ordot dump gas collection and control system plan … d/2. gas collection an… · gccs compliance...

414 West Soledad Avenue, Suite 500

Hagatna, Guam 96910

Ordot Dump Gas Collection and Control System Plan and Startup,

Shutdown and Malfunction Plan

Prepared for Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB),

Receiver for the Guam Sol id Waste Author i t y

January 2014

414 West Soledad Avenue, Suite 500

Hagatna, Guam 96910

Ordot Dump Gas Collection and Control System Plan and Startup, Shutdown and

Malfunction Plan Prepared in Accordance with the New Source Performance

Standards for MSW Landfills Prepared for

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB), Receiver for the Guam Sol id Waste Authori t y

542 North Marine Corps Dr ive Tamuning, Guam 96913

January 2014

1/3/14 Douglas B. Lee, P.E. Date Brown and Caldwel l

Th is work was prepared by me or under my superv is ion.

i

Table of Contents List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1 2. The Ordot Dump and the New Source Performance Standards ........................................................... 2-1 3. Landfill Gas Generation Modeling ........................................................................................................... 3-1 4. GCCS Compliance with Design Requirements of the New Source Performance Standards ............... 4-1

Compliance with 40 CFR 60.759 Specification for Active Collection Systems .......................... 4-1 4.14.1.1 Gas Extraction Components ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Gas Conveyance Components ........................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.3 Condensate Management ............................................................................................... 4-2

Compliance with 40 CFR 60.752 Gas Control Components–Gas Mover and Control Device .. 4-2 4.24.2.1 Landfill Blower System .................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Landfill Gas Flare ............................................................................................................. 4-3

5. Operations and Maintenance of the GCCS ............................................................................................. 5-1 Gas Extraction and Control System Description .......................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Operations Procedures .................................................................................................................. 5-2 5.2

5.2.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 5-2 Flare Operation............................................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3

5.3.1 General Operation ............................................................................................................ 5-4 Gas Collection System Performance Testing ............................................................................... 5-4 5.4

5.4.1 LFG Component Measurements ..................................................................................... 5-4 5.4.2 Temperature Measurements .......................................................................................... 5-5 5.4.3 Vacuum Measurements .................................................................................................. 5-5 5.4.4 Flow Rate Measurements................................................................................................ 5-5 5.4.5 Water Level/Well Depth Measurements ........................................................................ 5-6

System Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 5-6 5.55.5.1 Blower Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 5-6 5.5.2 Knockout Pot Maintenance ............................................................................................. 5-6 5.5.3 Condensate System Maintenance .................................................................................. 5-6 5.5.4 Flare Maintenance ........................................................................................................... 5-7 5.5.5 Gas Extraction Wellhead Maintenance .......................................................................... 5-7

Condensate Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 5-7 5.6 Staffing Plan ................................................................................................................................... 5-8 5.7 Fire Control ..................................................................................................................................... 5-8 5.8 Construction Plan ........................................................................................................................... 5-8 5.9

5.9.1 Documentation................................................................................................................. 5-8 5.9.2 Construction Stages ......................................................................................................... 5-9

Ordot Dump Gas Collection and Control System Plan Table of Contents

ii

5.9.3 Construction Plan ............................................................................................................. 5-9 Landfill Gas Sampling and Testing ............................................................................................. 5-11 5.10

5.10.1 Condensate Sampling and Testing ............................................................................... 5-11 Annual Report ............................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.11

6. GCCS Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Plan .................................................................................... 6-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Plan Contents ................................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2

6.2.1 Equipment Covered by this SSM Plan ............................................................................ 6-1 System Start-Up ............................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.3

6.3.1 Collection System ............................................................................................................. 6-2 6.3.2 Control Device .................................................................................................................. 6-2 6.3.3 Automatic Start-Up ........................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3.4 Manual Start-Up ............................................................................................................... 6-3

GCCS Shut-Down ............................................................................................................................ 6-3 6.46.4.1 General Procedures ......................................................................................................... 6-3 6.4.2 System Decommissioning ............................................................................................... 6-4

Malfunction Plan ............................................................................................................................ 6-4 6.56.5.1 Common Malfunctions .................................................................................................... 6-5 6.5.2 Timeframes for NSPS Exceedances ............................................................................... 6-5 6.5.3 Operational Contingencies .............................................................................................. 6-5 6.5.4 General Responses to GCCS Malfunctions .................................................................. 6-66

7. Surface Emissions Monitoring Protocol .................................................................................................. 7-1 General Description ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Weather Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 7-3 7.3 Recording and Reporting ............................................................................................................... 7-3 7.4 Action Levels and Follow-up Sampling ......................................................................................... 7-3 7.5 SEM Survey Frequency .................................................................................................................. 7-4 7.6

References .................................................................................................................................................. REF-1

Appendix A: Ordot Landfill Gas Generation Potential ....................................................................................... A

Appendix B: Manufacturer’s LFG Control Device Operations and Maintenance Manual ............................. B

List of Figures Figure 7-1 Surface Emissions Monitoring Route Plan ................................................................................ 7-2

Ordot Dump Gas Collection and Control System Plan Table of Contents

iii

List of Abbreviations BC Brown and Caldwell

FID flame ionization detector

Ft feet

GBB Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.

GCCS gas collection and control system

GEPA Guam Environmental Protection Agency

GSWA Guam Solid Waste Authority

HASP Health and Safety Plan

HDPE high density polyethylene pipe

HP horsepower

km kilometers

LandGem Landfill Gas Emissions Model

LEL lower explosive limit

LFG landfill gas

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program

Mg megagram

MSW municipal solid waste

NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NMOC non-methane organic compounds

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OVA organic vapor analyzer

ppm parts-per-million

SCFM standard cubic feet per minute

SEM surface emissions monitoring

SSM Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

w.c. water column

1-1

Section 1

Introduction On behalf of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB), Receiver for the Guam Solid Waste Authority (GSWA), Brown and Caldwell (BC) has been authorized to develop plans and conduct design studies in support of the closure of the Ordot Dump (Dump) located in Ordot-Chalan Pago, Guam, under the Consent Decree Order (US District Court of Guam, Civil Case No. 02-00022, Document Number 55). In addition to the Consent Decree, Title 10, Chapter 51, Article 1 Solid Waste Management, 51101(4) of the Guam Code Annotated, mandated that the Dump be closed.

The purpose of this document is to describe the plan for landfill gas (LFG) collection and control in accordance with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, promulgated March 12, 1996 (40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW) for the Ordot Dump. The NSPS includes requirements for landfill gas collection and control systems (GCCS). The GCCS plan consists of this document, Section 5 of the Design Report, Ordot Dump Closure Construction And Dero Road Sewer Improvements, Ordot- Chalan Pago, Guam, dated July 1, 2013 (the Design Report), Appendix R to the Design Report titled Landfill Gas Generation Modeling And Gas Collection System Design Calculations, and the GCCS engineering design drawings provided as Drawing Numbers C13, C23, and C26 through C29 of the plan set titled “Ordot Dump Closure Plan and Dero Road Sewer Improvements” dated July 1, 2013 (the engineering drawings).

2-1

Section 2

The Ordot Dump and the New Source Performance Standards NSPS applicability is a function of the design capacity and the quantity of waste in a MSW landfill, as well as the ability of the landfill to generate and emit organic gases. The Ordot Dump has been estimated by BC to hold approximately 4.5 million cubic yards or 3.44 million cubic meters of material, which includes waste and cover soil (BC’s Topographic Surveys and Airspace Report, 2012). Accurate records regarding disposal rates, types of waste, and cover soil use prior to June 2009 are not available; hence, reasonable assumptions were made based on the results of BC’s investigations and reviews of available historical information to estimate the mass of waste in place. This estimation process indicated the range of in-place waste tonnage is approximately 3.5 million tons to 5.2 million tons (3.18 megagrams (Mg) to 4.72 Mg). This range is greater than the 2.5 Mg upper limit for a size exemption from the NSPS. The Ordot Dump is therefore subject to the NSPS.

There is no evidence the Ordot Dump ever had a design capacity, as defined in 40 CFR 60.751, specified in a construction or operational permit issued by an authority having jurisdiction. No initial or amended design reports were submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or Guam EPA (GEPA).

Similarly, no initial or annual non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate reports were submitted. Tier 1/Tier 2 emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) have not been calculated. Landfill gas generation modeling, however, projects that the Ordot Dump has an estimated uncontrolled non-methane organic compound emission range greater than or equal to 50 Mg per year.

The facility's proposed methods for complying with the operational standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements of the NSPS are presented in this plan.

3-1

Section 3

Landfill Gas Generation Modeling Landfill gas is generated by the anaerobic decomposition of organic landfill waste. Landfill gas generally consists of methane and carbon dioxide, with small concentrations of nitrogen and other “balance” gases, as well as small concentrations of sulfur compounds and aromatics that contribute to landfill odor. Landfill gas generation is generally modeled with the widely-used USEPA Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM). LandGEM is an automated estimation tool that is used to estimate emission rates for total LFG, methane, carbon dioxide, non-methane organic compounds, and individual air pollutants from municipal solid waste landfills and is generally regarded as the mainland United States’ industry standard model for regulatory and non-regulatory applications. The USEPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) developed a version of the LandGEM for the Philippine Islands, which is a tropical location in the western Pacific at a similar latitude as Guam and with similarities in location, temperature, and precipitation as compared to Guam. The Philippine LandGEM provides a more developed gas generation calculation, and a more developed estimate of the fraction of LFG available for capture, than does the “Standard” LandGEM. The Philippines LandGEM was used to estimate landfill gas generation at the Ordot Dump for GCCS design purposes as it is considered the most appropriate method for estimating LFG production at Ordot Dump. .

A complete discussion of calculating the amount of landfill gas produced at the Ordot Dump is found in the report titled, Ordot Landfill Gas Generation Potential, dated January 2013 provided in Appendix A, also provided as Appendix R in the Design Report. To summarize the findings, the landfill gas at the Ordot Dump is approximately 50% methane and the current recoverable generation rate should be from 300 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) to 500 SCFM. This quality of gas is sufficient to sustain combustion in a control device such as a flare. The rate of LFG generation is declining rapidly such that in 10 years, the landfill will be producing only 30% of its current rate. At that time, the LFG generation may be reduced to the level whereby the LFG can be passively vented from the landfill. This determination should be based only on documented conditions at that time and will need to be approved by GEPA.

4-1

Section 4

GCCS Compliance with Design Requirements of the New Source Performance Standards The final GCCS design for the Ordot Dump is based on the proposed final grades of the facility, as presented in the Design Drawings and discussed in the Design Report. The Ordot Dump GCCS will be constructed in conformance with this design and in conjunction with the installation of the final cover as presented in the Design Drawings and Design Report.

This Section details compliance of the Ordot Dump GCCS with relevant portions of the federal regulations at 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW, known as the New Source Performance Standards.

Compliance with 40 CFR 60.759 Specification for Active 4.1Collection Systems

4.1.1 Gas Extraction Components The LFG collection system includes the following gas extraction components: • Vertical Extraction Wells - the vertical wells are comprised of an 8-inch-diameter perforated high-

density polyethylene (HDPE) well screen and a 6-inch-diameter telescoping solid upper riser installed within a 24-inch-diameter gravel-filled borehole, drilled to a depth of 25 to 60 feet (ft) depending on the location of the well. The spacing between the wells ranges from 150 to 300 ft.

• Horizontal Collectors – the horizontal collectors are comprised of a 6-inch-diameter HDPE perforated collection pipe placed in gravel-filled collection trenches immediately beneath the geocomposite LFG interception layer component of the final cover.

• Migration Control Trench - A gravel-filled migration control trench is located outside the footprint of the waste disposal area, along the northerly property boundary, to address subsurface LFG migration. The bottom of the trench is at least 15 feet below existing ground surface in order to be below the bottom of the waste on the northerly side of the site. A 6-inch-diameter perforated HDPE collector pipe is placed within the gravel.

Vertical wells, horizontal collector pipes, and the migration control trench pipe are furnished with control wellheads to control the flow of LFG into the conveyance piping system. Each wellhead has a manually-controlled valve to regulate applied vacuum and flow, and sample ports by which to monitor flow, vacuum and LFG characteristics. Backfill for the well and collector risers has a bentonite-cement seal layer to prevent LFG from escaping and to prevent air from entering the borehole or trench. Pipe boots are furnished where each collection system pipe passes through the geomembrane of the final cover system.

4.1.2 Gas Conveyance Components The piping system for conveying collected LFG consists of a looped 8-inch-diameter HDPE main collection header line to convey LFG from the vertical wells, horizontal collectors, and migration control

Ordot Dump Gas Collection and Control System Plan Section 4

4-2

trench to the flare station. Each well-head is connected to the header by a 6-inch-diameter HDPE lateral pipe. The header and lateral pipes are installed beneath the geomembrane of the final cover system, and generally have a minimum pipe slope of 5 percent. One section of the header will follow the alignment of an access road on the surface of the Dump and will have a minimum pipe slope of 3 percent.

4.1.3 Condensate Management Condensate resulting from the collection of LFG will be managed in a series of structures at the low point in the LFG collection header system, adjacent to the flare, and at the western end of the migration control trench. Prior to the flare station is a condensate drop-out structure, and the flare station itself includes a condensate knockout pot. Both structures discharge the condensate to a condensate sump, which discharges to the perimeter leachate collection drain. The migration control trench sump also discharges to the perimeter leachate collection drain; flow from the perimeter leachate collection drain is managed with the leachate collection system. The condensate volume will be a small fraction of the daily leachate flow entering the leachate collection system.

