fly ash might be treated as a different category of waste
for disposal purposes.
Wright Schuchart Harbor Co. was selected from PROJECT DESCRIPTION
among nine bidders as the full-service contractor, and
retained Harris Group Inc. to design the plant. Thee ag uit AE as reir. meade waste incinerator plant rated at 178 TPD of processible
garbage. It includes two independent process lines
(Fig. 1), each based on a refractory-lined rotating kiln
SCHEDULE furnace with a post combustion chamber (PCC).
The contract between Skagit County and Wright Next in each process line, the flue gas leaving the
Schuchart Harbor was signed in January 1987, and PCC enters a conventional waste heat boiler generating
called for commercial operation in 18 months. This saturated steam at 450 psig (3200 kPa). Each boiler
354
FEED CHUTE
WASTE GAS EXIT
HYDRAULIC RAM FEEDER
ROTARY INCINERATOR
INTERNAL FLIGHTS
DISCHARGE TROMMEL
RG -
eet START-UP BURNER
RECIPROCATING CONVEYOR
FIG. 2. TECNITALIA ROTATING KILN
has an economizer which reduces the flue gas tem-
perature to about 450°F (230°C).
The air pollution control equipment for each line is
a dry scrubber absorber /baghouse combination of the
“Teller system” type, with a vertical upflow quench
reactor for acid gas removal. The scrubber fluid is a
slurry of hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) injected
with an air-swept atomizing nozzle. Atomization is by
compressed air.
Power is generated by a single 2500 kW turbine-
generator with a surface condenser cooled by a cooling
tower. To assure that incineration capability is not lost
because of a turbine outage, a dump condenser is pro-
vided.
TECNITALIA KILNS
The kilns (Fig. 2), which were supplied by Tecnitalia
S.p.A. of Firenze, Italy, have been proven in many
years of service incinerating garbage in Italy and else-
where in the world. They had not, however, previously
been used for steam generation, or been subject to air
quality controls (except for two installations with elec-
trostatic precipitators ).
The rotating kiln has some fundamental advantages
over other kinds of waste incinerators which do not
provide agitation of the fuel during burning. The 3 Ts
of combustion (time, temperature, and turbulence),
can all be independently varied. And a kiln, with only
355
one moving part exposed to the fire, has advantages
of simplicity and ruggedness over moving grates or
other more complex means of agitating the burning
fuel.
The Tecnitalia concept includes the PCC to obtain
complete burnout of gases. The PCC is a refractory
lined chamber which follows the kiln in the gas path.
For start-up, natural gas burners are provided to bring
the kiln and PCC to the operating temperature of about
1800°F (980°C), which must be attained before any
garbage is fed into the kiln. After the kiln and the
PCC are warmed up, no supplementary fuel is re-
quired.
The control strategy developed by Tecnitalia pro-
vides kiln temperature control by a start/stop ap-
proach. When the temperature exceeds a set point, the
kiln rotation is stopped; when the temperature goes
below the set point, the kiln is started up again. There
is also a provision for varying the speed of the kiln.
PLANT — INCINERATION SYSTEMS
Trucks deliver waste by dumping it into a pit which
is sized to hold approximately 3 days’ capacity. One
of the two bridge cranes over the pit is used to remove
nonprocessible items such as “white goods” —appli-
ances, etc. Oversize items which might not pass
through the kiln feed opening are processed through
a shredder at one end of the pit. The cranes are also
used to mix the waste in the pit to improve its uni-
formity.
The crane loads the waste from the pit into a charg-
ing hopper for each of the two kilns. From the charging
hopper, the waste is fed into the upper end of the kiln
by a hydraulic ram. Inside the kiln, the waste is lifted
and dropped by internal flights projecting into the kiln
(see Fig. 2). Combustion air enters the kiln from the
lower end and flows counter-current to the burning
waste.
The exit gas from the kiln passes into the PCC and
thence into the waste heat boiler. Passing through the
boiler and economizer, the gas flows into the quench
reactor of the air quality control system (AQCS). In
the quench reactor, the gas from the economizer con-
tacts a slurry of hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide).
By the time the gas leaves the quench reactor, the
slurry has been evaporated into a dry powder which
has reacted with the sulfur and chlorine compounds
in the exit gas. The combination of fly ash, acid gas
reaction products, and excess lime is collected in the
baghouse.
The gas is removed from the baghouse by the I.D.
fan and discharged up an individual flue inside a twin-
flue stack.
The stack gases are monitored by a continuous emis-
sion monitoring system which analyzes the gas and
records the concentrations of pollutants by means of
a PC program. Each reading in excess of the emissions
limits is recorded, with provisions for the operator to
annotate the record with the cause of the reading. In
general, emissions are well below the applicable limits;
however, rubber tires and gypsum wallboard are two
common causes for short term variations in emissions
above the limits for SO,.
Bottom ash from the kilns emerges at the lower end.
Oversized pieces are retained in a trommel for manual
removal. The rest of the bottom ash passes through
the trommel into a reciprocating horizontal drag con-
veyor. This conveyor runs in a concrete lined trench
under the lower end of the kiln; the trench also serves
as the duct to deliver combustion air to the kiln. The
horizontal conveyor delivers the bottom ash to an in-
clined pan conveyor which lifts the ash into the loading
bays at either end of the waste pit. At the upper end
of the inclined conveyor, a magnetic separator is in-
stalled to remove the ferrous metal in the bottom ash
and route it to a baler for sale as scrap. The bottom
ash falls into dumpster bins which are regularly re-
moved to the county landfill.
Fly ash is collected at a number of points in the
system:
(a) From the bottom of the PCCs.
356
(b) From hoppers under the waste heat boilers.
(c) From the bottom of the quench reactor.
(d) From the hoppers under the baghouse.
The fly ash (including acid gas residue from the last
two sources) is collected by a system of drag conveyors
and delivered to an ash silo. It is moistened in a pug
mill type mixer as it is loaded into dumpster bins just
before transport to the landfill.
PLANT LAYOUT
Figures 3 and 4 show the arrangement of the equip-
ment mentioned above. The plant building has a “dirty
side” and a “clean side”. The only connection between
the dirty side, where the garbage is unloaded and han-
dled into the hoppers, and the rest of the plant is the
air flow into the forced draft fans. The clean side does
not contain any garbage exposed to the air. The floor
trenches and conveyors which handle the bottom ash
are kept at a negative pressure, which prevents dust
from escaping. Also, the bottom ash can be sprayed
with water as it leaves the vicinity of the kiln to further
discourage dusting in this area.
PLANT STEAM AND POWER GENERATION
The steam generated by each waste heat boiler is
about 20,000 Ib/hr (9,000 kg/h) at 450 psig (3100
kPa) saturated. The combined steam flow supplies a
2500 kW turbine-generator unit. The turbine generator
is floor-mounted, with a 36 in. (90 cm) overhead ex-
haust pipe to an adjacent surface condenser.
In case of unavailability of the turbine, the steam is
condensed in a dump condenser. In this mode of op-
eration, the steam systems are simply acting to cool
the gas to the proper temperature for the AQCS.
In either mode of operation, power generation or
dump condensing, the heat is rejected to a mechanical
draft cooling tower.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
The site (Fig. 5) is located a few miles from the
existing county landfill, which facilitates disposal of
ash and nonprocessible items. The site is centrally lo-
cated with respect to the cities from which the waste
is collected. It is in an industrially zoned area, with
few nearby residences.
The layout shown in Fig. 5 provides for a number
of types of traffic:
(a) Dumping by the public.
FIG.4 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT — SECTION
357
OVENELL_ ROAD
DETENTION
PONDS
RECYCI
PUBLIC DROP
BOX AREA FARM TO MARKET ROAD
SCALE
APPROACH
YARD
PLANT BUILDINGS
FIG. 5 SITE LAYOUT
(b) A recycling program operated by a private re-
cycler.
(c) Trucks delivering the waste to be burned.
(d) Trucks to remove fly ash, bottom ash and non-
processibles.
Provisions were made for landscaping to screen the
plant from visibility from off site.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The design of this plant was an interesting assign-
ment. Several guidelines were established early in the
design process. The plant is a small garbage handling
facility and therefore should be simple and rugged, in
short “‘low technology”. It was on a very tight budget,
and no unnecessary expenditure was to be designed
into the plant. Perhaps the strangest guideline for
power plant people was that the power generation was
of secondary importance. Contractual conditions made
it most important that the continuity of garbage in-
358
cineration service be maintained, even, if necessary, at
the expense of power generation. .
One simple design decision illustrates the latter
point. If the plant used superheated steam in the tur-
bine, this might cause problems in the boiler. With
saturated steam, all boiler tubes would be equally
cooled, and even though this might conceivably give
problems in the turbine from wet steam, the decision
was made to use saturated steam at the turbine throttle.
Another unusual aspect was the Italian incinerating
equipment, including the kilns, charging hoppers and
equipment, PCCs, bottom ash conveyors and magnetic
separators. All of this equipment had been proven in
service, and it became incumbent upon the designers
to resist the temptation to “improve” on the way it
had functioned in its previous service in incinerator
plants. This was easier said than done in some respects.
The incinerator kilns had never been used for pro-
ducing power, or even high pressure steam. The man-
ufacturer had estimates of the heat losses and air
required for combustion, but these estimates could not
be confirmed. The designers made calculations of the
type usually made by boiler manufacturers, to establish
the quantities of air required for combustion and flue
gas produced, to confirm the energy production, and
for final sizing of the waste heat boilers, steam systems
and the air quality control system.
Draft System
In their previous applications in Europe, the kilns
were most often used with natural draft smokestacks,
or in some cases with electrostatic precipitators, neither
of which presented much resistance to the flow of flue
gases, i.e., draft loss. In this case, the baghouse in the
gas path offers considerable resistance to the gas flow,
so it was apparent that an induced draft fan would be
required. The draft system was designed like a stoker-
fired boiler, with a slightly negative draft setpoint in
the kiln which controls the I.D. fan inlet damper.
The forced draft system was designed to supply all
the combustion air from air intakes in the space over
the garbage pit, to keep objectionable odors inside the
plant as required by the permit (see above). The air
from the F.D. fan discharge is routed to the kilns
through the bottom ash conveyor trenches. The air
pressure is slightly negative, as mentioned above under
plant layout.
The flow of forced draft air is established by a fixed
setting of the fan damper. Possibilities of improved
control of kiln temperature by automatic control of
forced draft air flow may be explored in the future.
Air Quality Control
Not long ago, the removal of acid gas constituents
from flue gas was considered practical only on a very
large scale, i.e., in central power plants producing sev-
eral hundred times as much power as the Skagit fa-
cility. Such “wet” flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
installations using recirculating lime slurries are ex-
tremely expensive, and use special metals, fiberglass or
rubber linings, and other technology to resist the cor-
rosive and abrasive conditions of the process.
Most garbage burning plants in the past have not
attempted to remove the acid gases from flue gas; pol-
lution control was limited to electrostatic precipitators
for removal of particulate. Nevertheless, air pollution
control authorities have been increasingly insistent that
garbage burners have FGD, not only for the acid gas
removal, but also because the removal process for acid
gas is considered to remove many other undesirable
pollutants as well. This situation threatened to make
359
it economically impossible to build small garbage burn-
ers which could meet environmental demands.
Recent developments in dry scrubber—baghouse
technology, such as the Teller system used here, have
made it possible to use acid gas cleaning on plants
several times the size of the Skagit facility. On this
plant, it was found that by using hydrated lime as the
reagent (greatly reducing the capital cost of the spray
liquid preparation system), it was possible to build an
acid gas removal system at an acceptable cost. At
present, this appears to be the smallest such plant built
to date. Its operation has been excellent and has com-
plied with all applicable emission limits. The design
and test results of the AQCS were reported by Dhar-
galkar and Zmuda [2].
Fly Ash Handling
Ash handling had been a serious problem with pre-
vious garbage burning plants. Also, there was concern
about the possible classification of the fly ash as dan-
gerous, made the County want to keep it separate from
the bottom ash at the Skagit plant. A unique problem
in this plant is the need to remove fly ash from the
PCC where temperatures are about 1800°F (980°C).
The challenges were to specify a system that would
operate well, meet these requirements, and could be
purchased at a reasonable cost.
Visits were made to a number of operating garbage-
burning plants, and extensive interviews were con-
ducted with ash handling equipment vendors. The ex-
perience of others motivated the designers to avoid
screw conveyors, star wheel air lock valves, and wet
handling of either bottom ash or fly ash. _ e
Drag conveyors were selected for fly ash handling.
A water-cooled conveyor trough section under the
PCC ash inlets provided a simple solution for the high
temperature ash. Flap gate dump valves are used at
each hopper outlet. Several single dump valves feed
ash into each conveyor, with another dump valve at
the discharge end of the conveyor to form an air lock.
A timed sequence opens only one valve at a time to
keep the air lock intact.
Boiler Reliability
Perhaps the most serious concern, however, was
about boiler reliability. In -other garbage burning
plants, the superheater tubes or screen tubes were
found to accumulate molten deposits, which were as-
sociated with wastage and failure of the tubes, causing
breakdowns and frequent outages for tube replace-
ments. As stated above, it was decided to use saturated
steam conditions to improve boiler reliability.
A related concern was that the lanes between tubes
might be plugged by deposits anywhere in the boilers
or economizers. Measures were taken to increase spac-
ing between tubes, and provisions were made for ad-
ditional soot blowers if found necessary. Also, the
boilers and economizers were laid out for convenient
cleaning of any deposits which might occur.
Other Design Considerations
Since the driving force for the reaction in the quench
reactor is the heat in the flue gas leaving the econo-
mizer, the AQCS supplier specified that the flue gas
temperature must be kept up above 425°F (220°C).
Since the gas temperature declines with decreasing
load, this limited the operating range of each line to
approximately 1.5:1 turndown ratio. Provisions were
made for possible future changes to keep the temper-
ature of the exit gases up, if greater turndown ratio
should become necessary or desirable. So far, the load
range capability has been satisfactory, permitting the
plant to operate from one-third load (with one process
line shut down) on up to full load.
The combustion controls for the plant were a com-
bination of the temperature control strategy that had
been proven in the previous use of the kilns, and other
features to respond to the additional demands brought
about by the AQCS and the air permit restrictions.
The draft control is conventional. The turbine governor
is controlled to maintain the inlet steam pressure. We
believe there may be scope in the future for better
control of kiln temperature by controlling the forced
draft and the speed of rotation of the kiln, however
full exploitation of these possibilities will possibly be
achieved only after some period of operating experi-
ence.
The steam cycle as shown in Fig. 6, was deliberately
made as simple as possible. The pressure reducing valve
in the extraction steam line regulates the steam pres-
sure into the deaerator at 3 psig. This maintains con-
stant feedwater temperature to the feed pumps and the
economizer, and constant discharge conditions for the
condensate pumps.
It will be noted that the design capacity of the tur-
bine generator, at 2500 kW, yields only about 350
kWh/ton gross electrical output. This compares to the
capacities announced for larger plants in excess of 600
kWh/ton. Most of the difference can be accounted for
by the small size of the unit and the saturated steam
conditions; e.g., the gross cycle heat rate in Fig. 4 is
about 16,000 Btu/kWh (17,000 kJ /kWh).
360
OPERATING RESULTS
Boiler Reliability
Since the start of operation in June 1988, there have
been no signs of either plugging or wastage in the
boilers, and boiler reliability has been excellent. The
most probable explanation appears to be that the low
steam pressure, without superheat, avoids the high tube
crown metal temperatures which have been considered
the cause of tube wastage in larger, more efficient units.
Also, the arrangement with the PCC in between the
kiln and the boiler, protects the boiler tubes from most
of the direct radiant heat. The PCC provides a place
for dropout of any partially molten deposits, which
might otherwise cause problems in the boiler.
Slagging in PCCs
The most annoying problem in operation was com-
pletely unanticipated in the design. The time /temper-
ature requirements in the air pollution control
regulations, for 1 sec at 1800°F (980°C), were written
for a stationary combustor and there was a certain
amount of confusion in applying them to a counterflow
rotating kiln. For some time, the regulations were being
interpreted that none of the residence time-at-temper-
ature was attributed to the kiln, which required keeping
most of the PCC at or above 1800°F (980°C). The only
way to maintain this temperature without burning sup-
plementary fuel, was to keep the kiln outlet temper-
ature set point at a considerably higher temperature.