Compliance with 40 CFR 60.752 Gas Control Components–Gas 4.2Mover and Control Device

The two primary components of the LFG control device are the gas mover, which is used to apply vacuum to the Dump to remove the LFG, and the control device, which is used to combust and destroy the LFG. The gas mover is a blower system, which includes a vacuum blower and its electric motor, and a knockout pot for condensate control. The control device is an open flame utility-type flare unit. Both components are mounted on a skid, which is placed on a reinforced concrete slab. Also on the concrete slab are a control box and panels to operate and monitor the gas control unit’s performance.

4.2.1 Landfill Blower System The blower system is located on the skid and the LFG will flow through the following processes: • The blower creates a vacuum, which is distributed through the header system to the wells and

horizontal collectors. The interior of the Dump will be under a slight vacuum when the system is operating, and the header pipe vacuum should be approximately 30 inches w.c. (water column) when the system is running. The header system pipes bring LFG to the flare.

• As the LFG approaches the blower it passes through a condensate knockout pot, which is a short vertical pipe section with a demister screen at the outlet. The knockout pot serves to remove water droplets entrained in the incoming LFG. It may also slightly dry the LFG since there is a pressure loss of about 10 inches w.c. vacuum across the pot, which cools the LFG and condenses out additional moisture. Condensate collects at the bottom of the knockout pot and there is a drain at the base for condensate removal.

• The LFG is then drawn into the blower and discharged at the required flare pressure to the outlet gas stream. The blower unit has the following parameters:

− Allows for variable speed operation to most closely match the required flow rate generated by the Dump;

− Inlet vacuum of 30 inches w.c.; − Outlet pressure typically 15 inches w.c. (or as required by the flare manufacturer for flare

operation); − Flow rate at these pressures 50 to 500 SFCM; − 15 horsepower (HP) (typical), variable speed motor to power the blower; and


4-3

− Vacuum and pressure gauges are located each side of the blower to monitor performance. GSWA also has a spare blower in storage for use in the event the original blower fails or components wear out. In addition there is an emergency generator at the site to provide electricity at the site in the event of power outages.

4.2.2 Landfill Gas Flare The landfill gas flare is a skid-mounted “candlestick” type open flare. Once the LFG is discharged from the blower, it flows through a horizontal pipe to the base of the flare. At the flare base, LFG will pass through a flame arrestor, which is designed to prevent the flame from propagating back up the pipe into the blower when the flare is shut down. At the top of the vertical flare pipe is an automatic ignition system using propane gas to fuel a pilot light. A wind shield surrounds the flare head assembly and ignition system to prevent wind blow-out during normal operations.

The flare has a destruction efficiency of 98% overall destruction of total hydrocarbons at the design flow with gas methane content 30% to 50%. This is guaranteed by the manufacturer to meet EPA emission standards for landfill gas disposal in utility "candle type" flares, per the US EPA AP-42 Supplement D, Table 13.5-1.

The flare unit comes equipped with the required controls needed for long-term automated operation of the flare. Typical controls include: • Weatherproof electrical control panel boxes, • Blower motor control center with starters and circuit protectors, • Main power disconnect and step-down transformer, • Thermal dispersion flow meter and paperless chart recorder to record flame temperature and LFG

flow, • Automatic flare controller with a touch-screen interface, and blower amperage and blower hours

displays, and • Telecommunication interfaces for remote notification and monitoring the flare’s operation; computer

software (PC based) is provided to allow monitoring of flare operation remotely.

5-1

Section 5

Operations and Maintenance of the GCCS This Operations and Maintenance Section has been prepared to summarize steps necessary to operate and maintain the Gas Collection and Control System at the Ordot Dump (the Dump) in Ordot-Chalan Pago, Guam. This Operations and Maintenance Section and the manufacturer’s O&M Manual provided in Appendix B are integral parts of the post-closure care of the Ordot Dump. Therefore, a copy of this GCCS Plan and any subsequent revisions must be maintained at the site and also with the Ordot Dump's operating records.

Gas Collection and Control System Description 5.1The Landfill Gas Extraction and Control System is designed to collect gases generated within the Ordot Dump waste mass as waste decomposes, and to combust the gas with an open flare. Positive pressure is generated in the waste mass by anaerobic decomposition of the refuse, which produces primarily methane and carbon dioxide. If not relieved, pressure within the waste mass can force these gases into the atmosphere or laterally through the ground, potentially causing hazardous conditions to develop in underground structures. The gas extraction and collection system will relieve the positive pressure by applying a vacuum throughout the waste mass. The gas will be conveyed to the skid-mounted open flare, located on the eastern side of the Dump, adjacent to the access road.

The gas collection system is capable of handling LFG quantities greater than the maximum expected 500 SCFM, in order to allow for variances in the LFG generation. The system consists of the following main components: • 24 LFG extraction wells. • 13 connections to horizontal collectors. • 8 connections to the gas migration control trench. • A piping network through which a vacuum can be applied to all collection points. • Condensate management structures to separate water vapor from the LFG. • Blower to apply a vacuum to the LFG extraction points and to send the LFG to the flare. • A flame arrestor to prevent flashbacks from the flare to the piping network. • A flare system to destroy the LFG.

The Ordot Dump gas collection and control system consists of two stages or phases. Phase 1 of the system includes the installation of all components on the eastern half of the Dump, including the flare, and Phase 2 consists of all components on the western half of the Dump.

Phase 1 of the gas collection system will be installed when approval to construct is received from GEPA. Installation of the Phase 2 gas system is scheduled to commence during the second stage of construction.

The gas extraction system incorporates strategically placed valves and a cross-lateral line (also known as a transverse header) to provide a degree of flexibility in the application of vacuum at the extraction points. Therefore, the vacuum can be selectively applied based upon actual LFG generation at specific


5-2

gas extraction points. The design also allows for sections of gas lines to be segregated for maintenance while the remainder of the system is operated.

When LFG is extracted from a waste mass, a change in temperature and pressure occurs that results in the condensation of moisture within the LFG and the production of condensate within the gas extraction system piping. The majority of the condensate from the GCCS will travel through the gas collection lines to the subsurface condensate drop-out structure located adjacent to the flare station. Condensate collected by this structure will flow by gravity to the condensate sump, which discharges directly into the perimeter leachate drain. Condensate will also be collected at the above-ground knockout pot at the flare skid (also referred to as the moisture separator) and routed through the sump for disposal. The screens in the knockout pot must be cleaned periodically to ensure unhindered performance. The cleaning frequency may vary based on the amount of condensate collected and temperature changes.

Once the system is operational, the LFG will be collected and combusted at the skid-mounted open flare. The makeup of the LFG and its combustion are further described in detail in the Air Pollution Control Permit Application, submitted to the GEPA.

Operations Procedures 5.25.2.1 General Vacuum adjustments throughout the GCCS can be made by operating the valves at each wellhead and in the system piping. By adjusting the valves, the system can be balanced so that the maximum amount of LFG can be collected without pulling air into the waste mass, which would diminish anaerobic decomposition and increase the potential for internal fires. To assist with system balancing and verify efficient operation of the GCCS, the following will be periodically measured. • LFG flow rates at each wellhead and to the flare. • Methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and balance gas concentrations at each wellhead and the flare. • Vacuum at each wellhead. • LFG temperature at each wellhead.

There are also monitoring ports in the header lines where these constituents may be measured for diagnostic purposes.

Initially, to balance the gas system, daily measurements may be necessary. As the system begins to stabilize and the LFG stored in the waste mass is removed, measurements may be taken less frequently. Weekly measurements are proposed until stabilization is reached, and then, to maintain a balanced system, monthly well measurements will be adequate. The vacuum, the LFG temperature and the methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and balance gas concentrations will be recorded. Periodic LFG flow rates at the wells will be recorded so that the correlation between the vacuum applied and the LFG flow rate can be established for each well.

The amount of vacuum applied at each well will vary through time and is influenced by the type of cover. Typically, the vacuum applied at exterior gas extraction wells should be approximately one to three inches of water column to provide adequate gas control and avoid excessive air infiltration along the surface slopes of the Dump. The vacuum that can typically be applied to interior gas extraction wells is three to seven inches of water column without producing excessive air infiltration. Where final cover is not in place, much lower vacuums ought to be applied to the gas extraction points to avoid excessive air infiltration. Some experimentation will be required to find the proper vacuum to apply to these wellheads.


5-3

As a starting point, the valves should be nearly closed at the wellheads and opened slightly until the LFG readings are within the required ranges. In this way, excessive air infiltration into the LFG system can be avoided. The required ranges for each constituent of the LFG are discussed in the following sections.

Gas Readings The concentrations of various gases at each wellhead are the primary indicators of how much vacuum should be applied at the gas collection location. LFG typically contains approximately 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide, with trace amounts of sulfur compounds, aromatics and other NMOCs. If the concentration of methane is high at a particular wellhead, then the volume of LFG available at that location may be greater than what is currently collected and the vacuum applied should be increased. If the concentration of methane is 45% or less, the concentration of oxygen is above 1%, or the balance gas concentration is above 12%, excess air may be entering the waste mass and the vacuum should be decreased at that gas collection point.

Vacuum Readings The vacuum readings are used to develop an understanding of the relationship between the flow rate and the vacuum applied. Vacuum measurements are also useful to monitor the gas collection system for pipe blockage or failure. The monitoring ports in the header lines can be used to locate pipe blockages or pipe failure.

Temperature Readings The temperature of the LFG at each wellhead is an indicator of the amount of air infiltrating into the waste mass. The temperature at a wellhead should remain relatively constant. If the temperature at a well increases sharply or exceeds 130 degrees Fahrenheit, excessive air may have infiltrated into the waste mass, especially if the concentration of methane has decreased. Over time this situation increases the possibility of an internal fire and requires immediate attention.

Isolation Valves Valves are located at the junction of the cross-lateral line and the perimeter header to provide the ability to isolate portions of the gas system for maintenance or repair. Therefore, portions of the gas system can be shut down while other portions remain in operation.

Condensate Collection Condensate is a by-product of the collection of LFG from the waste mass. At the ambient pressure and temperature inside the body of the waste mass, LFG is usually saturated with water vapor. Once released or extracted, LFG is subject to different environmental conditions that result in condensation within the gas collection system.

The amount of condensate generated in the GCCS will be dependent on system operations and seasonal temperatures. If not properly managed, condensate can accumulate to the extent where it disrupts the flow of LFG. To avoid this problem, all gas collection pipelines are sloped to direct condensate flow to the condensate drop-out structure near the flare station. The knockout pot on the flare skid will collect additional condensate that is not removed at the drop-out structure. Both these structures drain to the condensate sump for discharge to the perimeter leachate collection drain. LFG from the header line will slow down as it enters the drop-out structure and the knockout pot. The knockout pot contains baffles to allow moisture to collect and fall to the bottom. The migration control trench collection header slopes to the west, where condensate is collected by a condensate sump and discharged to the perimeter leachate drain in that location.


5-4

Flare Operation 5.35.3.1 General Operation The Flare will operate in the following modes: • Normal flow mode: All of the collected LFG will be conveyed to the flare for combustion. This mode

of operation is expected to occur nearly 100 percent of the time. • Flame-out mode: On occasions, the flare might be unavailable (due to maintenance, the flame

going out, or other reasons). In this mode, the programmable logic controller at the flare would attempt to automatically re-ignite the flare. In the event that the flare does not re-ignite, the vacuum blower would shut down and the pressure within the GCCS would begin to equalize to atmospheric pressure. The loss of vacuum would trigger an alarm, alerting personnel that the flare is not ignited. The operator of the facility would then correct any problems and re-ignite the flare.

On a weekly basis, the system operators will monitor the operation of the flare and record LFG flow rates, temperatures and other data. Open flares can operate for extended times with a minimum of maintenance. Standard maintenance activities will include periodic inspections, cleaning of the flame arrestor, repairs as needed and replenishment of the supply of propane ignition fuel and of nitrogen for actuating the control valve (also known as the slam-shut valve or the automatic block valve). GSWA personnel and/or their Operation and Maintenance (O & M) contractor will be trained to perform these tasks per the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Gas Collection System Performance Testing 5.4System performance testing is an essential component in the efficient and safe operation of the GCCS. Performance testing will be conducted regularly and the results recorded in a permanent logbook. Once the system is balanced, monthly measurements of the following parameters should be made at the wellheads: • Temperature • Vacuum • Methane concentration • Carbon dioxide concentration • Oxygen concentration • Balance gas concentration

LFG flow rates will be measured at the wellheads monthly and when modifying wellhead valve positions.

Weekly measurements of the following parameters should be made at the flare: • LFG flow rate • Temperature at the knockout pot • Methane concentration • Carbon dioxide concentration • Oxygen concentration • Balance gas concentration

The following sections describe performance testing in more detail.

5.4.1 LFG Component Measurements The measurements of the following LFG components are the principal parameters in system balancing:


5-5

• Methane concentration • Carbon dioxide concentration • Oxygen concentration • Balance gas concentration

Measurements of these components at the wellheads will be conducted at least monthly and maybe more frequently during system balancing. The concentrations of the gases should also be determined at the following locations at the flare: • The knockout pot inlet • The blower inlet • The flare inlet

The methane production of each gas extraction point will change over time, requiring periodic adjustments in the vacuum applied to the wellheads to maintain optimal system efficiency.

The oxygen concentrations should be less than 1% at the wellheads, while the balance gas should remain below 12%. Oxygen greater than 1% and/or balance gas levels above 12% may indicate air leaks in the wellfield components or excessive vacuum on extraction wells and horizontal collectors. If the data indicates that atmospheric air is entering the system, the cause must be evaluated by performing diagnostic readings and observations at the wellheads and access ports to determine the likely source. A diagnostic approach includes measuring and comparing gas component concentrations at the wellhead, lateral, and the main header line. Visual and auditory senses may be helpful in isolating wellfield air leaks.

5.4.2 Temperature Measurements Measurements of temperature will be used in conjunction with the gas component measurements to determine the positioning of the wellhead valves. The temperature of the LFG at each collection point can be used as an indication of air infiltration into the waste mass. The temperature at a wellhead should remain relatively constant but below 130 degrees Fahrenheit. If the temperature at a wellhead increases sharply, excessive air may have infiltrated into the waste mass, especially if the concentration of methane has decreased. This situation indicates an increased possibility of an internal fire and requires immediate attention.

5.4.3 Vacuum Measurements Vacuum measurements indicate the amount of extraction energy being applied at each LFG collection point. Vacuum measurements in inches of water column should be collected during system balancing at the wellheads, the inlet to the knockout pot, and the blower inlet and outlet. Vacuum measurements may also be taken at the monitoring ports on the header lines. Vacuum measurements indicate possible problem conditions. Reduced wellhead vacuum may indicate a plugged lateral in isolated instances, or a plugged or broken header, if reduced vacuums occur at two or more well locations. Isolated low vacuum conditions may be alleviated by repeatedly closing and opening the valve, thus “surging” the well. In many cases, a minor blockage can be alleviated by surging, followed by re-adjusting the flow to the established optimal performance level. The monitoring ports will facilitate assessment of such conditions.

5.4.4 Flow Rate Measurements The flow rates measured in the GCCS are used to confirm well and horizontal collector performance and overall system performance. Typical well and horizontal collector performance will be evident over time


5-6

at each location. If the flow rate drops at a particular collection point, a blockage in the well or lateral line may exist.

Due to a build up of LFG within the waste mass, it is likely that the flow rates of the system will be greater when the system is first operated or turned on after a system shutdown. Once this positive pressure within the waste mass is eliminated and the system is balanced, the system will equalize and remain relatively constant.

5.4.5 Water Level/Well Depth Measurements Leachate in the waste mass may cause blockages in the gas extraction wells and horizontal collectors. For this reason, water levels and total depth of the wells may be measured. Water level measurements may be used to determine if water within an extraction well is covering the perforated section of the well screen and inhibiting the free flow of LFG to the well. An electronic water level indicator may be used for this purpose. Well depth measurements may be used to check for well blockages due to sediments from the waste or pipe disturbances due to lateral forces within the waste mass. Even partial blockages of a well can affect its ability to effectively extract LFG.

System Maintenance 5.55.5.1 Blower Maintenance The blower provides the vacuum that pulls the landfill gas from the extraction wells and horizontal collectors, through the header piping, and through the knockout pot. The blower also pushes the LFG into the flare where it is combusted. Therefore, it is essential to the overall system performance that the blower is functioning properly. The blower should be on a preventative maintenance program in accordance with the procedures recommended by the blower manufacturer and outlined in the manual provided with the equipment. Some of the more common maintenance items are listed below. 1. Bearing and motor lubrication. 2. Valve operation. 3. Pipe and valve leak detection. 4. Tightness of connectors which could vibrate loose. 5. Electrical connections.

5.5.2 Knockout Pot Maintenance The knockout pot removes remaining condensate that was not extracted by the condensate drop-out structure. As the LFG enters the knockout pot, it slows down to allow moisture to collect on baffles within the pot. The condensate then flows by gravity to the condensate sump, which discharges to the perimeter leachate drain.

Since LFG and condensate are corrosive by nature, the knockout pot will be made from a HDPE material or will be carbon steel coated with a phenolic painting system. The HDPE material will eliminate the need to coat the knockout pot with the corrosion-resistant material. If entrance to the knockout pot is required, confined space entry procedures must be followed in accordance with applicable regulations.

5.5.3 Condensate System Maintenance The condensate drop-out structure allows condensate to drop out of the header line and trickle out to the condensate sump, which discharges to the perimeter leachate drain, where it will be collected by the leachate collection system. The knockout pot also discharges to the condensate sump. The condensate drop-out structure decreases the volume of condensate conveyed to the knockout pot. If the operation of the drop-out structure is compromised, excess moisture will be conveyed to the knockout pot and the


5-7

flare, compromising the ability to sustain a flame. If excess condensate collects in the drop-out structure, gas flow will be blocked and vacuum will not be able to be conveyed to the LFG extraction points.

The condensate sump will be monitored on a quarterly basis by measuring the depth to liquid below the measuring point. The depth to water will be compared to the depth of the sump outlet to confirm that the pipe is not clogged. The following procedure will be followed to measure the water level at the sump: 1. Close the valve. 2. Remove the sump riser cap. 3. Turn on the water level indicator and lower the probe down the sump riser pipe until the instrument

signals. 4. Determine the top of the water by slowly raising and lowering the probe observing the point at which

the instrument signals relative to the measuring point. Read the graduated scale on the instrument cable to the nearest 0.1 feet and record the reading in the logbook.

5. Determine the total depth of the sump liquid by slowly lowering the water level probe to the sump bottom. Record the depth at which the probe can no longer be lowered.

6. Subtract the depth to water from the depth to the bottom the sump. The result should be less than 5.0 feet. If the result is greater, corrective action should be undertaken.

5.5.4 Flare Maintenance The LFG collected by the gas collection system will be burned in the open flare. The flare will be maintained in accordance with the procedures provided by the manufacturer. Under normal conditions, the flare will be operated in the automatic mode and the following will be monitored. • The pilot gas supply will be checked weekly and replenished, as necessary. • The gages and valves on the flare and control panel will be checked for leakage and operation

weekly. • The manual operation of the flare will be tested quarterly. The pilot will be manually sparked, and

the thermocouples will be inspected. • Electrical equipment will be checked monthly for proper operation. • The flame arrestors will be removed and cleaned as indicated by the manufacturer.

The flare may extinguish due to the following potential situations. • Low methane concentration in the LFG delivered to the flare. • A clogged flame arrestor. • High wind velocity. • A malfunctioning thermocouple.

5.5.5 Gas Extraction Wellhead Maintenance During the previously mentioned monthly routine performance monitoring, the following will be conducted at each wellhead. 1. Check valve operation. 2. Observe piping, flex-hose, valves, and fittings for leakage. 3. Check the wells and piping for accumulated liquid and repair, as necessary.

Condensate Management Plan 5.6Condensate will be conveyed through the gas lateral and header piping system and disposed of with the use of the condensate drop-out structure and the knockout pot. Both structures discharge to the


5-8

condensate sump, from where the condensate will flow directly into the perimeter leachate drain. There is also a condensate sump at the western end low-point of the migration control trench collection header, which discharges to the perimeter leachate drain at that location. The condensate will then join the leachate flow from the perimeter leachate drain, and will be managed with the leachate. Condensate will form a small portion of the total flow from the perimeter leachate drain.

Staffing Plan 5.7The GCCS should require only routine maintenance once it is operating and balanced. The flare will be operated continuously in the automatic mode and should provide efficient and effective LFG management. Operation in the manual mode will be performed infrequently when testing equipment and during some equipment maintenance.

In the automatic mode, the flare is designed to shut down automatically in the event that the flame is extinguished or if the flare temperature or gas quality is above or below a specified operating range. A block or "slam-shut" valve located between the flare and the blower will automatically close in the event the flare or the blower shuts down.

Staff assigned to the GCCS will be principally concerned with routine system performance monitoring and maintenance. One part-time technician should be devoted to these duties. Additional manpower may be necessary for initial balancing of the system, repairs, and confined space entry.

Fire Control 5.8Procedures for handling fires must be posted at an appropriate location on-site and must include names and telephone numbers of authorities to be called during an emergency. The GSWA, GEPA, and local police and fire departments must be notified whenever any fire, smoldering, or smoking materials are discovered at the site. Dump operations and construction activities shall be suspended in the vicinity of smoldering, smoking, or burning areas. Any disruption of the finished grade or covered surface as a result of fire-fighting activities must be repaired or replaced immediately upon termination of fire-fighting activities.

Fire extinguishers will be provided at the flare skid. The GCCS will be shut down in the event of any fire at the flare skid except for normal flaring.

Additional fire protection will be provided via a fire hydrant located along Dero Road near to the entrance to the Dump. The nearest fire station is located in Barrigada, approximately 9 kilometers (km) away.

Construction Plan 5.95.9.1 Documentation During construction, careful documentation must be maintained by the contractor and verified by an experienced construction inspector. The information to be gathered as the system is constructed includes the following: • Extraction well and horizontal collector locations and construction details. • Pipe sizes and types. • As-built pipe and appurtenance locations, elevations, and slope verifications. • Pressure testing of installed solid pipes. • Documentation of installation, operation, and maintenance procedures for all items supplied by the

contractor. • As-built drawings for all materials installed.


5-9

• Borehole logs and well construction diagrams for all gas extraction wells and horizontal collectors installed.

At the completion of the construction phase of the project, a professional engineer's certification must be submitted to the GSWA.

5.9.2 Construction Stages The GCCS is to be installed in two stages, as described below. The installation schedules and scope will be determined based on site operations. Gas system construction will be coordinated with the other closure construction, and must precede the installation of the final cover geosynthetics.

Stage 1 Construction 1. Install Phase 1 horizontal collectors and collector risers with wellheads HC1-1 through HC1-6. 2. Install Phase 1 gas extraction wells, GV1-1 through GV1-12. 3. Install Phase 1 migration control trench and extraction wells MCT-1 and MCT-2. 4. Install Phase 1 lateral and header lines, and appurtenant piping and valves. 5. Install the condensate drop-out structure and sump. 6. Install gas flare skid, complete with a knockout pot, blower, and controls

Stage 2 Construction 1. Install Phase 2 horizontal collectors and collector risers with wellheads HC2-1 through HC2-7. 2. Install Phase 2 gas extraction wells, GV2-1 through GV2-12. 3. Install Phase 2 migration control trench, migration control wells MCT-3 through MCT-8, and the

migration control header condensate sump. 4. Install Phase 2 lateral and header lines, and appurtenant piping and valves.

5.9.3 Construction Plan

Health and Safety Performing construction work on and around a landfill requires adherence to certain precautionary measures to ensure the safety of all workers. GSWA or the O & M contractor must develop and maintain a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) that meets or exceeds minimum regulatory requirements and procedures. The contractor must have supervisory personnel on-site to monitor construction activities and to assess the environmental condition of the workspace. The personnel will be responsible for establishing the hazard level of the workspace and establishing hazard level classifications for different areas of the site for the contractor. In addition, an Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Monitoring Plan must be developed and followed during drilling or excavation into solid waste at Ordot Dump.

Since the project involves excavation of cover materials and previously deposited solid wastes, the progress of the work should be observed to provide an indication of potential problems. The excavations should be limited to a depth necessary to install the structures and provide the desired slope on the piping systems. To minimize the depth of excavations, the gas collection pipe network is designed to follow the surface contours of the Dump as much as possible.

Workers must undertake all necessary safety precautions and comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local safety laws, regulations, and codes to prevent accidents and injury to personnel in the vicinity of the work area.


5-10

The contractor must inform his personnel that the construction site is a landfill and that inherent dangers exist. Workers must be required to utilize appropriate personnel protective devices and to observe safe working practices. Smoking is strictly prohibited at the work site.

Workers must be advised of the hazards associated with the work to be accomplished. Of particular concern are physical hazards associated with heavy equipment and excavations, and hazards of landfill gasses including methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organics, and any other known or suspected gas or vapor which may be encountered. Precautions must be taken based upon known or suspected hazards.

The contractor must designate a Site Health and Safety Officer. The Site Health and Safety Officer should be trained in the use of gas detection instruments, safety equipment, and health and safety procedures associated with the work conducted. The Health and Safety Officer should be present at all times when construction work is being conducted and periodically monitor the atmosphere within the breathing zone of the workers. At a minimum, the Site Health and Safety Officer should monitor the concentration of oxygen, the percent of the lower explosive limit for methane, and hydrogen sulfide.

Welding will not be permitted in trenches or other enclosed spaces unless properly performed over ground mats and approved by the Site Health and Safety Officer.

As construction progresses, valves, pipe, and other openings must be closed as soon as possible after installation to prevent gas migration through the pipeline network and to prevent foreign material from entering.

Excavations and boreholes greater than two feet in depth may not be left unattended unless covered so that entrance is prohibited in accordance with applicable regulations. Storm water must be prevented from entering excavations and boreholes. Extreme caution in accordance with confined space entry procedures must be exercised if manholes or other types of vaults must be entered. Fire extinguishers rated at least A, B, and C should be readily available at the work area.

Construction equipment should be equipped with vertical exhaust and spark arrestors. Spark arrestors may not be required if motors are powered by diesel fuel. Motors used in excavated areas should be explosion proof. Start up and shut down of equipment should be conducted outside of excavations. Soil stockpiles should be situated in the vicinity of work areas for fire fighting purposes

Spoils Disposal and Handling Spoils from excavation areas must be treated and handled as solid waste. This means all special handling procedures associated with normal landfill-type operations must be adhered to and all necessary protective clothing (hard hats, coveralls, gloves, etc.) should be worn by working personnel.

The spoils must be inspected as they are removed from the excavation to assess workspace conditions and to assure proper management of the spoils. Spoils which are comprised of municipal solid wastes must be taken from the working area and transported to a relocation area within the Dump footprint approved by the Construction Manager.