This resulted in partially molten material accumulating
in the PCC and on the walls of the flue from the kiln
to the PCC. Fortunately, the material was not strongly
bonded and the problem was alleviated by installing
air cannons to break up the deposits.
After calculations by the kiln designers demon-
strated that this was too extreme a position, the kiln
outlet temperature set point was reduced to 1850°F
and slagging in the PCC is much less of a problem.
There is still some material build-up on the walls of
the flue; these deposits are being dislodged with a water
jet from a pressure washer.
Ash Disposal
Another question was whether the fly ash would be
classified as some category of waste that could not be
put into an ordinary landfill. For several months, the
fly ash was mixed with cement and water and cast into
“ecology blocks”, which were allowed to solidify be-
fore being dumped into a segregated area of the landfill.
The leachate from the landfill was monitored and no
LEGEND.
304T
SPSIG
DEAERATOR
1.2M
25P MAKEUP
60T WATER 28H
CONDENSER
M=FLOW 1000 LB/HR
WASTE HEAT WASTE HEAT 7 . BOILER BOILER BLOWDOWN = T= TEMPERATURE ‘F 44H 450P 480T BLOWDOWN 19.5M 19.6M 0.5M 441H 450P 460T 39.1M 0.2M 1205H Bor GENERATO (2500 KW
40.1M 188H 600P 220T 57P
FIG. 6 TURBINE CYCLE HEAT BALANCE
objectionable concentrations from heavy metals or
other objectionable substances were found in the leach-
ate, and it passed the prescribed biological (toxicity)
tests. After several months of this, the casting of blocks
was discontinued and the leachate still passes all re-
quirements. The bottom ash is kept separate and sim-
ilarly monitored; however there is no problem with it
either.
The County attributes their success with the ash to
a battery recycling program. They pay people small
sums for their used batteries from flashlight batteries
to automobile batteries. Since this program started
there has been no detectable lead in the ash leachate.
Dump Condenser
There was a problem with removal of condensate
from the dump condenser at less than full load. The
pressure in the dump condenser was insufficient to lift
361
the condensate to the deaerator; this was similar to
the problem of removing drains from high pressure
feedwater heaters in central stations at low loads. Sev-
eral solutions were possible, such as dumping the con-
densate; however, it was eventually decided to provide
a relief valve to protect the condensate pumps and
associated piping, so they could be used to pump the
condensate to the deaerator.
CONCLUSIONS
It was a challenging experience designing a complete
waste-to-energy plant around the Italian kiln technol-
ogy without a precedent to follow (at least for the
power generation and air pollution control aspects of
the plant). While there have been a number of im-
provements found to be desirable in auxiliary systems
over the first year’s operation of the plant, it is grat-
ifying that it has fulfilled its primary mission during
that time, i.e., incinerating all the County’s unrecycled
garbage while meeting the environmental restrictions.
The successful operation of the Skagit County Re-
source Facility demonstrates what can be done with
the kiln incinerator technology:
(a) A waste-to-energy plant of this small size can
be built and operated to meet rigid environmental re-
quirements, at reasonable cost (under $100,000 per
TPD), and with excellent reliability.
(b) The principle of a simple refractory-lined kiln
with a conventional waste heat boiler may have wide
applicability for plants of this size. It appears that the
separation of combustion and steam generation into
two separate components, particularly with the PCC
in between them, has helped avoid boiler problems.
(c) The relatively new technology used in the air
pollution control equipment permits the use of acid
gas scrubbing for a smaller size unit than previously
considered economically possible, not only for burning
garbage, but possibly also for coal or other sulfur bear-
ing fuels.
(d) Both the bottom ash and the fly ash handling
systems in this plant have been successful and have
not limited plant availability. Very few garbage plants
can make that statement.
362
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to express our appreciation to our col-
leagues in the Skagit County government, R. W. Beck
& Associates, Wright Schuchart Harbor, and all of the
people at existing garbage burning plants who have
patiently answered our questions about their plants
which contributed greatly to the design of the Skagit
facility. We also recognize the indispensable contri-
bution of the equipment suppliers mentioned below:
Research-Cottrell Air Quality Control System
Zurn Industries Waste Heat Boiler
Coppus-Murray Steam Turbine
AshTech Ash Handling
REFERENCES
[1] Sampley, W. E., and Bingham, R. J. “Solid Waste: Skagit
County Solves the Burning Issue.” Public Works Magazine, May
1987.
[2] Dhargalkar, P. H. and Zmuda, J. T., 1989. “Dry Scrubbing
Systems: Experience in Resource Recovery Applications.” AWMA
Annual Meeting, June 1989, Anaheim, California (or Research-
Cottrell Companies Inc., P.O. Box 1500, Somerville, New Jersey 08876).
Key Words: Air Quality; Incineration; Mass Burn; Power
Generation; Rotary Kiln; Scrubber; Turbine
TABLE 1
Channel Landfill MSW Tonnage -1996
Incinerated or Shipped - CLFI Records
January July
1-7 401.60 1-7 628.37
8-14 374.96 8-14 550.99
15-21 383.38 15-21 508.05
22-28 417.28 22-28 534.34
29-31 237.37 29-31 300.16
full week* 404.41 1,814.59 full week* 516.24 2,521.91
February August
1-4 167.04 1-4 216.08
5-11 382.36 5-11 539.13
12-17 420.42 12-18 535.12
19-25 359.11 19-25 536.17
26-29 291.51 26-31 553.00 full week* 401.45 1,620.44 2,379.50
March September
1-3 109.94 1-8 525.88 4-10 386.00 9-15 513.16 11-17 409.74 16-22 499.12 18-24 429.11 23-29 471.19 25-31 431.65 30 103.60 1,766.44 full week* 461.62 2,112.95
April October
1-7 417.14 1-6 358.02 8-14 429.55 7-13 438.11 15-21 446.61 14-20 439.57 22-28 439.61 21-27 414.6 29-30 172.68 28-31 324.76 full week* 461.52 1,905.59 full week* 443.42 1,975.06
May November
1-5 288.84 1-3 118.66 6-12 459.58 4-10 423.91 13-19 464.83 11-17 408.65 20-26 513.50 18-24 383.65 27-31 429.46 25-30 406.29 full week* 468.01 2,156:21 1,741.16
June December
1 38.55 1-8 421.76 2-9 536.49 9-15 404.32 10-16 524.98 16-22 398.58 17-23 507.93 23-29 374.96 24-30 549.94 30-31 129.03 2,157.89 1,728.65 *full week = sum of partial week in each month Total MSW 1996 23,880.39
TBLS1_4.XLS 8/8/97
TABLE 2
Average and Peak Generation Rates - 1996
1996 Tons 1996 Burnable Per Capita/Yr Per Capita/Day
pounds pounds
Total MSW Delivered -1996 23,880.39 23,880.39 1,581 4.33
Bypass Waste (50% burnable) 4,032.41 2,016.21 133 0.37
Scrap Metal Delivered 1,453.29 96 0.26
Total Waste - 1996 29,366.09 1,944 5:33
Estimated Burnable Waste-1996 25,896.60 1,714 4.70
CBJ Population - 1996 30,209
Per Capita Burnable Waste in 2007 (0.5% annual growth) 4.94
Per Capita Burnable Waste in 2017 (0.5% annual growth)
Peak Weeks MSW Only Average TPD
(top 5) tons 18 shifts/week
July 1-7 628.37 104.7
August 26-31 553.00 92.2
July 8-14 550.99 91.8
June 24-30 549.94 91.7
August 5-11 539.13 89.9
Total 2,821.43
Average of 5 564.29 94.0
MSW Only MSW and Bypass
Average Week (tons) 459.2 498.0
TPD Average (365days) 65.4 76.5
Average TPD, 18 Shifts/Week 76.5 83.0
TBLS1_4.XLS 8/8/97
TABLE 3
CBJ Population and Waste Projection - MSW Only
Waste Generation Rate Constant On A Per Capita Basis
Year CBJ Population Average Week TPD Avg. Week | Peak (5) Week TPD Peak Week
j e tons per week 18-Shift Week tons per week 18-Shift Week
Population from City and Borough of Juneau Baseline Population Projections (1997 through 2013)
Reed Hansen and Associates, January 1997 -with trend extended to 2017
TBLS1_4.XLS 8/8/97
TABLE 4
CBJ Population and Waste Projection - MSW Only
Waste Generation Rate Increases 0.5% Per Year On A Per Capita Basis
Year CBJ Population
Population from City and Borough of Juneau Baseline Population Projections (1997 through 2013)
Reed Hansen and Associates, January 1997 -with trend extended to 2017
TBLS1_4.XLS
T week
18-Shift Week
8/8/97
TABLE 5
Potential Heat Sales Operations Serving Lemon Creek Area
(Based on Factored Upscale of 1993 AEA Prefeasibility Report on Heat Recovery)
Assumption: Based on the survey of heating oil consumption in the Lemon
Creek area, heat recovery from Channel incinerators could serve this market,
which presently consumes about 300,000 gallons/year of heating oil.
1 Upscale Ratio (Ref. p. 5 of 1993 report)
300,000/111,490=
2 Size Factor
Adjust for economy of scale using 0.7 exponent
3 Escalation Factor
1993 to 1998 @ 3%/year
4 Capital Cost (Ref. p.8 of 1993 report)
$1,075,250*2.00*1.16=
5 Operation & Maintenance Cost (Ref. p.8 of 1993 report)
$10,210*2.00*1.16=
2.69
2.00
1.16
$2,492,000
$24,000
97-1013\013tbISr.XLS 9/8/97
TABLE 6
Incinerators & Air Pollution Control Capital Costs
INCINERATOR* $ 1,900,000
- 50 ton/day Consumat CS-2000 incl. tertiary chamber, ash drag conveyor, dump
stack & damper, breeching
- upgrade 2 exist. incinerators: dump stacks, dampers, secondary chamber end walls,
add tertiary chambers, larger secondary burners; rebuild loader bridge for one
incinerator; replace primary instrumentation
- construct heated/air-conditioned enclosed control room; also houses CEMS eapt.
- replace/modify controls, instrumentation, motor starters with individual remote panels
for use w/ central PLC-based control system supplied by APC eqpt. mfr.
FLUE GAS CONDITIONING* $ 850,000
- mixing chamber: refractory lined, incl. isolation dampers
- 2 hot gas coolers (oil-filled heat exchangers)
- 2 air-cooled radiators for heat rejection
- pump skid, oil expansion/storage tank, heat-transfer oil
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL (APC) SYSTEM* $ 2,360,000
- 2 APC trains, each incl.: heat exchanger, vertical dry reactor, baghouse, lime/dust
recirculation system, metal housing
- oil-fired preheat system
- hydrated lime & powdered carbon storage silos, feed/metering systems, initial fill of
lime & carbon; metal housing
- 2 induced-draft fans
- compressed air system for controls
- PLC-based central control system that controls incinerators & APC system
- Turnkey proj. management, engineering, startup, training, compliance tests, bonding
MAIN DISCHARGE STACK* $ 115,000
- double-wall stack, 54" OD x 92' tall with 48" stainless steel flue liner
CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING SYSTEM (CEMS)* $ 150,000
- CEMS measuring oxygen, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and opacity
- automatic data acquisition system, computer, modem
- initial fill of reference chemicals
*Costs are in 1994 dollars from Coos County project. Adjust to 1998 @ 3%/yr. / $ 675,000
MISCELLANEOUS
- additional ash truck $ 100,000
MAJOR EQUIPMENT TOTAL $ __ 6,150,000
TABLE6.xls 8/8/97
TABLE 6 (CONTINUED)
Incinerators & Air Pollution Control Capital Costs
BUILDING MODIFICATIONS
Required Modifications
- 20' x 120' expand tipping floor & incinerator bay; relocate walls, new pushwalls, $
excavate ash pit, pour concrete floors, demolish driveway; $30/sq ft
- elec. wiring, compressed air, water, drainage piping included in eqpt. estimate
TABLE6.xls
Suggested Modifications
- engineering inspection; repair structural columns $
- asphalt resurfacing of tipping floor 4,800 sq ft @ $1/sq ft F BYPASS WASTE PROCESSING
- Slow speed shredder and conveyor for wood waste
- 30' x 40' shed roof structure with walls
- electrical
- asphalt paving & base course at $2/sq ft AAA H BUILDING MODIFICATIONS, BYPASS WASTE PROCESSING SUBTOTAL $
MAJOR EQUIPMENT TOTAL $
TOTAL $
72,000
30,000
4,800
300,000
24,000
10,000
2,400
443,000
6,150,000
6,593,000
8/8/97
TABLE 7
Option 3A/3B O&M Expense
BASE LINE (FIXED) COMPONENT
- Historical Channel; basic cost/year (not proportional to tonnage) $ 2,200,000
- Labor: Assume Channel now has | loader-operator who directs waste unloading $ 280,000
in the bldg, & 1 mechanic/supervisor each shift. With APC, need to add a 1.0 FTE
mechanic/electrician TO EACH SHIFT; total of 3 needed to operate 3 incin. & APC
(Coos added 1.0/shift & 1 floater); Channel salary & G&A = $45/hr
- Incinerator maintenance materials incl. in basic
- Major maintenance/replacement: Channel has a well-developed plan for replacing major incl. in basic
components such as the ash conveyor and rams, refractory, etc. Because the work
takes place over a number of years, costs vary from year to year.
- Major maintenance/replacements for new incinerator and APC: $ 125,000
2% of capital cost ($6,288,000)
- 2 induced draft fans, 100 hp each,300 days/yr, 50% kw = 54,000 kwh @ 5 cents $ 27,000
- Annual stack test $ 15,000
- CEMS system maintenance, calibration chemicals; electricity $ 5,000
TOTAL BASE LINE O&M EXPENSE, $/YEAR $ 2,650,000
VARIABLE O&M EXPENSE --depending on total tons incinerated
- Fuel oil use: proportional to waste burned; expected to be high to meet
time-at- temperature requirement. For 100 DegF increase in temperature,
100*2,000*6.5 (Ib flue gas/lb MSW)*.28 (Btu/Ib-DegF)*$1.00/136,000(Btu/gal)= $ 2.68
- Lime: Coos Co uses 120 Ib/hr @ 150 tpd = 19.2 Ib lime/ton of MSW
Coos Co. pays $121/ton of hydrated lime; assume $130/ton $ 1.25
-Allow for other costs related to quantity of waste burned $ 1.07
TOTAL VARIABLE O&M EXPENSE, $/TON $ 5.00
BYPASS WASTE PROCESSING
- Labor: 1,000 hr/yr @ $45/hr $ 45,000
- Shredder maintenance & repair $ 10,000
- electricity: 100 hp @ 1,000 hr/yr = 75,000 kwh/yr @ 5 cents $ 3,750 TOTAL BYPASS WASTE PROCESSING O&M EXPENSE, $/YEAR $ 60,000 |
TABLE7.XLS 8/8/97
TABLE 8
DEFINITION OF ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES
OPTIONS CONFIGURATION |OPERATING STRATEGY EXIT STRATEGY RISK BSassesssasassssssssasassssssssssesessssssssssssssssssssssssasss |easssesssssesesess=: saassea: sasae Saesessssssssssssssssss=
1. Null Option - Do nothing |2 incinerators Continue burning waste up to_| Operate indefinitely in this mode (20+ years) Channel could be forced to close all or part of the landfill
O thermal generation |the capacity of 2 incinerators. May have to set up reserve fund for landfill closure at an undetermined time at a cost to Channel
0 electric generation | Ship XS waste off-site and post-closure care at some indefinite future time. estimated by EMCON in 1991 to be $7.8 MM.
Deposit ash on-site up to limit CBJ could cease to use the Channel
of Class 1 landfill trigger. Landfill and start shipping all waste off-site.
Ship XS ash off-site
Do not mine landfill.
1.1. Modify for sale of Same as 1. + add Same + sell waste heat to Same as 1. investment risk added to (1).
waste heat. heat exchanger Correctional Facility.
1.2. Modify for sale of Same as 1.1. + add | Same as 1.1. + sell electricity |Same as 1. investment risk added to (1).
electric power turbine/generator & _|to AEL&P and/or others
APC system Saaasassasaeee: a Seaseaseasessaesassssassseassssassssessssas | sessssassasaseee: = =
2. Phased Conversion 2 incinerators Begin mining waste and Continue to mine waste and burn it. Continue to burn Less risk than (1) that Channel could be forced to close
to commercial land use. |0 thermal generation |burning it. Burn part of new new waste up to capacity of 2 incinerators and ship the landfill, since now there is a plan to empty the landfill
0 electric generation |waste and ship balance off-site. |balance. As landfill is mined out, cover progressively of waste. Less economic loss than (1) if CBJ ceases to
Deposit ash on-site up to limit_|and convert to commercial use. use the Channel landfill, since the landfill is being converted
of Class 1 landfill trigger. Continue indefinitely to burn new waste up to capacity [to commercial use. When the landfill is completely mined, it
Ship XS ash off-site of 2 incinerators; deposit ash up to limit of Class 1 becomes less important to continue burning CBJ waste.
landfill trigger and ship the rest off-site. (contingent liability has decreased).
2.1. Modify for sale of Same as 1.1. Same as 1.1. Same as (2). investment risk added to (2).
waste heat.
2.2. Modify for sale of Same as 1.2. Same as 1.2. Same as (2). investment risk added to (2).
electric power
SRReeRnnerrsaeEEEessssaeRREssssaseseeesss==
RESSSRSRRRSASSSeaaREEsssH==za
3. Add 3rd Incinerator 3 incinerators Burn all waste received from Mine as completely as possible. Continue to landfill Less risk than (1) that Channel could be forced to close the
O thermal generation | present sources. ash for an indefinite period beyond 20 years. landfill, since now there is a plan to empty the landfill of waste.
O electric generation | Mine landfill and burn up to Sell or lease all or part of the land over time for Less economic loss than (1) if CBJ ceases to_use the
capacity of 3 incinerators. industrial/commercial use. landfill, since the landfill is being converted to commercial
Deposit ash on-site up to limit use. When the landfill is completely mined, it becomes less
of Class 1 landfill trigger. important to continue burning CBJ waste.
Ship XS ash off-site Increased risk due to increased investment.
3.1. Modify for sale of Same as 1.1. Same as 1.1. Same as (3). Investment risk added to (3).
waste heat.
3.2. Modify for sale of Same as 1.1. + add | Same as 1.1. + sell electricity |Same as (3). Investment risk added to (3).
electric power turbine/generator to AEL&P and/or others
TABLE8.XLS
8/7/97
TABLE 9
Power Generation Capital Costs: Order-of-Magnitude Estimate
(Factored Estimate based on actual costs of Skagit Project)
Installation Factor (Skagit Project Total Costs divided by Equipment Costs)
Escalation Factor (1987 to 1998 @ 3%/year)
Size Factor (Adjust for Channel 1600 kW vs. Skagit 2500 kW @ 0.7 exponent)
Composite Factor (Product of above factors)
Skagit
Equipment
POWER GENERATION EQUIPMENT ITEMS Cost-1987
Boilers & Economizers $763,000
Cooling Tower & Pumps $70,000
Turbine Generator Pkg (Included condenser & electrical controls) $652,000
Dump Condenser $28,000
Deaerator & Overflow Tank $30,000
Boiler Feed Pumps $42,000
Miscl. Tanks & Pumps $22,000
Total Installed Cost of Power Generation Equipment
Approximate reduction in capital cost of flue gas conditioning equipment
Increase in Capital Cost of Option 3A/3B for Power Generation
TABLES.XLS
1.97
1.38
0.73
2.00
Factored
1998 Plant
Cost
$1,522,000
$140,000
$1,301,000
$56,000
$60,000
$84,000
$44,000
$3,200,000
($600,000)
2,600,000.00
8/8/97
TABLE 10
Typical Weekly Waste Flow Analysis
Option 3B - 3 Incinerators, Excavate Landfill In 20 Years
Priority: Excavate landfill in 20 years, burn MSW and excavated waste, ship excess MSW and excavated waste, ship ash exceeding 7300 tons/yr Assume: 3 incinerators having 122 tons per day capacity, operating 6 days per week, excavate 210,000 tons of waste (201 tons per week)
1996 1997
| 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Summary Totals MSW Over Cap._ MSW _Over Cap Total Excavate Over Cap. Total Excavate _Over Cap. Total _ Excavate | Over Cap. | Total | Excavate | Over Cap. Total | Excavate _Over Cap./ Total _ Excavate “Over Cap. Total — Excavate Over Cap. | Projected Tons Per Year 23,880 1,595 24,314 3,116 | 24,738 10,500 1,799 25,158 10,500 1,957 25,435 _ 10,500 2,068 25,716 10,500 2,180 25,999 10,500 2,293 | 26287 10,500 2,408 26,576 | _ 10,500 2,524 |
Week | - January 402) 0. 409, 0 416) 201 O} 423, 201° 0 428 201, 0 432) 201) 0 437, 201s« aa 2017 0. 447. 201) Week 2 375 0. 382 0 388 201, o 395 201 0 399 201, 0 404) 201) 0) 408) 201) oO 13) | 0) 417 201, Week 3 383 0. 390. os 397, 201, 0 404° 201° 0 408 201) 0 413" 201) 0. 417,—— 201i 0 427, 201, Week 4 417, 0 425 ot 432) 201° 0 440, 201) o 444° 201° 0 449201 0 0 0) 464 201, Week 5 - February 404 0 412 Oa 419) 201 0 426, 201 0. 431 201' O} 435, 201 0 0) 0 450) 201, Week 6 382, 0. 389, Or 396. 201 0 403, 201 0 407, 21 412) 201) 0) 0) 0) 426, 201) Week 7 420 0 428) ot! 436, 201 0 443,201 0 448 2017 0 | 453,20“ (tt O} Oy} 468201, Week 8 359. 0; | o| 372/ 201, 8B 201) 0. 382, 201, 0} 387, 201! O} 0) 0 400. 201, Week 9 - March I 401) 0) 0 “416201 Oo 423) 201) 0] 428 «-201.—S's*=‘<« :C*‘SSt(C«:*é‘« SD 201) 0) | 437) 0 0) 447) 201) Week 10 | 386, 0) 0) =) 0 | 0. 4ul 201) 0 416 201) Oo | 420| 0 0 430) 201) Week 11 ato) 0 0. 0, 436 2011S a - 0) 456 201, Week 12 Lago 5 O} 452) 201457201 0 462) oO | 467; ol 478, 201) Week 13- April ~ 432) Om 7 0 455,201) 0 460 201) 0470) 0 | 480) 201 Week 14 417) 0! 0 439) 201! 0 444 | 0) 0) 454) 0) 464) 201) Week 15 I 430) 0) 0) |) 453)—~—S*«OOT Ol) 0) 0 468 o| | 478) 201) Week 16 | 447) AS) 7 0) 470) 201) oO. 0 201) Of | 486) 92) 201) Oo) 497) 201) Week 17 | 440, 8 0. 463) 201) 0. OF} 201 Om 479, 484) 201) 489 201) Week 18 - May | 462 30) | 0} 486, 201) 0 0) 201) 0) 7502) 508) 201) 0) 54 201) Week 19 | 460) 28) | o- 484) 201, Ol 201) Ol 500) | 506,201) 0) SI 201) Week 20 465) 33] | 0. 20 o | 0 201) 0| 506 512,201, 0! S17, 201 Week 21 514) 2 | 1 10 2011—~SCOW 201 3559/2017 565-201 34) 571. 201! Week 22 - June 468 36) | 0. 0. 2010 201) 510) 201) 51S) 201, 0. 521, 201) Week 23 536) 104) 25) | 565) 201, 34 201, 40 201) 584) 201) 591201) 59) 597, 201, Week 24 525) 93) 13) 553) 201 2 201,28) 201) 572| 201) 578) 201 47, 584. 201) Week 25 508 | 76) | 526) | 0) _ 535) 201) 201) 201) 553 201, 559201 28. 565. 201) Week 26 550) 18) | 570 201 39 579 201) 201 201) | 599, 201) 6 605 201 74 612, 201) Week 27 - July 628) «196/ 651) 201 120) 7 662) 201) 201) 201.145 684) 201; 692,201. 161, 699 201, Week 28 | 551) 119), 571. 201,40) | si580,SSS—« 587/201 ~ 201) 62. 600! 201) 607,201, 75) 613, 201 Week 29 - I 508) 76 526) 201i 88S S(T 541 201,10) 201) 16) 553) 201! 359) 201) 28) 565" 201, Week 30 534, 102) 554) 201 22/ 563, 201 569 201.38) 201) 44) 582. 201) | 588) 201) 57) 595 201 Week 31 - August 516) 84 535) 201 40 544) 201) 550,201, S19) 201) 25) 562, 201) 568) 201! 37 575. 201) Week 32 539) 107) | 558) 201) 27) 568) 201, 574) 43) 201 49) 587. 201) 593 201) 62. 600 201) 69) Week 33 | - 535,103) | 554) __ 23] 564) 201! 570) 39) 201) 45, | 583) 201) 589! 201) 58] 596. 201) 64) Week 34 - 536 104) 555) 2014 565) 201, _ 571, 40; 201) 46 584) 201, / 590. 201) 59, 597, 201) 66) Week 35 553) 121) 573 201) 42) SI) 589/201) 58, 201) 6) 602) 201) 609) 201) 8 615. 201 84) Week 36 - September | 526 94 545) 201) 14) 23) 560/201, —Ss«9) 201,35) 573) 201) 579) 201) 48, 585. 201) 54) Week 37 | 513) 81) 532) 201, 0. 9) 547, 201) 15) 201 21) 559) 201/ 565) 201) 34, S71, 201) 40) Week 38 499 67) 517 201 718, RT 532,201,732) 201) 738. 543. 201) ~ 549) 201) 750, 555) 201, 156 Week 39 471 39) 488 201) 689) 7) : 201) 708) 513) 201) 319201) 719 524 201) 725) Week 40 - October 462) 30) 478 201) “0 201) 0, 503) 201) 0 508) 201) 0) 514) 201, “0! Week 41 438, 6 454) 201, 0 201) 0) 477 201) a2 20 0) | 488 201) Week 42 (440) 8 455/201 0, 201) 0479) 201, “0 | 484201) o | 489201 Week 43 415) 0 429) 201, O 201) 0 451, 201) 0 456. 201, 0, 461, 201° Week 44 - November 443) i | 459) 201) 0. 201) 0) 483) 201) 0) 488 201) 0 493 201, Week 45 424) 0 | 439,201) 0) 21-OStS*«DSSS«(T 0) 467/201) 0 |) 42201 Week 46 | 409) 0 423/201 0. 201) 0) 445,201) 50 | 0 | 455,201, Week 47 / 384) 0) 397) 201) o 201, 418) 201 0) 422) 0 427 201, Week 48 | 406) 0] 421201. 0 2011 0 “442/201, “447, 0) 452) 201) Week 49- December | 422) 0. 437, 201, 0 201) 0. 459) 201) 0) _ 464) : 0; 469 201, Week 50 | 404 0 419, 201 0 201) 0 | 440! 201 0) 445) 0 450. 201) Week 51 | 399) o 413) 201, 0 201, 0 434) 201) 439 O 444, 201) Week 52 375, 0) 388,201, 0, 201) 0) 408) 201| 0, 413) 0] 417,201) Week 53 129 6 134 57 0 57) 0 | 140) 57) 0 142) 0) 144 57) MSW Received/Excavated 23,880 24,738 10,500 | 10,500 25,999 10,500 | | 26,287 10,500 26,576 10,500' MSW Shipped | 1,595) ; 1,799) | 13780) ~ T2203) | I 1 2.408 i 2,524) 595 | - | Ot | __|___ 2,293) | 2 MSW Incinerated 22,285! 21,198) 33,439) || 33,867 34,036 | I ; 34.379, 34,552) Total Ash (wet wt.) 6,684 6358) || 10,0307 | | 10,158) | 10,209) i ti - - _ 10,312 10,364" Ash Shipped (excess of 7300 tons/yr) | 0 0 2,730) | 2g58)COC~S — ) 29097—~C*~CS*S 2,960 | a | 3,064" Available Incinerator Capacity -562/ | 525) | 3,370) | - 2,942 : 273) | CY TT 2,430) 2,257) {
TABLEI0.XLS
Page | of 3
8/8/97 10:47 AM
TABLE 10
Typical Weekly Waste Flow Analysis
Option 3B - 3 Incinerators, Excavate Landfill In 20 Years
Priority: Excavate landfill in 20 years, burn MSW and excavated waste, ship excess MSW and excavated waste, ship ash ash exceeding 7300 tons/yr | | Assume: 3 incinerators having 122 tons per day capacity, operating 6 days per week, excavate 210,000 tons of waste (201 tons per week)
2005 | 2006 | i 2007 ial 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 | Summary Totals Total Excavate Over Cap. Total Excavate | Over Cap. | Total | Excavate | Over Cap./ al _ Excavate | Over Cap. | [Total Excavate | Over Cap.| Total | Excavate | Over Cap ' Tota! | Excavate | Over Cap. Total | Excavate | Over Cap. Total Projected Tons Per Year | 26,869 10,500 2,641 =~ ~—«227,166 | ‘10,500 2,760 | | 27,465' 10,5001 2,890 27,768 ‘10,500 3,037 28,074 | 10,500 3,189 | 28,384] 10,500 3,344 28,697 10,500’ 3,509 | 29,014) 10,500 3,686 29,334
462) 201) of | 467. 201) 431) 201/ Li 201, 441/201) | 146 201 480/201 {| | 201) 465,201) | | ___201] 440/201! | 201 484) 201) {| | 201, 413) 201! | | 201, 462/201) | 467, 201 | 201,
201 201) 201, 201, 201, 201) 201° 201, 201) 201,
457) 201
427) 201, 436. 201)
475) 201)
460. 201, 435) 201) 478) 201)
409) 201) 457) 201)
439) 201 466. 201)
488) 201) 491) 201)
475) 201, 489) 201, 508) 201/ 500) 201° 525) 201, 523) 201)
529) 201°
584) 201,
532, 201)
610, 201) 597, 201,
Week | - January | 452, 201
Week 2 | 422. 201) Week 3 | 431 201) Week 4 470° 201,
Week 5 - February | 455) 201°
Week 6 | 430, 201, Week 7 473/201) Week 8 [40 201 Week 9 - March | |____ 201}
Week 10 | aa [201 Week 11 (rn 201)