Emergency Situations All personnel working on the Ordot Dump and flare system must be informed of the location of the closest medical facility and the telephone numbers for the local police and fire departments, and the local ambulance service. A list of emergency telephone numbers is provided below.


5-11

Ambulance Service 911

Police Department 911

Fire Department 911

Guam Memorial Hospital, Tamuning (671) 647-2555

Directions to Guam Memorial Hospital from Ordot Dump: 1. Head east on Dero Road for 1.6 km. 2. Turn left at Route 4 Intersection onto Route 4 for 3.7 km. 3. Turn right onto Route 1 for 2.7 km 4. Turn left onto Route 30/Gov Carlos G Camacho Road for 2.2 km to Guam Memorial Hospital located

at 850 Gov Carlos G Camacho Road.

Landfill Gas Sampling and Testing 5.10Source testing will be performed after the gas system is operational to characterize the quality of the LFG generated by the waste mass. The objective of this testing will be to monitor the constituents of the LFG and the combustibility of the LFG. Sampling will be performed at the inlet to the gas flare. Testing will include determinations of concentrations of methane, nitrogen, oxygen, and balance gas.

Testing will also continued to be performed to monitor subterranean LFG migration. This will involve continued quarterly monitoring of the soil gas monitoring probes around the perimeter of the Dump. The soil gas monitoring probes will be tested for percent methane and the lower explosive limit (LEL) for methane. The sampling point locations and monitoring results will continue to be recorded, summarized, and submitted to the GEPA as required in the closure approval.

5.10.1 Condensate Sampling and Testing Condensate may be sampled from the condensate sump or the knockout pot located at the flare. Condensate sampling and testing will be performed as directed in the air quality and/or solid waste permits issued by GEPA.

Annual Report 5.11As required by the NSPS, annual reports must be submitted to the governing authority, in this case GEPA, with an initial report within 180 days of LFG collection and control system startup including results of the initial performance test. Reports must include the following: • The volume of LFG extracted • The value and length of time for exceedance of monitored parameters including temperature,

pressure, and concentrations of oxygen and nitrogen. • A description and duration of all periods when the control device was not operating for a period

exceeding 1 hour. • All periods when the collection system was not operating in excess of 5 days. • The location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per million methane concentration detected

during surface emissions monitoring, as described in Section 6 of this GCCS Design Plan, and the concentration recorded at each location for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous month.

• The date of installation and the location of each well or collection system expansion, if any.

6-1

Section 6

GCCS Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Plan

Introduction 6.1This Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM) Plan has been prepared in order to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(6), as the Ordot Dump is subject to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAA, the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for municipal solid waste landfills. The Ordot Dump is an “affected source” under this rule as it has accepted waste since 1965, has a capacity greater than 2.5 million Mg, and has an estimated uncontrolled non-methane organic compound emission range greater than or equal to 50 Mg per year.

The start-up and shutdown procedures will be posted at the main control panel. Personnel designated with GCCS operational responsibility will be trained in the specific procedures related to the systems.

Plan Contents 6.2This SSM Plan is divided into three sections comprising the primary elements relating to the startup, shutdown and malfunction of the GCCS. Startup and shutdown are generally planned events associated with GCCS maintenance, testing, and repair, and may or may not be related to a malfunction of the GCCS. Startup procedures are provided in Section 6.3, shutdown procedures in Section 6.4, and malfunction procedures in Section 6.5. Malfunction events are distinct events when the GCCS is not operating in accordance with NSPS requirements and which result, or have the potential to result, in an exceedance of one or more emission limitations or operational standards under the NSPS.

6.2.1 Equipment Covered by this SSM Plan The GCCS equipment covered by this SSM Plan includes the following:

1. Gas Collection System (wellfield, conveyance piping, valves, condensate structures, etc); 2. Flare; 3. Blower; 4. Pumps; 5. Gas Treatment Equipment; 6. Gas Monitoring Equipment

System Start-Up 6.3System startup means setting in operation any affected source or portion of affected source, including startup of gas mover equipment (for example, the blower), control devices (for example, the flare), gas treatment equipment (for example, the knockout pot), and any ancillary equipment that could affect the operation of the GCCS.

The Ordot Dump GCCS start-up must be conducted carefully to prevent emissions of gas to the atmosphere, maximize gas flow, and prevent excessive vacuum application at the gas extraction points.


6-2

6.3.1 Collection System The following activities have the potential to emit regulated air pollutants to the atmosphere during startup of the GCCS:

• Purging of gases trapped in the piping system; • Repair of system leaks at wellheads, system piping, and condensate structures.

During such activities, work shall progress such that air emissions are minimized by the following:

• Temporarily capping pipes venting gas; • Minimize surface areas where gas may emitted to the atmosphere, such as open trenches in the

waste mass; • Assuring other sections of the GCCS are operating properly; and • Limiting the purging of gas in the piping network to as short a duration as possible.

Once the blower and the flare are in operation, the system must be gradually balanced by adjusting the valves at the wellheads. As a starting point, the valves should be nearly closed at the wellheads and opened slightly until the LFG readings are within the required ranges. In this way, excessive air infiltration into the LFG system can be avoided. The wellhead valves should be adjusted according to their distance from the blower, as the available vacuum will be at its highest nearest the blower and lower at distance from the blower.

After the initial start-up, measurement of methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, balance gas, pressure, temperature, and flow rate will be used for fine vacuum adjustments at the wellheads to balance the system.

6.3.2 Control Device The control device is a skid-mounted “candlestick” type open flare designed for unattended operation. Automatic and manual startup procedures are provided in the manufacturer’s Operation and Maintenance Manual in Appendix B.

On occasions, the flare might be unavailable (due to maintenance, the flame going out, or other reasons) and will operate in “flame-out” mode. In this mode, the programmable logic controller at the flare would direct a signal to the flare to automatically re-ignite the flare. In the event that the flare does not re-ignite, the vacuum blower would shut down and the pressure within the GCCS would begin to equalize to atmospheric pressure. The loss of vacuum would trigger an alarm, alerting personnel that the flare is not ignited. The operator of the facility would then correct any problems and re-ignite the flare.

6.3.3 Automatic Start-Up The automatic start-up procedure is followed to start the blower and ignite the flare with the system control switch set to the automatic position. A general procedure for beginning flare operations in automatic mode is described below. The flare manufacturer's specific procedures must be consulted and used to start the flare. 1. Open the inlet valve to the knockout pot by 50 percent. 2. Open the inlet and outlet valves on the blower. Open the main line valves. 3. Set the blower switch to automatic at the motor control panel. 4. Open the flare gas pilot supply as recommended by the flare manufacturer. 5. Open the knockout pot inlet slowly to 100 percent. 6. Set the flare pilot switch to automatic at the flare control panel. The pilot light should illuminate.

After a short warm-up period, the blower should start and the flare should light. After several minutes, the pilot should extinguish.


6-3

6.3.4 Manual Start-Up The manual start-up procedure is followed to start the blower and ignite the flare with the system control switch set to the manual position. A general procedure for beginning flare operations in manual mode is described below. The flare manufacturer's specific procedures must be consulted and used to start the flare. 1. Open the inlet and outlet valves on the blower. 2. Open the main line valves. 3. Open the valve inlet to the knockout pot by 50 percent. 4. Open the flare gas pilot supply as recommended by the flare manufacturer. 5. Set the flare pilot switch to manual at the flare control panel. 6. Start the flare pilot by pressing the flare spark control until it ignites. 7. Shut the pilot gas valve. 8. Position the flare pilot switch to off. 9. Open the knockout pot valve slowly to 100 percent.

GCCS Shut-Down 6.4System shutdown means the planned cessation of an affected source or portion of an affected source. Shutdown events will generally include the planned shutdown of gas mover equipment (for example, the blower), control devices (for example, the flare), gas treatment equipment (for example, the knockout pot), and any ancillary equipment that could affect the operation of the GCCS. A shutdown event should not exceed more that five days unless an alternative timeframe has been established.

The following activities and events may necessitate a manual shutdown of the GCCS. Some may not require a full shutdown if the portion of the GCCS can be isolated by closing off appropriate header valves, leaving the balance of the GCCS in operation:

1. Flare maintenance, cleaning or repair; 2. Addition of new GCCS components, such as a new well; 3. Well decommissioning; 4. Relocation or realignment of conveyance piping; 5. Source testing; 6. Blower/motor maintenance, cleaning or repair; 7. Gas treatment structure maintenance, cleaning or repair; 8. Planned electrical outages; 9. Ancillary equipment maintenance, cleaning or repair; 10. New equipment testing.

Portions of the GCCS may be isolated by closing valves in the main header piping, lateral piping, or wellheads. Such activities are not considered a shutdown unless they last for more than five days and cause exceedances of the provisions of the NSPS.

6.4.1 General Procedures The following general procedure should be followed to shut down the gas collection and control system. The flare manufacturer's specific procedures must be consulted and used to shut down the flare. 1. Turn off the blower at the motor control panel. 2. Close the knockout pot inlet valve. 3. Extinguish the flare at the flare control panel.


6-4

4. Close the pilot gas valve. 5. Close the blower inlet and outlet valves. 6. Verify that all valves associated with the blower/flare system are closed and tight. Close any open

blower/flare system valves and replace any leaking valves immediately.

In the automatic mode, the flare is designed to shut down automatically in the event that the flame is extinguished or if the flare temperature or gas quality is above or below a specified operating range. A block or "slam-shut" valve located between the flare and the blower will automatically close in the event the flare or the blower shuts down.

6.4.2 System Decommissioning The GCCS can be relatively easily decommissioned, if the system sustains irreparable damage or the facility is no longer needed to manage gases generated in the waste mass. To safely and properly decommission the facility, the following general tasks will be performed. 1. Shut down the gas flare and appurtenant equipment. The flare manufacturer's specific procedures

must be consulted and used to shut down the flare. 2. Open the in-line control valve at each gas well to allow gases still in the collection system to

passively vent to the atmosphere and relieve residual pressure in the system. 3. Locate the inlet pipe to the blower. Once located and verified to be free of explosive gases, this pipe

will be cut and sealed. Measurements will be taken to be sure the location can be re-established in the future.

4. Disassemble and remove the flare skid equipment. 5. Disassemble yard piping at the gas flare skid. Remove the gas flare from the support base and cut

the flare as needed for salvage or disposal. 6. Remove the disassembled equipment from site for salvage or disposal. 7. If LFG collection is no longer necessary, reconstruct LFG wellhead assemblies to allow passive venting.

Malfunction Plan 6.5Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control, monitoring or process equipment, or any process, to operate in a normal or usual manner which causes, or has the potential to cause, emission limitations of an applicable standard to be exceeded. Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance, careless operation, human error, or which are reasonably preventable, are not malfunctions.

For a malfunction event to be addressed by this SSM Plan, it must result in, or have the potential to result in, an exceedance of one or more of the NSPS operational and compliance requirements.

If the procedures in this SSM Plan do not address or do not adequately address the malfunction that has occurred, the operator should attempt to correct the malfunction using the best resources available.


6-5

6.5.1 Common Malfunctions Common malfunctions of the GCCS include the following:

1. Loss of gas flow to the control device, including flare and blower; 2. Gas extraction well and pipe failures; 3. Loss of electrical power; 4. Malfunction of the flare; 5. Malfunction of flare temperature monitoring and recording equipment; and 6. Malfunction of flow measuring devices.

6.5.2 Timeframes for NSPS Exceedances Breakdown or failure events have different timeframes to be considered malfunctions for the purposes of this SSM Plan, as follows:

• GCCS downtime of greater than five days; • Free venting of landfill gas for more that one hour; • Any downtime of flare temperature monitoring or recording equipment; • Downtime of gas flow to the monitoring or recording equipment greater than fifteen minutes.

6.5.3 Operational Contingencies The gas flare system designed for the Ordot Dump will be equipped with the following contingency items to deal with unusual circumstances: • A fail-safe valve, also known as the "slam-shut" or automatic block valve, will be situated between

the blower and the gas flare. If either the blower or the flare fails to operate, the fail-safe valve will automatically close, cutting off the LFG flow to the flare.

• The flare is typically designed with a self-checking flame scanner to monitor the pilot and LFG flames to detect the presence or lack of flame within the unit. If a flame is not detected, the system will automatically shut down. Flame safeguard controls typically include a self-checking flame scanner and panel-mounted flame relay.

• A pilot gas control system typically includes a pressure regulator, fail-safe shut down valves, and a manual block valve. Additionally, a pressure indicator will be incorporated into the flare system.

• The control panel typically will contain indicator lights to monitor flare conditions during start-up, normal operations, and automatic shutdown events.

• The system will typically contain an automatic start/restart control mode. In the automatic operating mode, the unit will automatically start when power is applied. If the unit shuts down for any reason except high stack temperature, the auto mode will allow the unit to attempt to purge and restart for a specified time period. A remote signal will be sent if the unit fails to restart.

• The flare will be equipped with an inlet flame arrestor. • The control panel typically has a chart recorder to continuously record the flare temperature and a

flow meter to measure the LFG flow. • There will be a dedicated standby blower for the GCCS. • There will be an emergency power generator at the Dump.


6-6

6.5.4 General Responses to GCCS Malfunctions The causes of malfunctions should be investigated immediately to determine the best course of action to correct the malfunction. Each malfunction may have multiple causes that need to be identified and corrected.

The initial response to a malfunction of the GCCS is to determine if there has been an exceedance of any applicable emission limitation in the NSPS or NESHAPS. In addition, it should be determined whether there has been or will be excess emissions to the atmosphere. If emissions are occurring, take immediate steps to reduce or eliminate emissions. After these initial steps have been taken, the operator should proceed with malfunction diagnosis corrective procedures contained in the manufacturer’s O&M Manual provided in Appendix B.