Week 12 i 83 201) Week 13- April | “486 201) Week 14 | 4 201) Week 15 (cn 201)
Week 16 1 ] 201) Week 17 [ 5 201]
Week 18 - May | 19) 201) Week 19 | 517] 201) Week 20 [523] 201 Week 21 (sz ] 201, Week 22 - June i 201)
Week 23 i j 2011 Week 24 is 201|
472) 201] 441 2017 451, 491) 475) 450) 494) 422) 472) 454) 482)
504 ~ ~a + + 507) 20] of T5301 zor] of | 524] 201] 490! 496 201) 201) 507] 201 __ 505! [n/n St0 203} | 522201] 525 201 | 531] __201/ UME 201 543) 201, 517) | | 523) 201) 528) 201) | 534) 201) 543/201) a Cl [__201} [sei 201; 540/201, [[ 346[ 201; (i) ESS 20 A | 558 201, 546, 201) 15] | 552) | (i) 559) 201.27] 565) 201 201, 604) 201) 73|_ | |___201/ fia) 7 201) 86) 624) 201, 201 550 201 19 556 | 201) I 569 201) 201) al 631, 201) 100) | 638) 201 CI | 201) [| 652) 201 aoa 201) al 617) 201) 86) 4] 1) | [ 201 I 638. 201)
488 201) 456) 201,
466) 201) 507) 201) 491 201, 465! 201) S11) 201) 436) 201) 201) 488 201) 201) 469) 201,
201) j 498) 201 201) 521) 201
201) 201)
201, 201 201, 201) 201/
201! [o| clo} : Slscloiololo. Bo) w|ujoioio Sclolololoslojsjcjo | elololo} Slolololololslojojojololo} =I wl=lolololololojololojololojo clo) Rlclolclejojojojololalololociaojcjciai ole, pt wn Vl=|Blololojolclolololojio clolo cp cjclclclclo |e ~ AS) a 3. g Week 25 ul | __ 201 o| | _578/ 201) 47|_| 584) 201) TT se, 201] | | 597! 201] ~—SSs«| |___201] CI 10/201 _79| 617/201 Week 26 | | 201) 626 201 4 632 201 201 647) 201] | 654) 201) ra 651) 201, 668 201 Week 27 - July 201) 6 | 715) 201° 184) 723; 201) re 201 | 739) 201-208) | a | | OL 201, —224t | 763) 201, Week 28 mn 620) 201; 89] | 627, 201) 96 634) 201) {] 64 201, 110, | 648) 201 stn | 655,201! 5) 201131 | 669. 201) Week 29 | [201] | 578. 201, 47, | 584,201 ry 91201) D, 597/201] 66 |___ 201! imett 201) ‘7| [617] _—_—201/ Week 30 | 201, | 608. 201° 77] 615 201 i 21 201, 90, 628) 20, ‘| 635, 201, im 201) | 649, 201, Week 31 - August | 201) | 587, 201, 56 594) 201) [4 00. 201) TI 607, 201,76] ‘| 614) 201) ‘a 201) LI 627, 201, Week 32 | 201) | 613, 201, 82) | 620 201) i | 201, | 634) 201) 103) | 641, 201 i 201) 17] | 655/ 201, 201) Ly 609) 201) 78 615) 201) CI 622. 201, (a 629) 201{ 98] | 636, 201! CI [Li 201 | ete || eso} 201, 201) 21 | _610/ 201) 79) | 617/201) ri | 201, | [630] 201 99) | 637 201 in 201) TI 651, 201, 201! 629 201 98) | 201 201 650 201) 119 657, 201) | | 201 672 201 201) i] | 598) 2017 67, 201) [| eni| 201, LI 618, 201 | 187) 625) 201) feat 32) 201) onl | 639, 201) 201) ‘i 584, 201) 53] | 590,201 LI 597 201 fi 603 201) 72] | 610201! {| 17] 201) 85) 623, 201) 201) 21 | 568 201) 769) [a2o1 | 1 201) | 587 201/788] =| 593) 201 | | 201) imi 606, 201) Week 39 | 530) 201, aif | 536. 201, 737|_| | 201 tI 548) 201) 1 554) 201) 755| | 560! 201) ta | 201) | 572| 201) Weekind = October | |___201| 525) 201 531/201 TIS 37) 201 6 | 543, —«20i| 12{ | s49|——201/ i $5] 201] | | 561] ——201/ Week 41 | [201 [ [498/201] 201, rl [siicrik20 1] mC [| AS 1S [ANNE ZOU lori )s2i [rr 201] I 201) (S32 | E2O1 201 He [Abt 500 |e 2011) _201, iis 201) a | 522| ial [__201{ of 534, 201 201) LI 472) 201, 201, 1 201) _0| 487 201) 493 | i 201) | 504) 201, 201) |_| .- 504] 201) 201) {| 6) 201, [| 521] 201) 527| 201) | | 201) 12 | S29] 201, 201) 1 | 482/ 201) 201) || 4 201 498 201/ | 1 201) “ol | sis) 201) 201) | 465] 201 | 201) | 480) 201) 486) |e 201] i «496 201| 201)( fen CEES 201) [| 4s1[___201/ 456) j eet 1201] 466,201 a8 __ 457) 201) oO} | 462) 201) 201, {| 478) 01] 433, {| 488. a 494) 201 Weeki 9: December Hy 201) | | _ 480] 201 201) | 496! 501,201 I “307, ——«201/ ini) S12)111) 201] Week 50 | 201) | 460) 201, | | 475) | | HOE | 481) 201) { | 201) ww 491 201 = | 201 | 453) 201) TT 469] 3011 Week 52 0 [201] Di iar) 201) [|____4ai] 446) 2011 gas 201) [| 456] 201) Week 53 | 37| 147 MSW Received/Excavated 26,869 10,500, |_| 27,166) 10,500) |_| 27,465| 10, ; 0,500 28,074 28,384 10,500 70,500 29,014 10,500 "MSW Shipped | |_| 27,768) | || | | | | | || 97) | ea | ojo 2 2} alli W000) 0/0/0)0/ 0) 00/0 wu!) — eloclo clelalolojojoio.o. | 474,201 Si | 201; | 484) 201
57) o| | 152) 153) 57, (i I 57) TT 157) $7 w we & s MSW Incinerated
Ash Shi yped (excess of 7300 ton
Available Incinerator Capacity
TABLE10.XLS Page 2 of 3 8/8/97 10:47 AM
TABLE 10
Typical Weekly Waste Flow Analysis
Option 3B - 3 neIReraeES: Excavate Landfill In 20 Years
Priority: Excavate landfill in 20 years, bum MSW and excavated waste, ship excess MSW and excavated waste, ship
Assume: 3 incinerators having 122 tons per day capacity, operating 6 days per week, excavate 210,000 tons of waste (201 tons per week)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Summary Totals | Exeavate | Over Cap. "Total | Excavate Over Cap. | Total _ Excavate | Over Cap. " Total _ Excavate Over Cap. Total Excavate Over Cap. Projected Tons Per Year “10,500 |__ 3,877 | _29,657 10,500 4,078 29,985 | 10,500 4,291) «30,315 :10,500 4.518 30,650 | 10,500 4,762
Week | - January | 201) 1 | 499° «201 | 2017 i aa | 201; 515) 201 | 201) 466) 201) 201) 4%) 201i 201) | 476,201 201° O. 492) 201, 201 518) 201 201 536201 Week 5 - February i oO} | 502) 2010 319) 201 Week 6 | ol 475) 201) C 491201 Week 7 | | | 522,201 201, | 2017 Week 8 | [_o| 446) 201) 201 | |. 201] Week 9 - March ) 0 499201 | 7 515) 201, ol! 0 479) 201) 509] 1 | 21! | Oo} 20/0) 0) B/ oO} 0/0} 539201, f / 201) 551) 201, 342/201 2 324) 201) [Bl wlolulrlololol|olololojol/olojo 201) 107) | (201) ay : 4a ; I é 201) 159] | (201 Week 27 - July 201; 258) / 201 Week 28 | yi] 146) | 684) 201) | 6 — 201 / 2 176 e ~~ 201 6s or aie : [201 : : _ '155/e “na 655,201 | sett _ 201) 141 679,201 _ 687) 301 seo eee Fi
694) 201) : “710! 660) 201] 129 6 - 675 644) 201) 1 ; 120) | | 127 627 201, 201) tl | Ol; Bat 20H Bee i a oe: :
| | 162) 57)
MSW Received/Excavated | 500| i ,657/ 10,500! - |_| 29,985) 10,500)
MSW Shipped | |
Msw Incinerated
Total Ash (wet wt)
‘Ash! Shipped (excess of 7300 ton,
Available Incinerator Capacity
TABLEI10.XLS Page 3 of 3 8/8/97 10:47 AM
TABLE11.XLS
TABLE 11
Summary Data - Six Options
Null Option
MSW MSW MSW Ash Available
Year Tons/Year | Incinerated Shipped Landfilled | Incin. Cap.
1996 23,880 22,285 1,595 6,684 0
1997 24,314 21,198 3,116 6,358 525
1998 24,738 21,331 3,407 6,398 392
1999 25,158 21,437 3,721 6,430 287
2000 25,435 21,497 3,938 6,448 227
2001 25,716 21,544 4,172 6,462 180
2002 25,999 21,578 4,421 6,472 145
2003 26,287 21,610 4,677 6,482 114
2004 26,576 21,642 4,934 6,491 81
2005 26,869 21,672 5,197 6,500 51
2006 27,166 21,689 5,477 6,505 35
2007 27,465 21,703 5,763 6,509 21
2008 27,768 21,709 6,060 6,511 15
2009 28,074 21,713 6,361 6,513 10
2010 28,384 21,718 6,666 6,514 6
2011 28,697 21,723 6,975 6,515 1
2012 29,014 21,723 7,291 6,516 0
2013 29,334 21,723 7,611 6,516 0
2014 29,657 21,723 7,934 6,516 0
2015 29,985 215723 8,262 6,516 0
2016 30,315 21,723 8,592 6,516 0
2017 30,650 21,723 8,927 6,516 0
Totals 601,482 476,388 125,097 142,887 2,092
1998-2007 45,707 64,697 1,533
2008-2017 74,678 65,147 34
20-Year Project: 120,385 129,844 1,567
1 of 6
8/8/97
TABLE11.XLS
TABLE 11
Summary Data - Six Options
| Option 2A |
MSW | Waste Total |TotalMSW) Ash Ash Available
Year |Tons/Year|Excavated| Incinerated| Shipped |Landfilled| Shipped | Incin. Cap.
1996 23,880 0 22,285 1,595 6,684 0 0
1997 24,314 0 21,198 3,116 6,358 0 525
1998 24,738} 21,000 21,723 24,015 6,516 0 0
1999 25,158} 21,000 21,723 24,435 6,516 0 0
2000 25,435} 21,000 215925 24,712 6,516 0 0
2001 25,716 21,000 21,723 24,993 6,516 0 0
2002 25,999} 21,000 21,723 25,276 6,516 0 0
2003 26,287} 21,000 21,723 25,564 6,516 0 0
2004 26,576 21,000 21,723 25,853 6,516 0 0
2005 26,869 21,000 21,723 26,146 6,516 0 0
2006 27,166} 21,000 21,723 26,443 6,516 0 0
2007 27,465 21,000 PAI Ps} 26,742 6,516 0 0
2008 27,768 0 20713 6,060 6,511 0 10
2009 28,074 0 21,718 6,361 6,513 0
2010 28,384 0 21,723 6,666 6,514 0 0|
2011 28,697 Ol 218723 6,975 6,515 0 0|
2012 29,014 0 21,723 7,291 6,516 0 0
2013 29,334 0 21,723 7,611 6,516 0 0
2014 29,657 0 21,723 7,934 6,516 0 0
2015 29,985 0 21,723 8,262 6,516 0 0
2016 30,315 0 21,723 8,592 6,516 0 0
2017 30,650 0 21,723 8,927 6,516 0 0
Totals | 601,482} 210,000} 477,936, 333,568) 143,345 0 540
1998-2007 217,234 254,179 65,156
2008-2017 217,218 74,678 65,147
20-Year Project: 434,453
2 of 6
328,857 130,303
8/8/97
TABLE11.XLS
TABLE 11
Summary Data - Six Options
Option 2B
MSW Total {Total MSW| Ash Available
Tons/Year Incinerated| Shipped | Landfilled Incin. Cap.
1996 23,880 0 22,285 1,595 6,684 0 0
1997 24,314 0 21,198 3,116 6,358 0 525
1998 24,738 10,500 21,723 13,515 6,516 0 0
1999 25,158] 10,500] 21,723 13,935 6,516 0 0
2000 25,435 10,500 21,723 14,212 6,516 0 0
2001 25,716 10,500 21,723 14,493 6,516 0 0
2002 25,999 10,500 21723 14,776 6,516 0 0
2003 26,287 10,500 21,723 15,064 6,516 0 0
2004 26,576 10,500 21,723 15,353 6,516 0 0
2005 26,869 10,500 215723 15,646 6,516 0 0
2006 27,166 10,500 21,723 15,943 6,516 0 0
2007 27,465 10,500 21,723 16,242 6,516 0 0
2008 27,768 10,500 21,723 16,545 6,516 0 0
2009 28,074 10,500 21,723 16,851 6,516 0 0
2010 28,384 10,500 21,723 17,161 6,516 0 0
2011 28,697 10,500 21,723 17,474 6,516 0 0
2012 29,014 10,500 21,723 17,791 6,516 0 0
2013 29,334 10,500 21,723 18,111 6,516 0 0
2014 29,657 10,500 21,723 18,434 6,516 0 0
2015 29,985 10,500 21,723 18,762 6,516 0 0
2016 30,315 10,500 21,723 19,092 6,516 0 0
2017 30,650 10,500 21,723 19,427 6,516 0 0
Totals 601,482} 210,000) 477,952) _333,538| 143,354 0 525
1998-2007 217,234) 149,179 65,156
2008-2017 217,234 179,649 65,156 0 0
20-Year Project:| _434,469| _328,827| 130,312
3 of 6
8/8/97
TABLE 11
Summary Data - Six Options
Option 3A
MSW Waste Total [Total MSW Total Ash Ash _ | Available
Year | Tons/Year | Excavated|Incinerated| Shipped Ash Shipped |Landfilled| Incin. Cap.
1996 23,880 0 22,285 1,595 6,684 0 6,684 0
1997 24,314 0 21,198 3,116 6,358 0 6,358 525
1998 24,738| 21,000 36,809 8,929| 11,040 3,740 7,300 0
1999 25,158} 21,000 36,809 9,349| 11,040 3,740 7,300 0
2000 25,435 21,000 36,809 9,626} 11,040 3,740 7,300 0
2001 25,716} 21,000 36,809 9,907} 11,040 3,740 7,300 0
2002 25,999 21,000 36,809 10,190} 11,040 3,740 7,300 0
2003 26,287 21,000 36,809 10,478; 11,040 3,740 7,300 0
2004 26,576, 21,000} 36,809} —-10,767| 11,040] 3,740] ~—-7,300 0
2005 26,869| 21,000) 36,809) 11,060) 11,040/ 3,740] 7,300 0
| 2006 27,166) 21,000] 36,809) + ~—-:11,357/ 11,040] + 3,740| ~—«7,300 0
2007 27,465 21,000 36,809 11,656} 11,040 3,740 7,300 0
2008 27,168 0| 26,640 1,128| 7,990 690] 7,300 9,041
2009 28,074 0| 26,927 1,147| 8,076 716| 7,300 8,735
2010 28,384 0 27,216 1,168 8,163 863 7,300 8,425
2011 28,697 0 27,508 1,189 8,251 951 7,300 8,112
2012 29,014 0 27,803 1,210 8,339 1,039 7,300 7,795
2013 29,334 0 28,102 1,232 8,429 1,129 7,300 7,475
2014 29,657 0 28,404 1,253 8,519 1,219 7,300 7,152
2015 29,985 0 28,709 1,275 8,611 1,311 7,300 6,824
2016 30,315 0 29,018 1,297 8,704 1,404 7,300 6,494
2017 30,650 0 29,330 1,320 8,797 1,497 7,300 6,159
Totals | 601,482} 210,000} 691,232 120,251| 207,327| 48,285] 159,042| 76,737
1998-2007 368,091} 103,319] 110,405} 37,405 0
2008-2017 279,657 12,221} 83,880) 10,880 76,211
20-Year Project:| 647,749 115,540) 194,285
TABLE11.XLS 4 of 6
8/8/97
TABLE 11
Summary Data - Six Options
Option 3B
| MSW Waste Total [Total MSW| Total Ash Ash _ | Available
Year | Tons/Year|Excavated|Incinerated| Shipped Ash Shipped |Landfilled| Incin. Cap.
1996 23,880 0 22,285 1,595 6,684 0 6,684 0
1997 24,314 0 21,198 3,116 6,358 0 6,358 525
1998 24,738) 10,500 33,439 1,799| 10,030 2,730 7,300 3,370
1999 25,158} 10,500 33,701 1,957| 10,108 2,808 7,300 3,108
2000 25,435| 10,500 33,867 2,068} 10,158 2,858 7,300 2,942
2001 25,716} 10,500 34,036 2,180} 10,209 2,909 7,300 2,773
2002 25,999 10,500 34,206 2,293) 10,260 2,960 7,300 2,603
2003 26,287} 10,500 34,379 2,408| 10,312 3,012 7,300 2,430
2004 26,576; 10,500] 34,552 2,524] 10,364] 3,064] 7,300 2,257
2005 26,869 10,500 34,728 2,641 10,416 3,116 7,300 2,081
2006 27,166 10,500 34,905 2,760; 10,469 3,169 7,300 1,904
2007 27,465 10,500 35,076 2,890} 10,521 See. 7,300 1,733
2008 27,768 10,500 35,231 3,763} 10,567 3,267 7,300 1,578
2009 28,074 10,500 35,386 3,189} 10,614 3,314 7,300 1,423
2010 28,384 10,500 35,540 3,344} 10,660 3,360 7,300 1,269
2011 28,697 10,500 35,689 3,509} 10,704 3,404 7,300 1,120
2012 29,014 10,500 35,827 3,686, 10,746 3,446 7,300 982
2013 29,334| 10,500 35,957 3,877| 10,785 3,485 7,300 852
2014 29,657, 10,500 36,080 4,078] 10,822 3,522 7,300 729
2015 29,985| 10,500 36,193 4,291] 10,856 3,556 7,300 616
2016 30,315} 10,500 36,297 4,518] 10,887 3,587 7,300 512
2017 30,650} 10,500 36,387 4,762} 10,914 3,614 7,300 422
Totals 601,482} 210,000; 744,960 67,248| 223,443) 64,401) 159,042 35,228
1998-2007 342,890 23,519} 102,846] 29,846 25,200
2008-2017 358,588 39,018} 107,555| 34,555 9,502
20-Year Project:| 701,477 62,537} 210,401
TABLE11.XLS
5 of 6
8/8/97
TABLE11.XLS
TABLE 11
Summary Data - Six Options
Option 3B.1
MSW Waste Total /Total MSW) Total Ash Available
Year | Tons/Year | Excavated | Incinerated| Shipped Ash Shipped | Incin. Cap.
1996 23,880 0 22,285 1,595 6,684 0 0
1997 24,314 0 21,198 3,116 6,358 0 525
1998 24,738 12,071 36,809 0 11,041 3,741 0
1999 25,158 11,652 36,809 0 11,041 3,741 0
2000 25,435 11,374 36,809 0 11,041 3,741 0
2001 25,716 11,093 36,809 0 11,041 3,741 0
2002 25,999 10,810 36,809 0 11,041 3,741 0
2003 26,287 10,523 36,809 0 11,041 3,741 0
2004 26,576 10,233 36,809 0 11,041 3,741 0
2005 26,869 10,173 36,809 233 11,041 3,741 0
2006 27,166 10,173 36,809 529 11,041 3,741 0
2007 27,465 10,173 36,809 829 11,041 3,741 0
2008 27,768 10,173 36,809 1,132 11,041 3,741 0
2009 28,074 10,173 36,809 1,438 11,041 3,741 0
2010 28,384 10,173 36,809 1,748 11,041 3,741 0
2011 28,697 10,173 36,809 2,061 11,041 3,741 0
2012 29,014 10,173 36,809 2377 11,041 3,741 0
2013 29,334 10,173 36,809 2,697 11,041 3,741 0
2014 29,657 10,173 36,809 3,021 11,041 3,741 0
2015 29,985 10,173 36,809 3,348 11,041 3,741 0
2016 30,315 10,173 36,809 3,679 11,041 3,741 0
2017 30,650 10,173 36,809 4,013 11,041 3,741 0
Totals 601,482| 210,000! 779,666 31,816| 233,853) 74,810 525
1998-2007 108,273 368,091 1,591] 110,405} 37,405 0
2008-2017 101,727| 368,091 25,514} 110,405! 37,405 0
20-Year Project: 210,000 736,183
6 of 6
220,810
8/8/97
TABLE 12 .
SURVEY OF ANNUAL HEATING OIL USE BY FACILITIES WITHIN ONE MILE OF CHANNEL LANDFILL
MARCH 1997
ANNUAL HEATING
BUSINESS/FACILITY NAME ADDRESS FUEL USE COMMENTS
5 i 5 Prison: 107,000 gallons| i : . i Lemon Creek Correctional Facility Davis Ave. ACI Laundry: 51,900 gallons Laundry is equipped with steam boiler
Building uses propane for heating, bakery 5225 Commercial Dr. 73,000 gallons (propane) ovens. and hot water heaters
2 boiler systems - need steam @ 45 psi. Grain
Alaskan Brewing Co. 5429 Shaune Dr. 104,000 - 114,000 gallons|drier operates @1725 deg F and uses 13 gal/hr.
6 - 100,000 Btu/hr space heaters
9 Reliable delivers; Seattle gets invoice. They Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Juneau 5452 Shaune Dr 5,000 gallons estimated have called Reliable for info
Northern Sales 5,000 gallons|Based on 1996 oil deliveries
Northern Lights Development/D&L Rentals] =~=~=~~—~—Sd| ~—sCiEstimatediessthat5,000g) ss —(“‘“‘C™SC™COCOCC*d
Food Services of America | ~~~—~—sSY Estimated less that 5,000 g|Just moved into building in November 1996
Primarily have electric heat, but it's not possible
CBJ Public Works CBJ PW Shops 700 gallons|to separate out electric use for heat versus
water utility telemetry and other uses. Oil use is
for garage bays. New warehouse is cold.
ADOT/PF SE Region | Glacier Hwy _| 43,000 gallons|Average use during 1995 and 1996
Lg een i Facility also has interruptable electrical boiler. Dzantik'l Heeni Middle School 21,600 gallons School used 14,400 gallons since 6/96.
Ket 6525 Glacier Hwy re oo heat exchangers mounted on roof; no
Akin-Murray to conduct energy analysis for
Proposed CBJ Police Station
proposed bldg and recommend heating system.
No work done yet because building design
halted while site wetland issues are being
resolved. Would like to consider use of radiant
floor heating.
Estimated less that 5,000 g/Checked 3/28. Haven't looked yet; call Fri 4/4
5,600 gallons|1996 oil deliveries
Construction Machine!
Lewis Motors
Grant's Plaza 5165 Glacier Hwy Estimated less that 5,000 g|Checking with Ike's. No results on 3/28
Juneau Pioneer's Home 4675 Glacier Hwy 60,350 gallons|1996 use
First Baptist Church 4625 Glacier H Estimated less that 5,000 g|/Checking with Ike's. No results on 3/28
TABLE12.XLS
5295 Glacier Hwy
5245 Glacier H
8/7197
TABLE 13
PRO FORMA
ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION AND SALE
TABLE1346.XLS
YEARS 4|_ B 4 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Annual Gross kWh _ a - 14,016,000 14,016,000 14,016,000) 14,016,000} 14,016,000] 14,016,000! 14,016,000| 14,016,000) 14,016,000! 14,016,000) 14,016,000| 14,016,000! 14,016,000! 14,016,000) 14,016,000! 14,016,000} 14,016,000) 14,016,000! 14,016,000| 14,016,000
Annual Net kWh @60% | 11,212,800 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800| 11,212,800| 11,212,800| 11,212,800| 11,212,800 11,212,800] 11,212,800] 11,212,800| 11,212,800
RateA Avoided Cost | _$0.0347 | Not Escalated
Rate B Avoided Cost _$0.0898) |Escalated at 1.35% per year -
Rate C Breakeven Cost | _‘$0.0347|Escalated at 1.35% per year. _
Rate D Positive C.F. $0.0550 |Escalated at 1.35% per year.
Ann Gross Revenues
RateA;EscO%/yr | $389,084 | $389,084 $389,084 | $389,084 $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084| $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084 | $389,084/| $389,084
_@ Rate B} Esc 1.35%/yr_ | _ $1,006,909 | $1,020,503 | $1,034,280 | $1,048,242 | $1,062,394 | $1,076,736 | $1,091,272 | $1,106,004 | $1,120,935 | $1,136,068 | $1,151,405 | $1,166,949 | $1,182,702 | $1,198,669 | $1,214,851 | $1,231,251 | $1,247,873 | $1,264,719 | $1,281,793 | $1,299,097
Rate C, Esc 1.35%/yr _ $389,084) $394,337 $399,660} $405,056 $410,524| $416,066) $421,683) $427,376) $433,145! $438,993) $444,919! $450,926] $457,013] $463,183| $469,436] $475,773) $482,196] $488,706} $495,303! $501,990
| @Rate D, Esc 1.35%/yr $616,704) $625,030 $633,467| $642,019 $650,686} $659,471 $668,374) $677,397| $686,541 $695,810) $705,203) $714,723) $724,372) $734,151 $744,062! $754,107| $764,288) $774,605} $785,063! $795,661
AnnO&M Cost Esc 4% - $112,128 | $116,613 $121,278 | $126,129 $131,174 | $136,421 $141,878 | $147,553 | $153,455 | $159,593 | $165,977 | $172,616 | $179,521 $186,701 $194,169 | $201,936 | $210,014 | $218,414 | $227,151 $236,237
@ 10 mills/kWh
Ann Net Revenues, Rate A $276,956 | $272,471 $267,807 | $262,955 $257,910 | $252,663 | $247,206 | $241,531 $235,629 | $229,491 $223,107 | $216,468 | $209,564 | $202,383 | $194,915 | $187,148 | $179,071 $170,670 | $161,933 | $152,847
Ann Net Revenues, RateB | _ $894,781 $903,890 $913,002 | $922,114 $931,220 | $940,315 | $949,394 | $958,451 $967,480 | $976,475 | $985,428 | $994,333 | $1,003,182 | $1,011,967 | $1,020,681 | $1,029,315 | $1,037,860 | $1,046,305 | $1,054,642 | $1,062,861
Ann Net Revenues, Rate C _ $276,956] $277,724 $278,383) $278,927 $279,350) $279,645| $279,805| $279,823! $279,690| $279,400! $278,942! $278,310) $277,492| $276,481 $275,266! $273,837| $272,182} $270,291 $268,152! $265,753
Ann Net Revenues, Rate D _ $504,576) $508,416 $512,190} $515,890 $519,513) $523,050) $526,496) $529,844! $533,087| $536,217) $539,226) $542,108) $544,852) $547,450| $549,893) $552,171 $554,274) $556,191 $557,912) $559,424)
Capital Cost to Channel__| $2,600,000 -
Cash Flow, Rate A ($2,600,000)! $276,956 | $272,471 $267,807 | $262,955 $257,910 | $252,663 | $247,206 | $241,531 $235,629 | $229,491 $223,107 | $216,468 | $209,564 / $202,383 | $194,915 | $137,148 | $179,071 $170,670 | $161,933 | $1 52,847 |
Internal Rate of Return,
Cash on Cash, Rate A, % 6%
Cash Flow, Rate B ($2,600,000)| $894,781 $903,890 $913,002 | $922,114 $931,220 | $940,315 | $949,394 | $958,451 $967,480 | $976,475 | $985,428 | $994,333 | $1,003,182 | $1,011,967 | $1,020,681 | $1,029,315 | $1,037,860 | $1,046,305 | $1,054,642 | $1,062,861
Internal Rate of Return, - :
Cash on Cash, Rate B, % 35%
8/7/97
YEAR
Annual Heat Reqmt
of Lemon Creek Area - MMI
Annual Oil Consumption,
Gallons #2 Heating Oil
Btu/gal Heating Oil
‘Cost/gal of #2 Heating
Oil - Escalated at 1.35%lyear
‘Annual Cost of Oil
Assume 80% of Oil is
Replaced by Waste Heat
MMBtu
Annual Cost of 90% of Oil
Annual Revenue to
Channel
O & M Cost to Channel
Capital Cost
Net to Channel
Cash Flow
Cash on Cash
Internal Rate of Return, %
TBL1346.XLS
Btu
$2,492,000
($2,492,000)
4% Reference Table 12 - Potential Heat Sales O)
32,028
300,000
136,000
$0.79
0.75
$237,398
28,825
$189,919
$189,919
$24,000
$165,919
$165,919
32,028)
300,000)
136,000)
$0.80 |
:
0.760125] 0.770386688
| $240,603 |
28,825)
|
$192,483 |
$192,483 |
$24,000 |
$168,483 |
$168,483 |
the Lemon Creek Area
32,028
300,000/
136,000)
$0.81 |
T 1
$243,851
4 28,825
+
$195,081 |
$195,081 |
$24,000 |
$171,081 |
$171,081 |
4
32,028)
300,000
136,000)
4 $0.82 |
|
5.