Additional requirements for GCCS malfunctions include the following:

1. If the malfunction cannot be corrected within the timeframes listed above, define the appropriate alternative timeframe for corrective action that is reasonable for the type of repair or maintenance required;

2. If the GCCS malfunction cannot be corrected within the alternative timeframe, conduct the appropriate record keeping and reporting required for deviations of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAA.

7-1

Section 7

Surface Emissions Monitoring Protocol This protocol presents the methods utilized to assess migration of landfill gas through the surface of the Ordot Dump, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.753(d), 60.755(c) and (d), and 60.756(f).

General Description 7.1The surface emissions monitoring (SEM) survey consists of monitoring surface emissions for methane as an indicator of landfill gas emissions from the waste mass. The SEM survey will be conducted along the perimeter of the landfill gas collection area and within the footprint of the waste disposal area. The waste disposal area is depicted on the attached Figure 1, Surface Emissions Monitoring Route Plan. The SEM survey will utilize an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector or other portable monitoring equipment. Sampling will be performed at intervals of approximately 30 meter intervals (or a site-specific established alternative spacing) for each collection area within the landfill footprint. Sampling will also be performed at locations where ground surface conditions, such as stressed vegetation or surface cracks or seeps, indicate the potential for gas emissions.

Procedures 7.2The route of the SEM survey is depicted on Figure 7-1, Surface Emissions Monitoring Route Plan. This route will generally be followed unless field conditions on the day of the SEM survey necessitate a change. Personnel safety will be a paramount concern in any decision to alter the route or omit an area of the landfill from the SEM survey.

The SEM survey will consist of surface monitoring along a pattern that traverses the Dump at approximately 30 meter intervals. A perimeter path will be followed that approximately follows the limit of the waste, with sampling taking place approximately every 30 meters. Within the limits of the waste, interior paths will be surveyed following a traverse pattern roughly parallel to the perimeter, with each path approximately 30 meters from the previous path, with samples tested at approximately 30 meter intervals. The SEM survey will cover the entire limit of waste disposal.

Sampling instruments will be consistent with Section 3 of EPA Method 21 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A). Sampling will be carried out using a portable flame ionization detector (FID), a portable organic vapor analyzer (OVA), or similar instrument capable of quantifying methane at parts-per-million (ppm) levels, and having a response time of thirty seconds or less. An example of an acceptable instrument is the Photovac Micro FID. The instrument will be calibrated to a methane standard of a nominal concentration between 100 and 500 ppm, or as recommended by the manufacturer. Calibration will be conducted immediately before field sampling if possible, and in no case greater than 24 hours prior to field sampling. The instrument will be routinely checked during sampling to assure that it is functioning properly (for instance, that the flame is lit in the FID).

Surface samples will be taken with the probe inlet placed 5 to 10 centimeters above the ground surface. Any areas encountered during the SEM survey that exhibit signs of potential LFG emissions will be


7-3

tested, irrespective of whether the location falls on the regular 30-meter testing interval. These areas include stressed vegetation, cracks, fissures or other holes in the cover soil, any locations where LFG is visibly or audibly venting from the final cover, or liquid seeps. Field personnel will be trained to recognize these indicators of potential emissions.

Background readings of ambient air will be determined by moving the probe inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the waste at a distance of at least 30 meters from the perimeter LFG extraction wells or horizontal collectors.

Weather Conditions 7.3Every attempt will be made to conduct SEM surveys on days with typical meteorological conditions. Typical conditions include days with predicted wind speeds between 5 and 15 miles per hour. In addition, attempts will be made to carry out the SEM surveys when the land surface is dry and no rain is falling. Meteorological data from the weather station located at Hagatna, which is available on the National Weather Service web site, may be utilized prior to and during the SEM survey to determine and document meteorological conditions. Local weather conditions on site, including approximate wind speed, wind direction, cloud cover, and ambient temperature, will be recorded by field personnel before, during, and after the SEM survey.

In order to assure that valid samples are taken and wind does not unduly influence SEM survey results, shields will be utilized to protect sampling locations from wind. Large plastic trash barrels cut in half lengthwise and placed on the ground, with the opening facing downwind and the instrument probes inserted through the opening into the protected area, are convenient and have been proven effective for this purpose. These wind shields may also be used to protect aboveground sampling locations from excess wind. Unless the atmosphere is calm, wind shields will be utilized during the SEM surveys.

Recording and Reporting 7.4During the course of the SEM survey, the field crews will record results at every sample location where a reading is 500 ppm or more above background. Results from samples taken at locations other than routine ground shots (that is, if sampling is prompted by surface conditions) will be accompanied by a note indicating what prompted sampling at that location. Results of the SEM survey will be presented in tabular manner, accompanied by a Survey Route Plan showing all sample locations. A full report of each SEM survey will be presented to the GEPA.

Action Levels and Follow-up Sampling 7.5All results will be reported. All results greater than 500 ppm above background will be targeted for follow-up actions. Surface samples that exceed background by 500 ppm will first be addressed by checking the efficiency of the GCCS and by altering the vacuum on the system and/or on individual wells adjacent to the exceedance. Investigations into final cover integrity will also be performed if there is indication that a failure in the final cover may be responsible for the exceedance. The location will then be re-sampled within ten days of the exceedance.

If re-sampling discloses a second exceedance, additional corrective action will be taken and the location will again be re-sampled within ten days of the second exceedance. If the re-sampling shows a third exceedance for the same location, a new well or collection device will be installed within 120 days or an alternative remedy to the exceedance with a corresponding timeline for installation or corrective action will be submitted to GEPA for approval.


7-4

If re-sampling discloses that concentrations have fallen below the 500 ppm action level, re-sampling will be performed one month from the initial exceedance. If the one-month re-sampling continues to show no exceedance, no additional monitoring will be required until the next regularly scheduled SEM survey.

SEM Survey Frequency 7.6SEM surveys will be carried out on a quarterly basis. If no samples exceed background levels by 500 ppm for three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods, SEM survey frequency will be changed to annual. Any methane reading of 500 ppm or more above background detected during the annual monitoring returns the frequency to quarterly monitoring.

REF-1

References Brown and Caldwell, Ordot Landfill Gas Generation Potential, January 2013.

Brown and Caldwell, Topographic Surveys and Airspace Report, Technical Memorandum, September 8, 2012.

Brown and Caldwell Team, Design Drawings, Ordot Dump Closure Construction and Dero Road Sewer Improvements, July 1, 2013.

Brown and Caldwell Team, Design Report, Ordot Dump Closure Construction and Dero Road Sewer Improvements, July 1, 2013.

Brown and Caldwell Team, Final Post Closure Maintenance Plan, Ordot Dump Closure Construction, Permitting Copy, March 2013

EPA, User’s Manual, Philippines Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM), Version 1.0, Eastern Research Group USA and Organic Waste Technologies, December 2009.

USEPA LMOP, Summary of Landfill Gas Energy Potential for the Ordot Dump, February, 2009.

Ordot Dump Gas Collection and Control System Plan

A

Appendix A: Ordot Landfill Gas Generation Potential

Ordot Landfill

Gas Generation Potential

Prepared for

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB),

Receiver for the Guam Sol id Waste

Author i t y

January 2013

414 W. Soledad Avenue, Suite 500

Hagatna, Guam 96910

Ordot Landfill Gas Generation Potential

Prepared for

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB),

Receiver for the Guam Sol id Waste Authori t y

542 North Marine Corps Dr ive

Tamuning, Guam 96913

Revis ion 1

January 2013

1/8/2013

Douglas B. Lee Date

Brown and Caldwel l

Th is work was prepared by me or under my superv is ion.

ii

Final Ordot Landfill Gas Generation Potential v1-8-13.docx

Table of Contents

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

2. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 2-1

3. Landfill Gas Generation Potential ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Annual Waste Disposal Rates ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Gas Collection System Efficiency .................................................................................................. 3-2

3.4 Methane Generation Rate Constant (k) ....................................................................................... 3-3

3.5 Ultimate Methane Generation Potential (Lo) ................................................................................ 3-4

3.6 Model Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................ 3-5

4. Landfill Gas Generation Model Results .................................................................................................. 4-5

4.1 Landfill Gas Recovery Potential .................................................................................................... 4-5

4.2 Energy Output Potential ................................................................................................................. 4-7

4.3 Overview of Landfill Gas End Uses ................................................................................................ 4-7

4.4 Landfill Gas Project Feasibility Model ........................................................................................... 4-9

5. Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 5-1

References .................................................................................................................................................. REF-1

Appendix A: Philippines Model Results .............................................................................................................. A

Appendix B: LFG to Energy Results ................................................................................................................... B

Appendix C: Project Feasibility Evaluation Using LMOP LFGcost-Web ........................................................... C

Ordot Landfill Gas Generation Potential Table of Contents

iii


List of Figures

Figure 1. Estimated Landfill Gas Recovery Rates ......................................................................................... 4-6

List of Tables

Table 3-1. Criteria for Determining Collection Efficiency (used in all modeling scenarios) ....................... 3-3

Table 3-2. Various Values for Methane Generation Rate Constant, k (per year) ........................................ 3-4

Table 3-3. Various Values for Ultimate Methane Generation Potential Lo (m3/Mg of Waste) ................... 3-4

Table 3-4. Philippines Model Scenarios Considered ................................................................................... 3-5

Table 4-1. Landfill Gas Recovery Rates Summary at 67% Collection System Efficiency ........................... 4-5

Table 4-2 Energy Output for Each Scenario Considered .............................................................................. 4-7

Table 4-3 LFG to Energy Technology Specific Requirements ....................................................................... 4-9

Table 4-4. LFG Project Economic Feasibility Estimates .............................................................................. 4-10

Ordot Landfill Gas Generation Potential Table of Contents

iv


List of Abbreviations

av average

BC Brown and Caldwell

Btu British Thermal Unit

CAA Clean Air Act

CH4 methane

CNG compressed natural gas

ft3/min cubic feet per minute

GBB Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.

GHG Green House Gas

gpd gallons per day

GSWA Guam Solid Waste Authority

in/yr inches per year

k Methane Generation Rate Constant

LandGem Landfill Gas Emissions Model

lbs pounds

lbs/ yd3 pounds per cubic yard

LFG landfill gas

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program

Lo Ultimate Methane Generation Potential

m3 cubic meter

Mg megagram

MJ/hr megajoule per hour

MTCO2e megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent

MW megawatt

NMOC non-methane organic compounds

psig pounds per square inch gauge

TM Technical Memorandum

USEPA United States Environmental Protection

Agency

1-1


Section 1

Introduction

On behalf of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB), Receiver for the Guam Solid Waste Authority

(GSWA), Brown and Caldwell (BC) has been authorized to develop plans and conduct design studies in

support of the closure of the Ordot Dump (Dump) located in Ordot-Chalan Pago under the Consent

Decree Order (US District Court of Guam, Civil Case No. 02-00022, Document Number 55). In addition

to the Consent Decree, Title 10, Chapter 51, Article 1 Solid Waste Management, 51101(4) of the Guam

Code Annotated, mandated that the Dump be closed.

This Report presents the estimated landfill gas (LFG) generation potential after closure of the Dump in

Guam, for the purposes of evaluating LFG energy project feasibility, and for estimating gas collection and

control system design parameters. The Report is based on historical information, previous reports

pertaining to LFG at the Dump, and on the results of field investigations performed by BC between May

2011 and September 2012.

In December 2011, three LFG generation potential wells (LFGW-1, LFGW-2, and LFGW-3) were drilled

through the top of the Dump into the underlying waste mass. LFG from these 3 wells was sampled

periodically over a six-week period between February and April 2012, resulting in an average methane

(CH4) measurement of 55 percent by volume. Based on the observed LFG composition, the Dump, which

is 70 years old, is in the final stages of anaerobic decomposition and, not surprisingly, the detected gas

composition is similar to what would be expected from an older, more mature biomass. The full data set

from the field work is contained in a Technical Memorandum (TM) titled “Ordot Dump – Preliminary Field

Report of Landfill Gas Generation Potential” prepared by BC.

2-1


Section 2

Background

Guam, the largest and southernmost island in the Marianas Archipelago, is located approximately 3,800

miles west of Hawaii and 1,500 miles south of Japan. Guam is approximately 212 square miles in area

with a length of 30 miles and a width ranging between 4 and 11.5 miles.

The Dump is located approximately 2.5 miles south of Guam’s capital, Hagatna, and about 1 mile

southwest of the Dero Road-Route 4 intersection. The Dump is an unlined disposal facility and has few

to no control systems to manage landfill gas, leachate, surface water, erosion, and vectors. The disposal

area has been estimated to be approximately 43.4 acres, based on the limits of waste delineation

performed by BC in 2012.

The area surrounding the Dump is covered by dense brush and wooded areas, and is sparsely developed

with scattered residences. The Dump is situated in a former ravine that was a surface water

drainageway to the Lonfit River, located to the south. The Dump occupies and borders a mix of private

properties and property of the Government of Guam on the east, south, and west. The north side of the

limits of the Dump border public land in the form of the Dero Road right-of-way.

The Dump started approximately in the early 1940s. The Dump reportedly began operation for military

forces early in World War II, and was turned over to civilian authorities in 1950. The Dump was the

primary solid waste disposal facility for civilian residents of Guam until waste acceptance ceased in

August 2011.