32,028)
300,000,
136,000)
$0.83 |
0.780786908| 0.791327531,
$247,143 |
28,825)
$197,715 |
$197,715 |
$24,000 |
$173,715 |
$173,715 4
1 1
$250,480 |
28,825
$200,384 |
$200,384 |
$24,000 |
$176,384 |
$176,384 |
6
32,028
300,000
136,000
$0.85
$253,861
28,825
$203,089
$203,089
$24,000
$179,089
$179,089
32,028
300,000
136,000
$0.86
$257,288
28,825
$205,831
$205,831
$24,000
$181,831
$181,831
TABLE 14
PRO FORMA
HEAT GENERATION AND SALE LEMON CREEK AREA
8
32,028,
300,000)
136,000)
$0.87 |
$260,762 |
28,825)
$208,609 |
~ $208,609 |
$24,000 |
$184,609 |
$184,609 |
9
32,028
300,000
136,000
$0.88
$264,282
28,825
$211,426
$211,426
$24,000
$187,426
$187,426
10
32,028
300,000
136,000
$0.89
$267,850
28,825
$214,280
$214,280
$24,000
$190,280
$190,280
11]
32,028)
300,000
136,000)
$0.90 |
$271,466
| t 28,825
iE
$217,173
$217,173
$24,000
$193,173
$193,173
12
32,028
300,000
136,000
$0.92
$275,131
28,825
$220,105
$220,105
$24,000
$196,105
$196, 105
32,028
$223,076
$223,076
$24,000
$199,076
$199,076
= $286,425
26,625] _ 28,825
| $226,088 | $229,140
$226,088 | $229,140
$24,000 | $24,000
$202,088 | $205,140
$202,088 | $205,140
$290,291
26,825
$232,233
$232,233
$24,000
$208,233
$208,233
$294,210
28,825
|
$235,368 |
$235,368 |
$24,000 |
$211,368 |
$211,368 |
$298,182
28,825
$238,546
$238,546
$24,000
$214,546
$214,546
28,825
$241,766
$241,766
$24,000
$217,766
$217,766
$306,287
28,825
$245,030
$245,030
$24,000
$221,030
$221,030
9/8/97
Source
TABLE 15
PRO FORMA
LANDFILL OPERATIONS AND LAND COMMERCIALIZATION
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Revenue per Ton Waste Received $125 ‘Channel Cash Flow NPV
Base Line Operating Expense per Year (2 Incinerators) $2,200,000 Channel Null Option $11,355,510 $5,596,443
Base Line Operating Expense per Year (3 Incinerators) $2,710,000 Butler/Chang Null-5 years to Closure ($4,017,005) ($1,085,276)
Cost per Ton Waste Excavated $10 Best Est (Option 2A-2 Incin. 10 yr Reclamation $3,833,121 ($761,723)
|Cost per Ton Waste Landfilled $20 Best Est Option 2B-2 Incin. 20 yr Reclamation $3,835,614
Cost per Ton Waste Shipped $85 Channel Option 3A-3 Incin. 10 yr Reclamation ($30,629)
Cost per Ton Ash Landfilled $5 Best Est Option 38-3 Incin. 20 yr Reclamation $2,562,514 Cost per Ton Ash Shipped $85 ‘Channel Option 3.B.1-(Option 3.B optimized) $5,231,703
|Sale Price per Reclaimed Acre $200,000 ‘Channel Option 3.B.1. with 3rd Incin 10 yr Commi Finance $1,324,286
|Capping Cost per Acre Dah! Needs to be estimated more recisely before selecting an O| ption ( see narrative) Option 3.8.1 with 3rd Incin 20 yr Tax Exempt Finance ($142,435)
Excavated Waste per Acre, Tons/Acre 7,000 Hansen Option 3.B.1 with 3rd Incin 10 yr Tax Exempt Finance $2,653,531 ($1,496,473),
Increments of Landfill for Sale, Acres
Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator Butler/Chang
TABLE1S.XLS
1oft
8/8/97
TABLE 15
PRO FORMA
LANDFILL OPERATIONS AND LAND COMMERCIALIZATION
{ease Ot amet A | TPAD TTT [esa TTT TE Oe TTT Ta) AUTOMOUNT MUSOU ITODT NFO Ti cS] OTN et UUM O [SELIM SUC HUSVnVnd LTT TV TUT cal | VHD Naan MUGGING Te eae) ea
NULL OPTION-CLOSURE IN 20 YEARS
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20 Yr TOTAL
Waste Received, TPY 4 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435 25,716 25,999 26,287 26,576 26,869 27,166 27,465 27,768 28,074 28,384 28,697 29,014 29,334 29,657 29,985 30,315, 30,650 601,482
Waste Excavated TPY 0 ) 0 oO 0 0 0 oO 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0} 0 0 0 0} 0}
Total Waste Incinerated TPY 22,285 21,198 21,331 21,437 21,497 21,544 21,578 21,610 21,642 21,672 - 21,689 21,703 21,709 21,713 21,718 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 476,385)
|Waste Landfilled TPY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oO 0 0 0 oO oO 0 0 oO 0 0 0 0 0 oO
|Waste Shipped TPY 1,595 3,116 3,407 3,721 3,938 41472 4,421 4677 4,934 5,197 5,477 5,763 6,060 6,361 6,666 6,975 7,291 7.611 7,934 8,262 8,592 8.927 125,097
Ash Landfilled TPY 6,684 6,358 6,398 6,430 6,448 6,462 6,472 6,482 6,491 6,500 6,505 6,509 6511 6,513 6,514 6,515 6,516 6,516 6,516 6,516 6,516 6,516 142,887
Ash Shipped TPY oO 0 oO oO oO 0 0 0 oO oO 0 0 oO 0 0 0 0 oO O 0 0 0
[Remaining Incinerator Capacity TPY : 525 392 287 227 180 145 114 81 51 35 21 15 10 6 1 oO O 0 oO 0 O 2,092
Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | $3,092,222 | $3.144,695 | _ $3,179,370 | $3,214,515 | $3,249,932 | $3,285,828 | $3,322,010 | $3,358,653 | $3,395,700 | $3,433,156 | $3,471,025 | $3,509,311 | $3,548,020 | $3,587,156 | $3,626,724 | $3,666,728 | $3,707,173 | $3,748,064 | $3,789,407 | $3,831,205 | $75,185,244
|Cost of Waste Excavated (increase over 1996) $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 sO $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0
|Cost of Waste Landfilled (increase over 1996) so $0 $0 $o $0 so $o so so $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 so so $0 $0 so $0 so $0
Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996) _ $0 $129,307 $153,998 $180,681 $199,169 $219,062 | $240,242 | $261,949 | $283,828 | $306,182 | $329,970 | $354,257 $379,493 | $405,136 | $431,063 | $457,275 | $484,142 | $511,345 | $538,848 | $566,654 | $594,767 $623,189 | $7,650,557
Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 ($1,630) ($1,431) ($1,272) ($1,182) ($1,111) ($1,060) ($1,012) ($964) ($919) ($894) ($874) ($864) ($858) ($851) ($844) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($20,823)
Cost_of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 sO $0
Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0. $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0
Closure Cost of Landfill $0 $0 $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $o so $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
[Capital Cost of 3rd incinerator $0 $0 so $0 so $0 $o so $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $7,800,000 | _ $7,800,000
Base Line Expense $2,200,000 |_ $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 |_ $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $48,400,000
Net Cash Flow $785,049 $711,622 $739,655 $765,286 $781,383 $796,564 $810,750 $824,892 $39,147 $853,390 $866,624 $879,772 $892,396 $905,033 $917,808 $930,725 $943,424 $956,226 $969,168 $982,253 $995,483 | ($6,791,142)| $11,355,510
Net Present Value @12% $5,596,443 so
NULL OPTION- CLOSURE IN 5 YEARS
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Waste Received, TPY 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435 123,525,
Waste Excavated TPY 0 0 0 oO oO 0
Total Waste Incinerated TPY 22,285 21,198 21,331 21,437 21,497 107,748
|Waste Landfilled TPY oO oO 0 oO oO oO
|Waste Shipped TPY 1,595 3,116 3,407 3,721 3,938 15,777
Ash Landfilled TPY 6,684 6,358 6,398 6,430 6,448 32,318
Ash Shipped TPY 0 i} O O oO 0
Remaining Incinerator Capacity TPY : 525 392 287 227
Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | $3,092,222 | $3,144,695 | $3,179,370 | $15,440,635
Cost of Waste Excavated (increase over 1996) $0 $o $0 $0 $0 so
Cost of Waste Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 $o $0 so $0 $0
Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996) so $129,307 $153,998 $180,681 $199,169 $663,154
Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 ($1,630) ($1,431) ($1,272) ($1,182) ($5,515)
Cost _of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
‘Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 a
Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0
Closure Cost of Landfill $0 $0 $0 $0 | $7,800,000 | _ $7,800,000
Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0
Base Line Expense $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | _ $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $11,000,000
Net Cash Flow $785,049 $711,622 $739,655 $765,286 | ($7,018,617)| ($4,017,005) Lt
iNet Present Value @12% ($1,085,276) so bs
TABLE15.XLS 20f6 8/8/97
TABLE 15
PRO FORMA
LANDFILL OPERATIONS AND LAND COMMERCIALIZATION
OPTION #2A-10YEAR
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Waste Received, TPY al 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435 25.716 25,999 26,287 26,576 26,869 27,166 27,465 27,768 28,074 28,384 28,697| 29,014 29,334 29,657 29,985 30,315 30,650 601,482| Waste Excavated TPY oO 0 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 oO o 0 oO Ol 0 o o Cy} 0 210,000) Total Waste incinerated TPY 22.285 21,198 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,713 21,718 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 477,936] Total Waste Landfilled 0 0 oO 0 o 0 o 0) oO o 0 o 0 0 0 oO o oO oO oO oO o o Waste Shipped TPY 1,595 3,116 24,015 24,435 24,712 24,993 25,276 25,564 25,853 26,146 26,443 26,742 6,060 6,361 6,666 6,975 7,291 7.611 7,934 8,262 8,592 8,927 333,568 Ash Landfilled TPY 6,684 6,358 6.516 6516 6516 6,516 6516 6.516 6.516 6.516 6516 6.516 6511 6513 6.514 6515 6.516 6516 6.516 6.516 6.516) 6.516 143,345] Ash Shipped TPY 0 o o 0 oO 0 o [} 0} 0 0 0 o Ql 0 oO 0 0 0 0 0 o o| Remaining Incinerator Capacity TPY oO 525 oO o o 0 o o 0 o oO 0 10 5 o 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 540 Land Reclaimed 6 6 6 6 6 Cumulative Land Reclaimed 6 12 18 26 30 Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | $3,092,222 | $3,144,695 | $3,179,370 |_$3,214,515 | $3,249,932 | $3,285,828 | $3,322,010 | $3,358,653 | $3,395,700 | $3,433,156 | $3,471,025 | $3,509,311 | $3,548,020 | $3,587,156 | $3,626,724 | $3,666,728 | $3,707,173 | $3,748,064 | $3,789,407 | $3,831,205 | $75,185,244 |Cost of Waste Excavated (increase over 1996) $o $0| _s210,000| $210,000 | _ $210,000 $210,000 | _ $210,000 | _$210,000| _$210,000| $210,000 | _ $210,000] _ $210,000 $o so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | _ $2,100,000 Cost of Waste Landfilled (increase over 1996) $o so $o so $o so $o $o $o so so $o $0 $o $o $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 | _$129,307 | $1,905,681 | $1,941,363 | $1,964,941 | _ $1,988,840 | $2,012,924 | $2,037,333 | $2,061,937 | $2,086,854 | $2,112,046 | $2,137,516 | $379,493 | $405,136 | $431,063 | $457,275 | $4a4,142| $511,345 | $538,848 | $566,654| $594,767| $623,189 | $25,370,654
|Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996) so ($1,630) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($864) ($858) ($851) ($844) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($18,531) ICost_of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) $o so $o $0 $0 so so $o $0 so $o so so $o $o so so so $0 $0 so $0 so Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $0 | _ $6,000,000 Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land $0 $o $0 | $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $0 | _ $1,500,000 Closure Cost of Landfill $0 so $0 so $0 $0 $0 so $0 so $0 $o $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 so Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator $0 so $0 so $0 $0 so $0 so so so so $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 so Base Line Expense $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | _ $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | ‘$2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | ‘$2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,009 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $48,400,000 Net Cash Flow $785,049 | _$711,622 | ($1.222,616)| _($305,825)|_($1,194,729)| __($283,482)| ($1.172.149)| _($260,662)| ($1,149,084)| _($237,358)| ($1,125,503)|_($213,517)| __ $892,396 | $905,033 | $917,808 | $930,725 | $943,424 | $956,226 | s9e9,168| $982,253| $995,483 | $1,008,858 | $3,833,121 Net Present Value @12% ($761,723) (80)
OPTION #2B-20YEAR
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 |
Waste Received, TPY 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435 25,716 25,999 26,287 26.576 26,869 27.166 27.465 27.768 28,074 28,384 28,697 29.0°4 29.334 29.657 29,985 30,315 30,650 601,482 Waste Excavated TPY 10,500 10,500 10,500) 40,500 10,500) 10,500} __10,500 10,500) 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,5¢0 10,500 10,500) 10,500 10,500 10,500) 210,000 Total Waste incinerated TPY 22,285 21,198 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21.723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 21,723 477,943} Total Waste Landfilled o o o 0 oO o 0 0 ko o o 0 0 o oO 0 0 0 oO o CY} oO o Waste Shipped TPY 1,595 3.116 13,515 13,935 14,212 14,493 14,76 15,064 15,353 15,646 15,943 16,242 16,545. 16,851 17,161 17,474 17,791 18,111 18,434 18,762 19,092 19,427 333,538 Ash Landfilled TPY 6,684 6,358 6.516 6.516 6.516 6,516 6,516 6,516 6,516 6516 6,516 6.516 6,516 6,516 6.516 6.516 6516 6,516 6.516 6.516 6,516 6.516 143,354) [Ash Shipped TPY 0 0 o 0 oO 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 oO 0 o Remaining Incinerator Capacity TPY 0 525, oO 0 0 oO oO oO 0 0 0 oO oO 0 0 oO 0 oO ) oO } 0 525] Land Reclaimed 0 0 o o oO 6 0 ° Ol 6 0 0 o 6 o 0 Q 6 O o o G 30) Cumulative Land Reclaimed 6 . 12 18 24 30 Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | $3,092,222 | $3,144,695 | $3,179,370 |_ $3,214,515 | $3,249,932 | $3,285,828 | $3,322,010 | $3,358,653 | $3,395,700 | $3,433,156 | $3,471,025 | $3,509,311 | $3,548,020 | $3,587,156 | $3,626,72« | $3,666,728 | $3,707,173 | $3,748,064 | $3,789,407 | $3,831,205 | $75,185,244 Cost of Waste Excavated (increase over 1996) so $0 | _$105,000 | __$105,000 | _$105.000 | _ $105,000 | _ $105,000 | _ $105,000 | _ $105,000 | _ $105,000 | $105,000 | $105,000 | $105,000 | $105.000| $105,000 | $105,000 | $105,000 | $105,000 | $105,000 | _$105,000| _$105,000| $105,000 _ $2,100,000 Cost of Waste Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 $o so $0 $o $o so $o so $0 $0 $0 $o $0 so $0 x $0 $o so so so so Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996) SO | __ $129,307 | _ $1,013,181 | $1,048,863 | $1,072,441 | _$1,096,340 | $1,120,424 | $1,144,833 | $1,169,437 | $1,194,354 | $1,219,546 | $1,245,016 | $1,270,767 | $1,296,802 | $1,323,124 | $1,349,736 | $1,376,642 | $1,403,845 | $1,431,348 | $1,459,154 | $1,487,267 | $1,515,689 | $25,368,116 [Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 ($1,630) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) _($843) ($842) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($843) ($18,487) Cost_of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 __ $0 ___ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $C $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 [Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 so $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 so $0 | $1,200,000 so $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 | _ $6,000,000 Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 | _ $300,000 so $0 $0 | _ $300,000 $0 $0 $c | $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 | _ $1,500,000 Closure Cost of Landfill $0 $o so $o $0 $o so so $o so $0 $0 $0 $o $o so sc so $0 so so $0 so [Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator $0 so $0 $0 $o so so so so so so $o so so $o so sc so $0 $o $o so so Base Line Expense $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | _ $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | ‘$2,200,000 | $2,200,00c | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | $2,200,000 | _ $2,200,000 | $48,400,000 INet Cash Flow $785,049 | _$711,622 | _($225,116)|_($208,325)|_($197,229)|_ $714,018 |_($174,649)|_($163,162)|_($151,584)|__ $760,142 | _($128,003)|_($116,017)|_($103,899)| $808,352 | __($79,261)| __($66,737)| __($54,076)| $858,726 | ($28,332)| __($15,247)| __($2,017)|_ $911,358 | $3,835,614 Net Present Value @12% $1,494,326 ($0)
TABLE1S.XLS 306 8/8/97
TABLE 15
PRO FORMA
LANDFILL OPERATIONS AND LAND COMMERCIALIZATION
OPTION #3A-10YEAR
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Waste Received, TPY 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435
Waste Excavated TPY 0 0 21,000 21,000 21,000
Total Waste Incinerated TPY 22,285 21,198 36,809, 36,809 36,809
Total Waste Landfilled 0 0 o oO oO
Waste Shipped TPY 1,595 3,116 8,929) 9,349 9,626)
6,684 6.358 11,040 11,040 11,040
6,684 6,358 7,300) 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 f . F . . . . 0 0 3,740 3,740 3,740 3,740 3,740 3,740) 3,740 3,740 3,740, 3,740 690) 776 863 951 1,039 1,129) 1,219 1,311 1,404 1,497) 48,285) Incinerator Capacity TPY 0 §25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,041 8,735) 8,425 8,112 7,795) 7,475 7,152 6,824 6,494 6,159) 76,737) oO 0 o 6 0 6 oO 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 oO 0 0 0 0 0 30)
6 12 18 24. 30:
Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | $3,092,222 | $3,144,695 | $3,179,370 |_ $3,214,515 | $3,249,932 | $3,285,828 | $3,322,010 | $3,358,653 | $3,395,700 | $3,433,156 | $3,471,025 | $3,509,311 | $3,548,020 | $3,587,156 | $3,626,724 | $3,666,728 | $3,707,173 | $3,748,064 | $3,789,407 | $3,831,205 | $75,185,244
Cost of Waste Excavated (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $210,000 $210,000 $210,000 $210,000 | __ $210,000 | _ $210,000 | _$210,000 | __ $210,000 | $210,000 $210,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 | $2,100,000 |Cost of Waste Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 so $0 so $0 $0 so so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 92 so $0 $o $0 $0 $0 |Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $129,307 $623,371 $659,053 $682,631 $706,530 | __ $730,614 | _ $755,023 | __ $779,627 | $804,544 | $829,736 | $855,206 ($39,671)|__($38,041)|__($36,279)|__ ($34,498)| ($32,695) ($30,875)|__($29,034)|_($27.173)|_ ($25,291) ($23,388)! $7,238,697 Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 ($1,630) $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $59,955 Cost_of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $317,940 $317,940 $317,940 $317,940 | _$317.940 | __ $317,940 | $317,940 | $317,940 | $317,940 | $317,940 $58,681 $66,001 $73,367 $80,815 $88,345 $95,958 | $103,655 | $111,437 | $119,304 $127,259 | __ $4,104,220 Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $o $0 | $1,200,000 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0. so $0 $0 $0 $0 | _ $6,000,000 Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land so $o $0 $300,000 so $300,000 $0 | $300,000 $0 | $300,000 $0 | $300,000 $o $0 $0 $0 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $1,500,000 Closure Cost of Landfill $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 so ___$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0. sO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator $6,593,000 _ $6,593,000 Base Line Expense $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | _$2,710,000 | _ $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $59,620,000 Net Cash Flow $275,049 $201,622 | ($7,365,168)| $144,623 | ($744,281) $166,966 | _($721.701)| $189,786 | ($698,636)| $213,090 | ($675,055)| $236,931 $738,936 | $768,273 |_ $797,853 | $827,760 | $857,996 | $888,566 | $919,473 | $950,721 $982,314 | $1,014,255 ($30,629), Net Present Value @12% ($4,420,369) $0