For most of that time, the Dump operated as an open dump. Numerous fires have been recorded since

about 1990, but it is generally accepted that there has been an average of at least one fire every one to

two years for decades. This includes a major tire fire that was essentially allowed to burn out over a four-

month period in 1998-1999. Subsurface (deep-seated) fires fueled by the generation of flammable

(methane) and combustible gases during the decomposition of waste within the landfill have also been

reported. With the exception of the tire fire of 1998, documentation of the type, size, location, and

duration of the fires is mostly unavailable. However, observations of certain test pits in the northwest

corner indicate that open burning of trash occurred, and neighbors have reported that burning of the

waste was a standard practice for a period of time.

There was little control over waste type acceptance and limited sanitary landfill practices, such as

regular applications of cover material, until the Solid Waste Management Division of the Guam

Department of Public Works went into Receivership in 2008. In June 2009, a truck scale was installed

by the Receiver to track the incoming waste material and other operational improvements were

implemented. The Dump is unlined, no LFG collection system has been installed, and no final cover or

cap has been installed. The Dump has been estimated by BC to hold approximately 4.5 million cubic

yards of material, which includes waste and cover soil (BC’s Topographic Surveys and Airspace Report,

2012). Accurate records regarding disposal rates, types of waste, and cover soil use prior to June 2009

are not available; hence, in many cases reasonable assumptions were made based on the results of

BC’s investigations and reviews of available historical information and used in the completion of this

study.

3-1


Section 3

Landfill Gas Generation Potential

3.1 Introduction

The most widely used LFG generation model in the United States is the United States Environmental

Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM). LandGEM is generally regarded

as the mainland United States industry standard model for regulatory and non-regulatory applications.

LandGEM is an automated estimation tool with a Microsoft Excel interface that is used to estimate

emission rates for total LFG, methane, carbon dioxide, non-methane organic compounds, and individual

air pollutants from municipal solid waste landfills. LandGEM can be used to generate emission

estimates for use in emission inventories and air permits.

In 2009, the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) of the USEPA developed a version of the

LandGEM Model for the Philippine Islands to help landfill owners and operators, end users of LFG, and

other interested parties evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits of collecting and using LFG for

energy recovery in the Philippines. The Philippines LandGEM provides a more developed gas generation

calculation, and a more developed estimate of the fraction of LFG available for capture, than does the

“Standard” LandGEM. The Philippine Model provides recommended values for input variables based on

climatological data, landfill configurations, landfill operations practices, observable leachate

characteristics, waste characteristics specific to the Philippines, and the estimated effect of these

conditions on the amounts and rates of LFG generation. Similar to the “Standard” LandGEM, the

Philippines Model also allows users to specify their own values for these input variables if reliable site

specific data are available.

The Philippines are a tropical location in the western Pacific with mean annual temperature of 80

degrees Fahrenheit and mean annual rainfall of 99 inches/year (in/yr)

(http://kidlat.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/cab/climate.htm). Guam is also a tropical location in the western

Pacific at similar latitude with mean annual temperature of 81 degrees Fahrenheit and a mean annual

rainfall of 95 in/yr (http://ns.gov.gu/climate.html).

Due to the similarities in location, temperature and precipitation, the Philippines Model was used to

estimate potential LFG generation rates for the Dump. The Philippines Model input parameters are

discussed in more detail below while model output results are provided in Appendix A.

3.2 Annual Waste Disposal Rates

LandGEM Models require annual waste disposal quantities as input parameters. However, reliable

annual waste disposal quantities for the Dump are only available for the last two years of the Dump’s

operation, from June 2009 through August 2011 after scales were installed to weigh incoming waste

loads and cover soil. For the purpose of this study, historical annual disposal quantities were estimated

using available population data and unit waste generation rates. While not uncommon for older landfills,

actual data are limited and several assumptions had to be made to generate LandGEM Model input.

Similarly, reliable sources of per capita waste generation rates for Guam were not available and had to

be estimated based on published sources described in more detail below. Two sources of population

data were considered in this evaluation, including US Census data, which included data for each decade

between 1940 and 2010, and The World Factbook CIA government library. [US Census Population Data

(2000, 2010), http://www.bsp.guam.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124:us-

http://kidlat.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/cab/climate.htm

http://ns.gov.gu/climate.html

http://www.bsp.guam.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124:us-census-bureau-

Ordot Landfill Gas Generation Potential Section 4

3-2


census-bureau-]; (The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-

factbook/geos/gq.html)

Two per capita waste generation rates were considered in this evaluation. A rate of 1.68 pounds

(lbs)/person/day (World Bank, 1999) was noted as the average solid waste generation rate for middle

income countries (Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia) and a rate of 3.7 lbs/person/day was

noted as the average waste generated in the United States from 1960 to 2010 (EPA MSW 2012).

These are considered reasonable estimates of per capita waste generation, so waste generation rates of

similar magnitude were used to compute the annual waste disposal quantities for years prior to 2009.

Using the known volume of waste, as determined from the Waste Thickness Isopach Map, 2012 and the

Topographic Surveys and Airspace Report, 2012, in-place waste densities were then calculated and

ranged from approximately 1,600 pounds per cubic yard (lbs/yd3) to 2,300 lbs/yd3. These densities are

reasonable, given the wet climate and the natural consolidation expected to have taken place in the

waste mass over the years.

Annual waste disposal quantities were estimated using population and unit waste disposal information

in conjunction with the actual in-place volume. Population and unit waste disposal data were used on a

pro-rata basis to spread the waste intake over the years the Dump was in operation (with the exception

of the period of 2009 through 2011). This estimation process indicated the range of in-place waste

tonnage is approximately 3.5 million tons to 5.2 million tons. Both ends of the range were used in the

LandGEM Model to estimate LFG generation.

Because of the nature of organic waste degradation, which reaches a relatively rapid rate quickly and

then decreases over time, the wastes placed in the most recent years of the Dump’s life represent the

most significant contribution to the present and future LFG generation. Similarly, waste placed more

than 15 years ago does not significantly influence the results of the model. Therefore, knowing the most

recent waste intake and estimating that for earlier years contributes positively to the confidence in the

model results. Waste intakes at the Dump decreased in more recent years because the Receiver

instituted a successful recycling program for the island.

3.3 Gas Collection System Efficiency

The Philippines Model considers the efficiency of a LFG collection system in the landfill, based on a

number of physical and environmental features of the landfill modeled. The highest collection efficiency

used in the Philippines Model is 85%, which is then reduced, or discounted, based on the answers to

eight questions. Table 3-1 shows the eight questions, the collection efficiency reduction factors, and the

responses used for the Dump to establish an estimated collection system efficiency. The discount

reduces the collection efficiency value of 85% to 67%. A brief explanation for each response follows

Table 3-1.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gq.html



3-3


Table 3-1. Criteria for Determining Collection Efficiency (used in all modeling scenarios)

No Question Response

Collection Efficiency

Discount (below 85%)

for Response

1 Is the waste placed in the Dump properly compacted on an ongoing basis? No 3%

2 Does the Dump have a focused tipping area? Yes 0%

3 Are there leachate seeps appearing along the Dump sideslopes? Or is there ponding of

water/leachate on the Dump surface? Yes 10%

4 Is the average depth of waste 10 meters or greater? Yes 0%

5 Is any daily or weekly cover material applied to newly deposited waste? Yes 0%

6 Is any intermediate/final cover applied to newly deposited waste? Yes 0%

7 Does the Dump have a geosynthetic or clay liner? No 5%

8 In which bracket (I to V) does LFG System Area Coverage Percentage fall? I (80-100%) 0%

Question #1 – The waste has only been properly compacted for the past couple of years, therefore,

the answer to this question is “no”.

Question #2 – It is assumed that even prior to operation by the Receiver, the dumping activities were

confined to one area at a time.

Question #3 – Leachate seeps are present on the side slopes.

Question #4 – Recent borings into the Dump have confirmed that the average depth of waste is

considerably more than ten meters.

Question #5 – Prior to operation by the Receiver, it is evident that cover material was only used

during the last two-three years at the Dump, and since LFG generation is largely from relatively newly

deposited waste, the answer to this question is “yes”.

Question #6 –Intermediate or final cover has been applied.

Question #7 – No liner is present at the Dump.

Question #8 – The LFG extraction and control system will cover more than 80% of the area.

The Philippines Model also takes into consideration historical landfill fires and uses a default input value

of 30% for previous methane destruction due to fire.

3.4 Methane Generation Rate Constant (k)

The methane generation rate constant k is a measure of the rate at which the organic fraction of the

waste can be transformed into methane. The value of k can be within a wide range that is derived from

four factors:

1. Moisture content of the waste mass (which ranges from near zero in arid landfills to nearly saturated

in wet bioreactors)

2. Availability of the organic and carbon nutrients in the waste for microorganisms to break down and

generate methane and carbon dioxide

3. pH of the waste mass, which depends on part on its moisture content and organics percentage

4. Temperature of the waste mass, which in turn depends on the temperatures achieved by exothermic

and endothermic reactions prior to methanogenesis


3-4


LandGEM Models, including the Philippines Model, provide “default” values for k based on research and

previous studies. Table 3-2 lists the default values of k under various conditions. The value of k has

units of 1/year, so that, for example, if the methane generation rate constant k = 0.05 the

biodegradable fraction of waste would essentially be degraded in 20 years (i.e., 1/0.05). Relatively

warm, moist landfills will have higher k values, and therefore faster biodegradation of waste and

increased LFG generation rates than cooler, drier landfills. Both the Philippines and Guam are wet,

tropical environments, and the recommended “default” value for k in the Philippines Model is k = 0.18.

Table 3-2. Various Values for Methane Generation Rate Constant, k (per year)

Emission Type Landfill Type k Value

CAA1 Conventional 0.05 (default)

CAA1 Arid Area 0.02

Inventory2 Conventional 0.04

Inventory2 Arid Area 0.02

Inventory2 Wet (Bioreactor) 0.73

Philippines Model Conventional 0.18 (default)

1 CAA – Clean Air Act Compliance default values

2 Inventory – LandGEM default values

3 LandGEM uses 0.7 yr-1 as the default value for wet landfills which was recognized in the solid waste industry as an over estimate of the

methane generation rate from actual field measurement. Recently, several studies were published for wet landfills including Kim H, Townsend

T, 2012, where k ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 yr1 for wet landfills

3.5 Ultimate Methane Generation Potential (Lo)

The ultimate methane generation potential Lo is a measure of the total amount of methane that can be

generated from a waste mass. The value of Lo depends only on the amount of biodegradable organic

content in the waste; the greater the concentration of biodegradable material, the higher the value of Lo.

The LandGEM Models also provide “default” values for Lo that are typical of average municipal solid

waste streams. The value of Lo is measured in volume of methane generated per mass of waste,

generally given as cubic meters per metric ton, or megagram. Due to historical landfill fires and the

reported 25% content of construction and demolition waste (Summary of Landfill Gas Energy Potential

for the Ordot Dump, USEPA LMOP, February, 2009); the recommended “default” value for the

Philippines Model for Lo is 60 cubic meter per megagram (m3/Mg) of Waste. The Lo values used under

various conditions and assumptions are provided in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Various Values for Ultimate Methane Generation Potential Lo (m3/Mg of Waste)

Emission Type Landfill Type Lo Value

CAA1 Conventional 170 (default)

CAA1 Arid Area 170

Inventory2 Conventional 100

Inventory2 Arid Area 100

Inventory2 Wet (Bioreactor) 96

Philippines Model Conventional 60 (default)


4-5


1 CAA – Clean Air Act Compliance default values

2 Inventory – LandGEM default values

Note: With respect to methane gas generation potential (Lo), 1 cubic meter of methane gas per megagram of waste is equal to approximately

32 cubic feet of methane gas per ton of waste.

3.6 Model Sensitivity

The two variables, k and Lo, have significant impact on projected LFG generation and annual generation

rates. A sensitivity analysis was performed to model the impact of these variables on LFG generation for

the Dump. The previously discussed range of waste densities was also considered in the analysis. The

Lo, k, and waste density values used in the sensitivity analysis are given in Table 3-4. The alternate value

of k =0.11 (waste decay over 9.1 years) was used instead of the default value of the Philippine Model of

k = 0.18 (waste decay over 5.5 years) and Lo =100 was used instead of the default Lo =60 to represent

the range of reasonable LFG generation scenarios for the Dump. The results from the model are

summarized in Section 4.1 below. Appendix A presents the full output from USEPA’s Philippines Model.

Table 3-4. Philippines Model Scenarios Considered

Waste Density

lbs/ yd3

Methane Generation Rate

Constant, k (per year)

Ultimate Methane Generation

Potential Lo (m3/Mg of Waste)1 Collection System Efficiency (%)

1,600 0.11 60 67

1,600 0.18 60 67

2,300 0.11 60 67

2,300 0.18 60 67

1,600 0.11 100 67

1,600 0.18 100 67

2,300 0.11 100 67

2,300 0.18 100 67

Section 4

Landfill Gas Generation Model

Results

4.1 Landfill Gas Recovery Potential

A summary of the results from the LFG generation modeling using the Philippines Model is listed below

in Table 4-1 and shown in Figure 1. Recovery rates from an abbreviated period (2013 to 2023) are

highlighted. Eight different Philippines Model scenarios were considered with varying waste densities

(1,600 to 2,300 lb/ yd3), methane generation rate constants (0.11 to 0.18 per year), and methane

generation potentials (60 to 100 m3/Mg). The results are summarized below.

Table 4-1. Landfill Gas Recovery Rates Summary at 67% Collection System Efficiency


4-6


Waste Density

lbs/cu yd3

Methane Generation

Rate Constant, k (per

year)

Ultimate Methane Generation

Potential Lo (m3/Mg of Waste)

LFG recovery rates for

2013, (ft3/min)1

LFG recovery rates for 2023 ,

(ft3/min) 1

1,600 0.11 60 301 90

1,600 0.18 60 289 40

2,300 0.11 60 322 96

2,300 0.18 60 298 41

1,600 0.11 100 501 167

1,600 0.18 100 482 80

2,300 0.11 100 537 179

2,300 0.18 100 497 82

Note: 1. ft3/min=cubic feet per minute

Figure 1. Estimated Landfill Gas Recovery Rates

(at Lo=100 m3/metric ton and Lo=60 m3/metric ton)

Figure 1 summarizes the variation in LFG recovery rates for the various assumed scenarios. Using

Lo=100 m3/metric ton estimates the gas recovery rates at more than 80% greater than at Lo=60

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Lan

dfi

ll G

as R

ate,

ft3

/min

Year

LFG recovered rates at Lo = 100 m3/metric ton

LFG recovered rates at Lo = 60 m3/metric ton


4-7


m3/metric ton. The variations in k values and waste densities assumed in the model have less impact

on the results.

4.2 Energy Output Potential

This section provides an estimate of the amount of recoverable energy that will be available over time to

fuel a LFG energy project. Table 4-2 provides the potential energy output for each of the LFG generation

scenarios considered above. Energy output is based on 67% collection efficiency and is shown as

ranges based on the variables of waste density, k, and Lo. Detailed energy output from the LandGEM

model is included in Appendix B.

The expected initial energy output ranges from an optimistic 1.5 megawatts (MW) for the optimal

scenario considered above (i.e., lowest k, highest Lo, and highest waste density) to 0.8 MW for the more

conservative scenario. Under any scenario, LFG production, and therefore energy content of the LFG,

experiences an initial rapid decline and continues to decline rapidly over the next 10 years.

Table 4-2 Energy Output for Each Scenario Considered

Waste

Density

lbs/cu yd3

Methane Generation

Rate Constant, k

(per year)

Ultimate Methane

Generation Potential Lo

(m3/Mg of Waste)

Energy Output from direct use

projectsa 2013, (MW)

Energy Output from direct

use projectsa 2023, (MW)

1,600 0.11 60 0.8 0.3

1,600 0.18 60 0.8b 0.1b

2,300 0.11 60 0.9 0.3

2,300 0.18 60 0.8 0.1

1,600 0.11 100 1.4 0.5

1,600 0.18 100 1.3 0.2

2,300 0.11 100 1.5c 0.5c

2,300 0.18 100 1.4 0.2

a assumes gas is combusted in a boiler with 85% efficiency to produce steam

b presents worst case scenario

c presents best case scenario

4.3 Overview of Landfill Gas End Uses

The type of LFG energy project and the success of such a project depends on several economic,

environmental, and political factors, plus local site conditions, and the quantity and the quality of the

LFG. Several viable LFG energy techniques currently employed include:

Generate electric power on-site from LFG and sell the power to the electric utility.

Purify the LFG on site to make pipeline quality methane. Sell it to the natural gas utility.

Sell the medium-Btu LFG directly to a nearby industrial natural gas user.

Sell the medium-Btu LFG directly to a nearby offsite electric power plant.

Purify the LFG on site to 90 percent methane quality and compress it to high pressure for fleet vehicle

use as a compressed natural gas (CNG) substitute for diesel fuel.

Use the LFG onsite for evaporation of leachate.

A brief summary of the salient features of each technique is presented below:


4-8


On-site Power Generation. On-site Power generation is by far the most common LFG energy recovery

application. Electricity is a valued, flexible commodity that is an expensive form of energy and the

economics of LFG to electricity are usually more attractive than other LFG applications. The generated

electricity is absolutely clean and is completely free from potentially adverse public perceptions about

landfill sites or landfill products. Many electric utilities are actively looking for more renewable energy;

some utilities sell LFG electricity as Green Power at a cost premium. The LFG electric power generation

equipment is mature and well proven; several major reciprocating gas engine and gas turbine

manufacturers have dozens of successful operating projects. Technically, LFG to electricity has less risk

than many other LFG applications.

Purify and Compress the LFG On-Site for Gas Pipeline Injection. For some locations and in certain sites,

cleaning the LFG for direct injection into a nearby natural gas pipeline is the most appropriate

application. The LFG is purified to 90 to 95 percent methane and compressed to the high pressure

needed for the gas pipeline utility. Several techniques have been successfully used to clean LFG to

pipeline quality, including amine treatment, cryogenic refrigeration, pressure swing adsorption, selexol

treatment, and temperature swing adsorption.

Direct Medium-British Thermal Unit (Btu) LFG Sales to an Industrial User. One of the simplest

applications is to pipe the raw, medium Btu gas, with a minimum of treatment, directly to an adjacent

industrial user. This application is extremely site-specific and the applicability is dependent on an

appropriate industrial user and securing a long-term agreement to purchase the LFG.

Direct Medium-Btu LFG Sales to an Off-Site Electric Power Plant. LFG may be piped to an adjacent

electric power plant or a combined heat and power facility where it is used with natural gas to lower the

cost of generating electricity.

On-site LFG Cleanup and Compression to Produce Gas for Fleet Vehicle Fuel. LFG may be cleaned or

scrubbed to essentially pure methane, and compressed to the very high pressures [over 2000 pounds

per square inch gauge (psig)] required for CNG fleet vehicle users.

On-site LFG Use. An additional end use of LFG that would have a potential net economic value is using

LFG as fuel to evaporate leachate collected at the Dump. There are several ways to use LFG for

economic benefit as described above. All would require active management of a LFG extraction and

collection system in the Dump.

A brief tabular presentation of some of the limiting factors affecting the various technologies is

presented below in Table 4.3.


4-9


Table 4-3 LFG to Energy Technology Specific Requirements

On-site Power Generation in a combustion engine or

micro-turbine

Requires an electrical interconnection at a power substation with the utility

Requires the electric industry to sign an electric power purchase agreement

Requires an air permit

Might not be able to use all of the LFG all the time

LFG requires some treatment prior to combustion

Requires specialized engines

Presence of contaminants may substantially shorten the expected life of

system components

Purify and Compress the LFG On-site for Gas Pipeline

Injection

LFG must be cleaned to better than 90 percent pure methane

Significant energy required to compress the gas

Requires periodic gas sampling and laboratory testing

Some of the LFG is lost by the purification process, often about 10 percent of

the methane

Direct Medium- Btu LFG Sales to an Industrial User

Requires adjacent or nearby end user who will sign a long-term purchase

agreement

Might not always use all the available LFG

Might be necessary to perform additional periodic LFG sampling and testing

Contract payments depend on gas flow meters that are frequently very

unreliable

The lower heating value of LFG will often require a modified burner on the

user’s boiler

Direct Medium-Btu LFG Sales to an Off-site Electric Power

Plant

Requires adjacent or nearby gas burning electric power plant who will sign a

long-term purchase agreement

May require additional period LFG sampling and testing

Contract payments depend on gas flow meters that are frequently very

unreliable

Pipeline is required to convey the low-pressure untreated gas

The lower heating value of the gas will often require a modified LFG burner on

the boiler

On-site LFG Cleanup and Compression to Produce Gas for

Fleet Vehicle Fuel

Requires extremely clean gas quality to protect the very high pressure gas

compressors and fleet vehicle engines

Very site specific, and requires a nearby CNG fleet vehicle operation

May mean modifying many fleet vehicles to operate on cleaned compressed

LFG

Increases heavy truck traffic to the landfill site

Transit time to and from the LFG site for refueling reduces the vehicles’ fuel

cost savings benefits

4.4 Landfill Gas Project Feasibility Model

The economic returns of three potential LFG projects (two energy projects and one leachate evaporation

project) were estimated using the Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model LFGcost-Web, version 2.2, dated July

2010. LFGcost-Web is a landfill gas energy project cost estimating tool developed for use by USEPA's

LMOP partners. The scenarios were evaluated to determine the preliminary economic feasibility of three

landfill gas projects considered for the Dump, given its history and location. The costs estimated by

LFGcost-Web are based on typical project designs and for typical landfill situations. For the most part,

variables needed for the model have been determined through the LandGEM modeling or, program-


4-10


defined default values were used. LFGcost-Web does not have Guam as one of the project locations, so

Hawaii was used to consider potential employment benefits and monetary impacts to the local economy.

The LFGcost-Web model attempts to include all equipment, site work, permits, operating activities, and

maintenance that would normally be required for constructing and operating a typical project. Unique

design modifications required because of site-specific constraints would add to the cost estimated by

LFGcost-Web. Analyses performed using LFGcost-Web are considered preliminary and should be used

for guidance only. A detailed final feasibility assessment would typically be conducted prior to preparing

a system design, initiating construction, purchasing materials, or entering into agreements to provide or

purchase energy from a landfill gas project. Site-specific considerations are addressed in this

preliminary evaluation by way of selection of the three scenarios that were evaluated.

The scenarios considered include Leachate Evaporation, Direct Use, and use of a Small

Engine-Generator Set (see Table 4-4). Leachate evaporation is considered appropriate for evaluation

since the Dump will continue to produce leachate after the final capping is implemented. Leachate

evaporation utilizes LFG, which reduces the ultimate liquid volume and mass of waste requiring

disposal. Direct use would typically involve firing LFG in an industrial boiler modified to burn low Btu gas.

The direct use scenario assumes costs to transport the LFG via pipeline to an end-user within 0.5-mile of

the Dump, as well as costs for a skid-mounted filter, compressor, and dehydration unit. The small

engine-generator set scenario would generate electricity to use on-site for potential future power needs

or to feed into the Guam Power Authority’s electric grid. The small engine scenario includes gas

compression and treatment, engine and generator, site work, housings, and electrical interconnect

equipment.

Table 4-4. LFG Project Economic Feasibility Estimates

LFG Scenario Installed Capital

Cost ($)

First Year Operation

and Maintenance Cost

($)

Net Present Value

($) Internal Rate of Return ($)

Leachate Evaporation 1,000,000 575,400 (5,540,632) Negative

Direct Use 974,100 34,600 (830,236) Negative

Small Engine-

Generator Set 146,100 13,700 (37,574) Positive @ 1%

Notes:

Capital costs shown do not reflect installation of a LFG collection and backup control system (flare) which are, for the purposes of this report,

considered to be part of closure costs. $1,000,000 was added to the installed capital cost and the net present value to cover the cost of a

leachate evaporation system since the LFGcost-Web Model did not automatically add one. Costs are based on 50,000 gallons per day (gpd) of

leachate.

Detailed economic output for each of the scenarios considered is included in Appendix C. With the

exception of the Small Engine-Generator Set, each of the scenarios considered has a negative internal

rate of return, meaning simply that there are more costs than revenue over the lifetime of the project.

The 1% return associated with the Small Engine-Generator Set scenario is a marginal return at best and

the investment not likely warranted given the higher opportunity cost or return if those same dollars were

invested elsewhere. Environmental benefits are assumed to be roughly equivalent for each of the

scenarios considered since the same volume of LFG will be destroyed, thereby reducing Green House

Gas (GHG) and non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) emissions. Environmental benefits for each

project are identified in Appendix C.

Two other scenarios were mentioned in Table 4-3 but not modeled above, and include the Purify and

Compress the LFG On-site for Gas Pipeline Injection and On-site LFG Cleanup and Compression to


4-11


Produce Gas for Fleet Vehicle Fuel. The LFGcost-Web does not have the ability to evaluate these

scenarios specifically. Intuitively, these scenarios are even less feasible compared to those shown in

Table 4-3 based on the higher capital costs associated with cleaning the gas, converting the gas to a

high Btu fuel, and the need for achieving higher compression.

5-1


Section 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

LFG generation rates for the Dump after closure were projected using the current modified version of

LandGEM, known as the Philippines Model. This Model best simulates Guam’s climatology as compared

to the older version of LandGEM which was developed for use on the mainland. Ranges of LFG rates

were projected based upon a sensitivity analysis of key variables. These ranges, provided in Table 4-1,

can be utilized for design of the site’s gas collection and treatment system.

On balance, developing a LFG energy project would not be a prudent use of capital as demonstrated by

the preliminary economic feasibility evaluation. The expected LFG generated from the Dump is not

sufficient to recommend pursuing any of the projects considered. The results of this report are

consistent with conclusions made in the April 2011 report by the United States Department of Energy,

which were that a gas to energy project would be questionable given the sharp decline in gas generation

over a relatively short duration.

The reasons for the general infeasibility of LFG energy projects are numerous. The anticipated volume of

LFG for the Dump after closure is not only relatively low, but it is also of short duration. The maximum

potential of LFG recovered at the Dump could range from 300 ft3/min to 500 ft3/min, reducing to 40

ft3/min to 180 ft3/min within the first 10 years. Due to the age of the Dump, most of the expected gas

generation has already taken place. The tropical climate and large yearly precipitation has contributed

to the rapid degradation of the waste and generation of gas, and the numerous fires that have occurred

over the years have depleted a significant portion of the LFG that was generated. The physical and

operational characteristics of the Dump contribute to the probability that an LFG collection system would

operate at a low collection efficiency. In addition, substantial uncertainties exist regarding the

confidence of the projected LFG generation, due to the early use of the Dump by military forces and the

subsequent uncontrolled nature of the operation, and such conditions could have a negative impact on

the quality of methane production.