OPTION #3B-20YEAR
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Waste Received, TPY 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435 25,716 25,999 26,287 26,576 26,869 27,166 27,465 27,768 28,074 28,384 28,697 29,014 29,334 29,657 29,985 30,315, 30,650 601,482) Waste Excavated TPY 0 oO 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500, 10,500 10,500 10,509 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 210,000) Total Waste Incinerated TPY 22,285 21,198 33,439 33,701 33,867 34,036 34,206 34,379 34,552 34,728 34,905, 35,076 35,231 35,386 35,540 35,689 35,827. 35,957 36,080 36,193 36,297. 36,387 744,960} Total Waste Landfilled 0 oO 0 oO oO oO oO oO O oO oO oO oO oO oO oO 2 oO 0 ) 0 0 Waste Shipped TPY 1,595 3,116 1,799) 1,957 2,068 2,180 2,293 2,408 2,524 2.641 2,760 2,890, 3,763 3,189 3,344 3,509 3,683, 3,877 4,078 4,291 4,518 4,762 67,248) Total Ash TPY. 6,684 6,358 10,030 10,108 10,158 10,209 10,260 10,312 10,364 10,416 10,469 10,521 10,567 10,614 10,660 10,704 10,743 10,785 10,822 10,856 10,887 10,914 223,443 Ash Landfilled TPY 6,684 6,358 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300, 7,300) 7,300 7,309 7,300. 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 159,042) |ash Shipped TPY 0 0 2,730 2,808 2,858 2,909 2,960 3,012 3,064 3,116 3,169 3,221 3,267 3,314 3,360 3,404 3,445 3,485, 3,522 3,556 3,587 3,614 64,401 [Remaining Incinerator Capacity TPY 0 525 3,370 3,108 2,942 2,773 2,603 2,430 2,257 2,081 1,904 1,733, 1,578 1,423 1,269 1,120, 982 852 729 616 $12 422 35,228 Land Reclaimed O oO oO oO 0. 6 0 O oO 6 0. 0 0 6 O 0 0 6 0 0 0 6) |Cumulative Land Reclaimed 6 12 18 24 30. Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | $3,092,222 | $3,144,695 | $3,179,370 | _ $3,214,515 | $3,249,932 | $3,285,828 | $3,322,010 | $3,358,653 | $3,395,700 | $3,433,156 | $3,471,025 | $3,509,311 | $3,548,020 | $3,587,156 | $3,626,724 | $3,666,728 | $3,707,173 | $3,748,064 | $3,789,407 | $3,831,205 $75,185,244 $o $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 | _ $105,000 | __ $105,000 | $105,000} $105,000 | $105,000 | $105,000 $105,000 | $105,000 | __ $105,000 | $105,000 | $195,000 | $105,000 | $105,000 | $105,000 | $105,000 $105,000 | $2,100,000 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 so $0 $0 so $0 $0 sO $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 so so $0 $129,307 $17,332 $30,750 $40,173 $49,724 $59,349 $69,104 $78,937 $88,894 $99,065 | __ $110,035 $184,311 $135,481 $148,695 | __ $162,667 | __$177.764| $193,935 | __ $346,616 | $364,740 | $384,044 $404,793 | $3,275,717 ($1,630) $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 33,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $59,955
Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996)
Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996)
8 |8 |S |S [8 |S |S |S
Cost_of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $232,019 $238,697 $242,943 $247,246 $251,583 $255,978 $260,409 $264,896 $269,401 $273,750 $277,721 $281,650 $285,582 $289,374 $292,915 $296,224 $299,343 $302,247 $304,889 $307,191 $5,474,057 Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 _| $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 _| $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $6,000,000 |Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 so $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 so $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $1,500,000 Closure Cost of Landfill $o $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so so $0 $0 $0 so so $0 $0 $o $0 Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator $6,593,000 $6,593,000 Base Line Expense . $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | _ $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2.710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 $2,710,000 |_ $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $59,620,000 Net Cash Flow $275,049 $201,622 | ($6,568,208) $57,169 $78,175 $999,466 $120,921 $142,667 $164,586 | $1,086,784 $209,155 $231,292 $190,913 | $1,174,100 $295,664 $317,037 $337,965 $282,395 |__ $1,201,143 | $2,562,514 Net Present Value @12% ($2,257,177)
TABLE15 XLS 406 ee/97
TABLE 15
PRO FORMA
LANDFILL OPERATIONS AND LAND COMMERCIALIZATION
__ OPTION #38.1 (Optimized 3.8.)
YEAR | 1996 1997 1998 1999
Waste Received, TPY PE 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435 25,716
Waste Excavated TPY 2 0 0 12,071 11,652. 11,374 11,093
Total Waste Incinerated TPY 22,285 21,198 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809
Total Waste Landfilled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oO 0 QO} oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waste Shipped TPY 1,595 3,116 oO oO 0 0 0 oO 0 233 529) 829 1,132 1,438 1,748 2,061 2,377 2,697 3,021 3,348) 3,679) 4,013 31,816)
Total Ash TPY
6,684 6,358) 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041
Net Present Value @12% ($1,562,529)
Ash Landfilled TPY 6,684 6,358 7,300 7,300) 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300, 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300, 7,300 7,300 159,042
Ash Shipped TPY 0 oO 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 74,810
[Remaining Incinerator Capacity TPY oO 525 O oO oO oO 0 0 0 oO 0 0 oO oO oO oO 9 oO 0 oO oO 0) 525)
Land Reclaimed 0 0 0 O 0) 6 oO 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 oO 0 6 0} 0 0 6 30)
Cumulative Land Reclaimed 6 ‘ 12. 18 24 30
Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | $3,092,222 | $3,144,695 | $3,179,370 | __ $3,214,515 | $3,249,932 | $3,285,828 | $3,322,010 | $3,358,653 | $3,395,700 | $3,433,156 | $3,471,025 | $3,509,311 | $3,548,020 | $3,587,156 | $3,626,724 | $3,666,728 | $3,707,173 | $3,748,064 | $3,789,407 | $3,831,205 | $75,185,244
|Cost of Waste Excavated (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $120,714 $116,516 $113,742 $110,930 $108,097 $105,225 $102,331 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 | __ $2,100,004
|Cost of Waste Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $0 so so $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ss) $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0
|Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $129,307 ($135,575)|__($135,575)|__ ($135,575) ($135,575)|__($135,575)| _($135.575)|_($135,575)|_ ($115,789) ($90,597) ($65,127) ($39,376) ($13,341) $12,981 $39,593 $66,493 $93,702 $121,204 $149,010 $177,123 $205,546 ($278,290), Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996) so ($1,630) $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 ‘$3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,073 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $59,955
|Cost_of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 | $6,358,872 ‘Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $o $0 $0 | $1,200,000 so $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 so $0 | $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 sO $0 | $1,200,000 | __ $6,000,000
Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land so $0 $0 so so $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 so $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 | __ $1,500,000 Closure Cost of Landfill $0 so $o so $o so so $0 $o $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $o so $o $0 so $0 so $0 Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator $6,593,000 us $6,593,000
Base Line Expense $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 |_ $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 $2,710,000 | $59,620,000 INet Cash Flow $275,049 $201,622 | ($6,516,939) $132,731 $170,180 | $1,108,137 $246,388 $285,155 $224,232 | $1,241,693 $353,548 $365,533 $377,651 | $1,289,903 $402,290 $414,813 $427,475 | $1,340,276 $453,219 $466,304 $479,534 | $1,392,909 | $5,231,703
$o
__ OPTION #3B.1-COMM'L FINANCING, 10 YR DEBT
YEAR
1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
1,595 3,116)
Waste Received, TPY 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435 25,716 25,999 26,287 26,576 26,869 27,166 27,465 27,768 28,074 28,384 28,697 29,014 29,334 29,657 29,985 30,315 30,650 601,482)
Waste Excavated TPY 0 oO 12,071 11,652 11,374 11,093 10,810, 10,523, 10,233 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173, 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 210,000}
Total Waste Incinerated TPY 22,285 21,198 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809) 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809) 36,803 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 779,666)
Total Waste Landfilled } oO 0 oO oO 0 0 oO RE | 0) 0 oO 0} oO oO 0} d oO 0 oO oO 0 0)
0 0 0 0 0 oO 0 233 529 829 1,132 1,438 1,748 2,061 2,377 2,697 3,021 3,348 3,679 4,013 31,816)
6,684 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300, 7,300 7,300) 7,300 7,300) 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300) 7,300 7,300, 7,300 7,300 7,300
Remaining Incinerator Capacity TPY } 525 0 O 0 O oO oO 0 0 oO 0 oO O 0 0 0 0 oO 0 0 }
Land Reclaimed 0 0 oO 0 oO 6 oO oO 0 6 0 0 oO 6 oO i} 0 6 0 0 oO 6 30) |Cumulative Land Reclaimed 6 12 18 24 30 Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | $3,092,222 | $3.144.695 | _ $3,179,370 | __ $3,214,515 | $3,249,932 | $3,285,828 | $3,322,010 | $3,358,653 | $3,395,700 | $3,433,156 | $3,471,025 | $3,509,311 | $3,548,020 | $3,587,156 | $3,626,724 | $3,666,728 | $3,707,173 | $3,748,064 | $3,789,407 $3,831,205 | $75,185,244 Cost of Waste Excavated (increase over 1996) $o $0 $120,714 $116,516 $113,742 $110,930 $108,097 $105,225 $102,331 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 | $2,100,004 [Cost of Waste Landfilled (increase over 1996) __ $0 so so so $0 $0 so so $0 so $o so so $0 $0 $0 So so $0 so $0 so so |Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $129,307 ($135,575)| _($135,575)| ($135,575) ($135,575)|_($135,.575)|_ ($135,575)|_ ($135,575)|_ ($115,789) ($90,597) ($65,127) ($39,376) ($13,341) $12,981 $39,593 $86,499 $93,702 $121,204 $149,010 $177,123 $205,546 ($278,290) Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 ($1,630) $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $59,955 |Cost_of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 so $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 | $6,358,872 ‘Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $o so __$0 | $1,200,000 $o $o $0 | $1,200,000 $o $0 $0 | $1,200,000 so $0 $0 $1,200,000 | _ $6,000,000 Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land $0 so $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $o $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $o $0 $0 $300,000 $1,500,000 Closure Cost of Landfill so $0 $0 $0 $0 $o so $o $0 so $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so so $0 $0 Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator $1,050,042 | $1,050,042 | $1,050,042 | $1,050,042 | $1,050,042 | $1,050,042 | $1,050,042 | $1,050,042 | $1,050,042 | $1,050,042 $10,500,417 Base Line Expense $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 |_$2,710,000 |_$2,710,000 | __ $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2.710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000} $2,710,000 | $59,620,000
INet Cash Flow $275,049 ($848,419) ($973,981)| ($917,311)| ($879,862) $58,095 | ($803,654)| ($764.886)|_($725,810)| $191,651 ($696,494)| $365,533 $377,651 | $1,289,903 $402,290 $414,813 $427,475 | $1,340,276 $453,219 $466,304 $479,534 $1,392,909 $1,324,286 Net Present Value @12% ($2,167,056) ($0) Principal $6,593,000
Annual Paymt to retire principal in 10 years @ 9.5% Int. $1,050,042 a
TABLE1S. XLS
S0t6
8/8/97
TABLE 15
PRO FORMA
LANDFILL OPERATIONS AND LAND COMMERCIALIZATION
OPTION #3B.1-TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING (20YR DEBT]
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
|Waste Received, TPY 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435 25,716 25,999 26,287 26,576) 26,869 27,166 27,465 27,768 28,074 28,384 28,697 29,014 29,334 29,657 29,985, 30,315 30,650 601,482 Waste Excavated TPY 0 0 12,071 11,652 11,374 11,093, 10,810. 10,523 10,233 10,173, 10,173, 10,173 10,173, 10,173) 10,173) 10,173, 10,173 10,173 10,173, 10,173 10,173 | 10,173 210,000 Total Waste incinerated TPY 22,285 21,198 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809) 36,809 36,899 36,809 36,809 36,809, 36,809 36,809 779,666)
Total Waste Landfilled 0 oO 0 oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 oO oO oO oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Shipped TPY 1,595) 3,116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 233 §29 829 1,132 1,438 1,748 2,061 2,377 2,697 3,021 3,348 3,679 4,013 31,816)
Total Ash TPY 6,684 6,358 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 233,853) Ash Landfilled TPY 6,684 6,358 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300, 7,300 7,300) 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300, 7,300) 159,042}
[Ash Shipped TPY. oO oO 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3741 3,741 3,741 74,810) [Remaining Incinerator Capacity TPY 0 525 0 0 0 0 oO 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ° 0 0 0 0 525) Land Reclaimed 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 30)
|Cumulative Land Reclaimed 6 . 12 18} 24 30) Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | $3,092,222 | $3,144,695 |_ $3,179,370 | _$3,214,515 | $3,249,932 | $3,285,828 | $3,322,010 | $3,358,653 | $3,395,700 | $3,433,156 | $3,471,025 | $3,509,311 | $3,548,020 | $3,587,156 | $3,626,724 | $3,666,728 | $3,707,173 | $3,748,064 | $3,789,407 | $3,831,205 |_ $75,185,244
Cost of Waste Excavated (increase over 1996) $o $0 $120,714 $116,516 $113,742 $110,930 $108,097 $105,225 $102,331 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $2,100,004 |Cost of Waste Landfilled (increase over 1996) $o $0 so $0 So $o so $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 so $0 so $0 so $0 so $0 $o so |Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996) $o $129,307 ($135,575)|__ ($135,575)| ($135,575) ($135,575)| _($135,575)|_ ($135,575)|__($136,575)| ($115,789) ($90,597) ($65,127) ($39,376) ($13,341) $12,981 $39,593 $66,499 $93,702 $121,204 $149,010 $177,123 $205,546 ($278,290) |Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996) so ($1,630) $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $59,955 |Cost_of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $6,358,872
‘Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 so $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 so $0 | $1,200,000 so $0 $0 _| $1,200,000 so $0 $0} $1,200,000 | __ $6,000,000 |Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 so $300,000 $0 $0 so $300,000 so $0 $0 $300,000 $o $o so $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $1,500,000 Closure Cost of Landfill so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 so $0 so $0 $o so so so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $598,357 $11,967,138
Base Line Expense $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 $2,710,000 | $59,620,000 Net Cash Flow $275,049 ($396,735)| _ ($522,296)| __ ($465,626)|__ ($428,177) $509,780 | _($351,969)| ($313,202) ($274,.125)| $643,336 | ($244,809)| _($232,824)| __($220,705)| $691,546 | ($196,067)|_($183,543)| _($170,882)| $741,919 | _($145,138)| ($132,053)| ($1 18,823)| $1,392,909 ($142,435) Net Present Value @12% ($860,291) ($0), Principal $6,593,000
Annual Paymt to retire principal in 20 years @ 6.5% Int. $598,357 _
OPTION #3B.1-TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING (10YR _
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Waste Received, TPY 23,880 24,314 24,738 25,158 25,435 25,716 25,999 26,287 26,576 26,869 27,166 27,465 27,768 28,074 28,384 28,697 29,014 29,334 29,657 29,985 30,315 30,650 601,482)
Waste Excavated TPY oO oO 12,071 11,652 11,374 11,093 10,810 10,523 10,233 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 10,173 210,000) Total Waste Incinerated TPY 22,285 21,198 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809) 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 36,809 779,666)
Total Waste Landfilled 0 0 oO O 0 0 0 oO oO oO oO 0 0 oO oO oO 0) oO 0 oO 0) oO 0}
Waste Shipped TPY 1,595 3,116 0 O oO } oO oO __0 233 529 829) 1,132, 1,438 | 1,748 2,061 2,377 2,697, 3,021 3,348 3,679) 4,013 31,816)
Total Ash TPY. 6,684 6,358 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,04" 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 233,853)
Ash Landfilled TPY 6,684 6,358 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 _7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300) 7,300) 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300, 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 159,042
Ash Shipped TPY oO 0 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,74" 3.741 3,741 3,741 3,741 3,741 74,810)
[Remaining Incinerator Capacity TPY oO 525 0. 0 oO 0. oO O oO oO O 0 oO oO 0 0. 0. 0 oO 0 0 oO 525
Land Reclaimed oO 0 O oO oO 6 oO 0 oO 6 0 oO oO 6 oO 0 (d 6 0. O 0 6 30 |Cumulative Land Reclaimed 6 12 18 24: 30.
Revenues from Waste Received $2,985,049 | $3,039,300 | _ $3,092,222 | $3,144,695 | _ $3,179,370 $3,214,515 | $3,249,932 | $3,285,828 | $3,322,010 | $3,358,653 | $3,395,700 | $3,433,156 | $3,471,025 | $3,509,311 | $3,548,020 | $3,587,156 | $3,626,724 | $3,666,728 | $3,707,173 | $3,748,064 | $3,789,407 | $3,831,205 | $75,185,244
|Cost of Waste Excavated (increase over 1996) $0 $0 $120,714 $116,516 $113,742 $110,930 $108,097 $105,225 $102,331 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $101,727 $2,100,004 [Cost of Waste Landfilled (increase over 1996) $o $0 so $o so so $o $0 $0 $0 so so $0 $o $0 so so so $0 $o so $o so |Cost of Waste Shipped (increase over 1996) $0 $129,307 ($135,575)|__ ($135,575)! ($135,575) ($135,575)|_ ($135,575)|_ ($135,575)|_ ($125.575)|_ ($115,789) ($90,597) ($65,127) ($39,376) ($13,341) $12,981 $39,593 $66,499 $93,702 $121,204 $149,010 $177,123 $205,546 ($278,290)|
Cost of Ash Landfilled (increase over 1996) $0 ($1,630) $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $3,079 $59,955 Cost_of Ash Shipped (increase over 1996) so $0 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $317,944 $6,358,872
Sale Price of Reclaimed Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0| $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $0 so $0 | $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 | $1,200,000 $6,000,000
Capping Cost of Reclaimed Land so $0 $0 $0 so $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 | __ $1,500,000 [Closure Cost of Landfill $0 $0 so so $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $o sO so $0 $0 so so $0 $o $o $0
Capital Cost of 3rd Incinerator $917,117 $917,117 $917,117 $917,117 $917,117 $917,117 $917,117 $917,117 $917,117 $917,117 $9,171,172
Base Line Expense $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 |_ $2,710,000 | _ $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $2,710,000 | $59,620,000
INet Cash Flow $275,049 ($715,495)| _ ($841,057)| _ ($784,386)|__ ($746,937) $191,020 | ($670,729)| ($631,962) _($592.885)| $324,575 | _($563,570)| $365,533 $377,651 | $1,289,903 $402,290 $414,813 $427,475 | $1,340,276 $453,219 $466,304 $479,534 | $1,392,909 $2,653,531
Net Present Value @12% ($1,496,473) $0 Principal ‘$6,593,000
Annual Paymt to retire principal in 10 years @ 6.5% Int. $917,117
TABLE1S.XLS 6of6 8/8/97
ANALYSIS OF LANDFILL OPERATIONS AND LAND COMMERCIALIZATION PLUS ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION AND SALE TABLE 16
i 9/6/97
PAYMENTS [ard INCIN & | i START ELEC CEN | Capital Cost-Elec Gen ($2,600,000) STARTS | i 20Year Pmts-Elec. Gen. ($235,967)| ($235,967): ($235,967)| _($235,967)|_ ($235,967)} ($235,967) ($235,967) ($235,967)' _ ($235,967)| ($235,967)! _($235,967)| __ ($235,967) ($235,957) ($235,967) ($235,967)| _($235,967)|__ ($235,967)| _ ($235,967)| ($4,955,299) Cash Flow, Rate A $276,956: $267,807| $262,955 $257,910 $252,663} $241,531 $235,629 $229,491 $223,107; $216,468 $209,564 $194,915 $187,148 $179,071 $170,670 $161,033] $152,847] $4,442,727 Net Cash Flow, Rate A i $0} __ ($235,967) $40,990! $31,840 $26,989 $21,944 $16,697 $5,565. ($337). ($6,476) ($12,859) ($19,498)| ($26,403) ($41,052) ($48,819) ($56,896) ($65,297) ($74,033)|_($83,119)| ($512,572)
(Capital Cost-Elec Gen ($2,600,000) | : i i 20Year Pmts-Elec. Gen. ($235,967)| __ ($235,967) ($235,967)|_($235,967)| ($235,967)! ($235,967) ($235,967) ($235,967)' ($235,967) ($235,967)! ($235,967)| _ ($235,967) ($235,967) ($235,967)'_($235,967)| __($235,967)| ($235,967) ($4,719,333) Cash Flow, Rate B $913,002] $922,114 $931,220 $940,315 $958,451 $067,480 $976,475 $985,428; $994,333/ $1,003,182 $1,020,681! $1,029,315| $1,037,860] $1,046,305} $1,054,642 _$1,062,861| $19,603, Net Cash Flow, Rate B $0; ($235,967) $677,035] $686,147 $695,253 $704,348 $722,485" $731,513’ $740,508) $749,461| $758,366 $767,215 $784,715 $793,348 $801,893 $810,339 $818,676] $1,062,861) $14,884,362] { | 1
Tr
Capital Cost-Elec Gen ($2,600,000) i i 20Year Pmts-Elec. Gen. ($235,967) ($235,967)|_($235,967)| ($235,967)! _ ($235,967) ($235,967) ($235,967)'_($235,967)|_ ($235,967)! ($235,967)| ($235,967) ($235,967), ($235,967) _($235,967)| _($235,967)| ($235,967) $0.00 | ($4,719,333) Cash Flow, Rate C { $278,383| $278,927 $279,350 $279,645) $279,823 $279,690 $279,400 $278,942} $278,310 $277,492 $275,266: $273,837 $272,182 $270,201 $268,152| $265,753] $263,080) Net Cash Flow, Rate C tT $0} ($235,967) $42,416 $42,960 $43,383. $43,679 | $43,856) $43,724 $43,433) $42,976 $42,343) $41,526 $39,500 $37,870: $36,216 $34,325 $32,186] $265,753] $807,079
t |
Capital Cost-Elec Gen ($2,600,000) i i i | | 20Year Pmts-Elec. Gen. ($235,967)|_($235,967)"_($235,96 ($235,967)| _($235,967)| ($235,967)! _($235,967)| __($235,967)' ($235,967) ($235,967)' _($235,967)| _ ($235,967)| _($235,967)| _ ($235,967) ($235,967), ($235,967), _($235,967)| _ ($235,967)| ($235,967) $0.00 | ($4,719,333) Cash Flow, Rate D $0 $504,576| -$508,41 $512,190| $515,890 $519,513 $523,050 $529,844 $533,087 $536,217 $539,226) $542,108) $544,852 $549,003 $552,171 $554,274 $556,191 $557,912] $559,424] $10,712,779 Net Cash Flow, Rate D $0} ($235,967) $268,609 $276,223| $279,924 $283,546 $287,083} $263,877, $297,120 $300,250 $303,260; $306,141 $308,885 $313,926 $316,204" $318,307 $320,225, $321,945] $559,424] $5,903,446
3 4 5 6 a, 9 10 4 12 13 | 17 18 19 20 [OPTION #3B.1-TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING (20YR DEB |
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2007) 2008 2009 2010) 2014) 2015 2016 2017 Rate A | i i Net Cash Flow without $275,049! ($396,735)| ($522,296), ($465,626) ($428,177)| __ $509,780| ($351,969); ($313,202)| _($274,12 ($232,824)|_ ($220,705)} $691,546} _ ($196,067) ($170,882)' $741,919" ($145,138)| ($132,053) ($118,823)| $1,392,909] ($142,435)
Power Generation i i i i i
Net Cash Flow from $0} ($235,967) $40,090) i $31,840) $26,980) $21,944 $16,697. $11,240) ($6,476) ($12,859)| ($19,498) ($26,403) ($41,052) ($48,819) (656,806) ($65,297) ($74,033)|_($83,119)| ($512,572) Power Generation-Rate A i { | S [
Total Cash Flow - A { arate ($632,701) 6420.12 ($396,337)[ $536,769] ($330,026)} ($296,505) | ($239,299)|_($233,565)} $672,048) ($222,470) ($211,084), $603,101 ($202,084) ($107.450)| _($102,857)| $1,500,700 “($655,008) INPV @12% ($1,000,195) i Total Cash Flow - A ($655,008) iE { = | Rate B i Net Cash Flow without $275,049! ($396,735) ($465,621 ($428,177)| $509,780] ($351,969); ($313,202) ($232,824)| ($220,705); $691,546] ($196,067) ($170,882)' $741,919 ($145,138)| __($132,053)} _($118,623)| $1,392,909] ($142,435)
Power Generation i i
i i Net Cash Flow from $0} ($235,967) $667,92 $677,035| $686,147 $695,253 $704,348) $740,508 $749,461) $758,366) $767,215 $784,715. $793,348 $801,803 $810,339 $818,676| _$1,062,861| $14,884,362
Power Generation-Rate B t
Total Cash Flow - 8 $275,049} ($632,701) 1 $202,29 $248,858| $1,195,927 $343,284 $391,147) ‘$507,684 $528,756) $1,449,012 $571,148 $613,835 $1,505,268 $656,755 $676,286, $690,853| $2,455,770] $14,741,027] INPV $3,217,886 i 1 i Total Cash Flow - B $14,741,927) i | |
Rate C t T i Net Cash Flow without $275,049 _($396,735)| __($522,296)' ($465,621 ($428,177)| $509,780] ($351,969)}__($313,202)| ($274,125) ($232,824)| ($220,705)! $601,546) ($196,067) ($170,882)' $741,919) ($145,138)|_($132,053)| _ ($118,823)| $1,392,909 ($142,435)
Power Generation i i |
Net Cash Flow from $0| ($235,967) $40,990) $42,416 $42,960) $43,383 $43,679) $43,839" $43,433 $42,976. $42,343) $41,526 $39,390 $37,870, $36,216 $34,325 $32,186| $265,753 $807,079
Power Generation-Rate C i i
Total Cash Flow - C $275,049] ($632,701 ($385,761)| __ $552,740| ($308,586) _(6260,523)| ($230,286), ($201,086) _($189,301)| ($177,730), $733,680] ($154,541) ($131,562), $779,760, ($108,022) ($97,728) ($86,638)| $1,658,662| $664,643) INPV @12% ($779,882) it | | Total Cash Flow - C $664,643 | iE |
Rate D iP i Net Cash Flow without $275,040] _($396,735)| _($522,296)' ($465,621 ($428,177)| __$509,780| _($351,969)} __($313,202)| ($274,125): ($244,809)! ($232,824)|_($220,705)| $691,546] ($196,067)| ($183,543) ($170,882)| $741,919’ ($145,138)| _ ($132,053)| ($118,823)| $1,392,909] ($142,435)
Power Generation } i i i i
Net Cash Flow from $0} ($235,967) $268,609, $276,223| $279,924 $283,546 $287,083 $207,120 $500,250 $303,260; $306,141 $308,885 $311, $313, $316,204 $316,307 $320,225 $321,945| $559,424] $5,993,446
Power Generation-Rate D i i
Total Cash Flow - D $275,049] ($632,701) ($193,171 ($151,954)[ $789,704 ($68,423) ($26,118) $937.213. $52,311 $67,427) $82,554| $997,687 $112,818 $127,040, $143,044 $1,058,104 $173,169 $188,172 $203,122| $1,952,333] $5,851,011 INPV @12% $692,980 | : i | ’
Total Cash Flow - D $5,851,011 as I i i |
FILEDAS. D\MPROJECTUUNEAU®PMCPROFORMSB XLS UAST UPDATE: 907
Page 1
Landfilled Area
Characteristics
In-Place MSW
TABLE 17
Channel Landfill Conversion and Closure Requirements Matrix
Action required for meeting
regulatory requirements
Final Closure Stds., Class II LF,
including grading, drainage final
cover, gas collection and control
Sampling and Clean-up
Standard Not Achieved
Final Cover of 18" 10-5 cm/sec
soil, plus 6" veg layer; or
Not Applicable alternatively, subgrade soil,
layer, gas collection piping
Requirement if Cleanup Std.
geomembrane, and protective soil
Converted/Closed for Surface
Uses only
Post-Closure Care and
Monitoring Required?
Converted for Development}
with Underground Utilities
Remove From SW Facility
Inventory?
Not suited due to gas
generation/collection system
requirements
Yes, 36 years unless otherwise
authorized based on monitoring
data
Additional 24" or more soil to
protect barrier layer
No, Deed notation required in
perpetuity
MSW Excavated and
Removed
Meet cleanup standards or
provide Class II Final Closure
Sampling per ADEC agreement. Class II Landfill Final C : Meet agreed cleanup levels poe ane ee
Additional 60" soil depth over
barrier layer
No, Deed notation required in
perpetuity
Yes, as above unless clean-up
levels are achieved Same as Above
ut
No Limitations, other than
foundation conditions and
workability of soil material
Possible continued groundwater,
depending on agreement with | Possible, per ADEC agreement
ADEC
Yes, 30 years unless otherwise
authorized based on monitoring
data
Additional 60" soil depth over
barrier layer
No, Deed notation required in
perpetuity
Provide sampling per ADEC
Tested Clean Area agreement, meet applicable As agreed with ADEC Not Applicable No Limitiations
(agreed) standards
Final Closure, Class II LF or as
agreed with ADEC; ("...1 foot of os « Additional 24" or more soil to
Ashfill (monofill) clay soil, or.alternate..") per the Boe 2pplcable Pree protect barrier layer current landfill permit
Final Cover of 18" 10-5 cm/sec
Remediated (PCS) Sample and test; meet soil f : oe soil, plus 6" veg layer; or or x . (Petroleum pollution standards and handle as Clean-up standards in 18AAC alternatively, subgrade soil, Additional 24" or more soil to
Contaminated Soil) inert or exempt 78.310 geomembrane, and protective soil
layer
C and D Waste
Inert waste monofill rules unless
disposed within boundaries of
MSWLF; then closure and
monitoring per Class II LF
Remove monofilled wastes from Closure as monofill: 24" soil
property and reduce contaminants to] graded to drain and revegetated, or}
Landclearing Debris
Stumps/Logs
Exempt from 18 AAC 60 unless
mixed with non-exempt waste or
causes a public health threat,
environmental problem or
nuisance
Exempt as above
Additional 60" soil depth over
barrier layer
Yes, 30 years unless otherwise | No, Deed notation required in
protect barrier layer authorized based on data
Only if ADEC observes non-
exempt waste, detects evidence
of a spill, or contamination of
Deed notation may be removed
if all waste is removed and
concentrations meet AK
Additional 12" or more soil to
protect cover layer
A total of 60" soil depth over
Cand D waste
AK clea tandard. ed alternate desi eT ELLIE ea ae hg wells or groundwater is evident cleanup standards
, : ‘ : A total of 60" workable soil , : i Not Applicabl Not Applicab a A i" e jot Applicable lot Applicable No requirement specified depth for utilities installation Not required Deed notation not required
Not Applicable Not Applicable No requirement specified a Not required Deed notation not required
depth for utilities installation
Asbestos Fill
TABLE17.XLS
Final Closure, Class II LF or as
agreed with ADEC; ("...1 foot of
clay soil, or.alternate..") per the
current landfill permit
Sampling per ADEC agreement.
Meet agreed cleanup levels San Closure
A total of 60" workable soil
depth above cover for utilities
installation
Additional 24" or more soil to
protect barrier layer
Deed notation required unless Post Closure Maintenance = certified clean
8/8/97