Regarding the specific energy projects evaluated, each had a negative return on investment. The Small

Engine-Generator Set scenario presents the lowest Net Present Value. Leachate evaporation has the

lowest capital cost but the highest operating costs (which generally increases with time). Avoided costs

for leachate treatment and disposal have not yet been quantified nor are they reflected in this

evaluation. With respect to the capital costs reflected in the Leachate Evaporation scenario model

results, it is BC’s experience that total capital costs shown in the model do not reflect the capital cost of

a leachate evaporation unit, which could be as much as double that shown by the model. Both Direct

Use and Small Engine-Generator Set projects have similar order of magnitude capital costs and first year

operation and maintenance costs.

REF-1

DRAFT for review purposes only.


References

World Bank, Report, 1999, Solid Waste Management in Asia.

EPA Municipal Solid Waste Publication, July 2012, http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm.

Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), Summary of Landfill Gas Energy Potential for the Ordot Dump, February 23,

2009.

Dueñas & Associates Project Team, Ordot Dump, Ordot-Chalan Pago, Guam Environmental Data Summary Report, July

2005

EPA, User’s Manual, Philippines Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM), Version 1.0, Eastern Research Group USA and

Organic Waste Technologies, December 2009.

Daniel Duffy, LandGEM: the EPA’s Landfill Gas Emissions Model, Combining art and science in projecting LFG

production, MSW Management, February 2012.

Amini HR, Reinhart DR, Mackie KR, “Determination of first-order landfill gas modeling parameters and uncertainties”,

Waste Management 2012 Feb, 32(2):305-16, Epub 2011 Oct 14.

Kim H, Townsend TG, “Wet landfill decomposition rate determination using methane yield results for excavated waste

samples”, Waste Management 2012 Jul, 32(7):1427-33, Epub 2012 Apr 17.

CIA government library, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gq.html.

Brown and Caldwell, Waste Isopach Thickness, Technical Memorandum, September 8, 2012.

Brown and Caldwell, Topographic Surveys and Airspace Report, Technical Memorandum, September 8, 2012.

Brown and Caldwell, Ordot Dump – Preliminary Field Report of Landfill Gas Generation Potential, Technical

Memorandum, September 2012.

Ian Baring-Gould, Misty Conrad, Scott Haase, Eliza Hotchkiss and Peter McNutt, Guam Initial Technical Assessment

Report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, April 2011.

USEPA LMOP, Summary of Landfill Gas Energy Potential for the Ordot Dump, February, 2009.

US Census Population Data (2000, 2010),

http://www.bsp.guam.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124:us-census-bureau-.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Amini%20HR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22000722

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Reinhart%20DR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22000722

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mackie%20KR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22000722

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kim%20H%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22516100

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Townsend%20TG%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22516100


http://www.bsp.guam.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124:us-census-bureau-


A


Appendix A: Philippines Model Results


A-1


Table A-1. Lo = 60 meters3/metric ton at 67% Collection System Efficiency

Year

Estimated Waste in Place 3,480,706 (metric tonnes ) Estimated Waste in Place 5,186,383 (metric tonnes )

k=0.18 yr-1 k=0.11 yr-1 k=0.18 yr-1 k=0.11 yr-1

1,600 lb/yd3 2,300 lb/yd3

LFG Generation Rate LFG Generation Rate LFG Generation Rate LFG Generation Rate

(av ft3/min) (av ft3/min) (av ft3/min) (av ft3/min)

2013 289 301 298 322

2014 242 269 249 289

2015 202 241 208 259

2016 169 216 174 232

2017 141 194 145 207

2018 118 173 121 186

2019 98 155 101 166

2020 82 139 85 149

2021 69 125 71 134

2022 57 112 59 120

2023 48 100 49 107

2024 40 90 41 96

2025 33 80 34 86

2026 28 72 29 77

2027 23 64 24 69

2028 19 58 20 62

2029 16 52 17 55

2030 14 46 14 50

2031 11 42 12 44

2032 9 37 10 40

2033 8 33 8 36

2034 7 30 7 32

2035 6 27 6 29

2036 5 24 5 26

2037 4 21 4 23

2038 3 19 3 21

2039 3 17 3 18

2040 2 15 2 17

Notes: 1 megagram is equal to 1 metric ton; 1 metric ton is equal to 1.1023 short ton (or ton). av = average,


A-2


Table A-2. Lo = 100 meters3/metric ton at 67% Collection System Efficiency

Year


k=0.18 yr-1 k=0.11 yr-1 k=0.18 yr-1 k=0.11 yr-1

1,600 lb/yd3 2,300 lb/yd3

LFG Generation Rate LFG Generation Rate LFG Generation Rate LFG Generation Rate

(av ft3/min) (av ft3/min) (av ft3/min) (av ft3/min)

2013 482 501 497 537

2014 403 449 415 481

2015 336 402 346 431

2016 281 360 289 386

2017 235 323 242 346

2018 196 289 202 310

2019 164 259 169 277

2020 137 232 141 249

2021 114 208 118 223

2022 95 186 98 199

2023 80 167 82 179

2024 67 149 69 160

2025 56 134 57 143

2026 46 120 48 128

2027 39 107 40 115

2028 32 96 33 103

2029 27 86 28 92

2030 23 77 23 83

2031 19 69 19 74

2032 16 62 16 66

2033 13 56 14 59

2034 11 50 11 53

2035 9 45 9 48

2036 8 40 8 43

2037 6 36 7 38

2038 5 32 6 34

2039 4 29 5 31

2040 4 26 4 28

Note: 1 megagram is equal to 1 metric ton; 1 metric ton is equal to 1.1023 short ton (or ton).


B


Appendix B: LFG to Energy Results


B-1


Year

Table B-1. Lo = 60 cubic meters/metric Ton


k=0.18 yr-1 k=0.11 yr-1 k=0.18 yr-1 k=0.11 yr-1

1600 lb/yd3 1600 lb/yd3 2300 lb/yd3 2300 lb/yd3

Energy Output Energy Output Energy Output Energy Output Energy Output

Energy

Output Energy Output Energy Output

From Direct From Electric From Direct From Electric From Direct From Electric From Direct From Electric

Use Projecta Generation Projectb Use Projecta Generation Projectb Use Projecta

Generation

Projectb Use Projecta Generation Projectb

MTCO2e c (MJ/hr)d (MW) MTCO2e (MJ/hr) (MW) MTCO2e (MJ/hr) (MW) MTCO2e (MJ/hr) (MW)

2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013 32423.6 8296.8 0.8 33687.8 8620.3 0.8 33387.3 8543.4 0.8 36092.5 9235.6 0.9

2014 27082.5 6930.1 0.7 30178.7 7722.3 0.7 27887.4 7136.0 0.7 32332.9 8273.6 0.8

2015 22621.2 5788.5 0.6 27035.1 6917.9 0.7 23293.5 5960.5 0.6 28964.9 7411.7 0.7

2016 18894.8 4834.9 0.5 24219.0 6197.3 0.6 19456.4 4978.6 0.5 25947.8 6639.7 0.6

2017 15782.3 4038.5 0.4 21696.2 5551.8 0.5 16251.3 4158.5 0.4 23244.9 5948.1 0.6

2018 13182.5 3373.2 0.3 19436.2 4973.5 0.5 13574.3 3473.5 0.3 20823.6 5328.5 0.5

2019 11010.9 2817.6 0.3 17411.6 4455.4 0.4 11338.2 2901.3 0.3 18654.5 4773.4 0.5

2020 9197.1 2353.4 0.2 15597.9 3991.3 0.4 9470.4 2423.4 0.2 16711.3 4276.2 0.4

2021 7682.1 1965.7 0.2 13973.1 3575.5 0.3 7910.4 2024.2 0.2 14970.6 3830.8 0.4

2022 6416.6 1641.9 0.2 12517.6 3203.1 0.3 6607.3 1690.7 0.2 13411.1 3431.7 0.3

2023 5359.6 1371.5 0.1 11213.7 2869.4 0.3 5518.9 1412.2 0.1 12014.2 3074.3 0.3

2024 4476.7 1145.5 0.1 10045.6 2570.5 0.2 4609.8 1179.6 0.1 10762.7 2754.0 0.3

2025 3739.3 956.8 0.1 8999.2 2302.8 0.2 3850.4 985.3 0.1 9641.6 2467.2 0.2

2026 3123.3 799.2 0.1 8061.8 2062.9 0.2 3216.1 823.0 0.1 8637.3 2210.2 0.2

2027 2608.8 667.6 0.1 7222.0 1848.0 0.2 2686.3 687.4 0.1 7737.6 1979.9 0.2

2028 2179.0 557.6 0.1 6469.7 1655.5 0.2 2243.8 574.2 0.1 6931.6 1773.7 0.2

2029 1820.1 465.7 0.0 5795.8 1483.1 0.1 1874.2 479.6 0.0 6209.5 1588.9 0.2

2030 1520.3 389.0 0.0 5192.1 1328.6 0.1 1565.5 400.6 0.0 5562.7 1423.4 0.1

2031 1269.8 324.9 0.0 4651.2 1190.2 0.1 1307.6 334.6 0.0 4983.3 1275.2 0.1

2032 1060.7 271.4 0.0 4166.7 1066.2 0.1 1092.2 279.5 0.0 4464.2 1142.3 0.1

2033 885.9 226.7 0.0 3732.7 955.2 0.1 912.3 233.4 0.0 3999.2 1023.3 0.1

2034 740.0 189.4 0.0 3343.9 855.7 0.1 762.0 195.0 0.0 3582.6 916.7 0.1

2035 618.1 158.2 0.0 2995.6 766.5 0.1 636.5 162.9 0.0 3209.4 821.2 0.1

2036 516.3 132.1 0.0 2683.5 686.7 0.1 531.6 136.0 0.0 2875.1 735.7 0.1

2037 431.2 110.3 0.0 2404.0 615.2 0.1 444.0 113.6 0.0 2575.6 659.1 0.1

2038 360.2 92.2 0.0 2153.6 551.1 0.1 370.9 94.9 0.0 2307.3 590.4 0.1

2039 300.9 77.0 0.0 1929.3 493.7 0.0 309.8 79.3 0.0 2067.0 528.9 0.1

2040 251.3 64.3 0.0 1728.3 442.2 0.0 258.8 66.2 0.0 1851.7 473.8 0.0


b assumes gas is combusted in an engine with 30% efficiency to produce electricity

cabbreviation for megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent

dabbreviation for megajoule per hour


B-2


Year

Table B-2. Lo = 100 cubic meters/metric Ton


k=0.18 yr-1 k=0.11 yr-1 k=0.18 yr-1 k=0.11 yr-1

1600 lb/yd3 1600 lb/yd3 2300 lb/yd3 2300 lb/yd3

Energy Output Energy Output Energy Output Energy Output Energy Output Energy Output Energy Output Energy Output

From Direct From Electric From Direct From Electric From Direct From Electric From Direct From Electric

Use Projecta Generation Projectb Use Projecta Generation Projectb Use Projecta Generation Projectb Use Projecta Generation Projectb

MTCO2e (MJ/hr) (MW) MTCO2e (MJ/hr) (MW) MTCO2e (MJ/hr) (MW) MTCO2e (MJ/hr) (MW)

2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013 54039.4 13828.0 1.3 56146.3 14367.1 1.4 55645.5 14239.0 1.4 60154.2 15392.7 1.5

2014 45137.5 11550.1 1.1 50297.8 12870.6 1.2 46479.0 11893.4 1.1 53888.2 13789.3 1.3

2015 37702.0 9647.5 0.9 45058.5 11529.9 1.1 38822.5 9934.2 0.9 48274.9 12352.9 1.2

2016 31491.4 8058.2 0.8 40364.9 10328.9 1.0 32427.3 8297.7 0.8 43246.3 11066.2 1.1

2017 26303.8 6730.8 0.6 36160.3 9252.9 0.9 27085.6 6930.8 0.7 38741.5 9913.4 0.9

2018 21970.8 5622.0 0.5 32393.6 8289.1 0.8 22623.8 5789.1 0.6 34705.9 8880.8 0.8

2019 18351.5 4695.9 0.4 29019.3 7425.7 0.7 18897.0 4835.5 0.5 31090.8 7955.7 0.8

2020 15328.5 3922.4 0.4 25996.5 6652.2 0.6 15784.1 4038.9 0.4 27852.2 7127.0 0.7

2021 12803.4 3276.2 0.3 23288.5 5959.2 0.6 13184.0 3373.6 0.3 24950.9 6384.6 0.6

2022 10694.3 2736.5 0.3 20862.7 5338.5 0.5 11012.2 2817.9 0.3 22351.9 5719.6 0.5

2023 8932.7 2285.8 0.2 18689.5 4782.4 0.5 9198.1 2353.7 0.2 20023.6 5123.8 0.5

2024 7461.2 1909.2 0.2 16742.7 4284.2 0.4 7682.9 1966.0 0.2 17937.8 4590.1 0.4

2025 6232.1 1594.7 0.2 14998.7 3838.0 0.4 6417.3 1642.1 0.2 16069.3 4111.9 0.4

2026 5205.5 1332.0 0.1 13436.3 3438.2 0.3 5360.2 1371.6 0.1 14395.4 3683.6 0.4

2027 4348.0 1112.6 0.1 12036.7 3080.0 0.3 4477.2 1145.7 0.1 12895.9 3299.9 0.3

2028 3631.7 929.3 0.1 10782.9 2759.2 0.3 3739.7 956.9 0.1 11552.6 2956.2 0.3

2029 3033.5 776.2 0.1 9659.7 2471.8 0.2 3123.6 799.3 0.1 10349.2 2648.2 0.3

2030 2533.8 648.4 0.1 8653.5 2214.3 0.2 2609.1 667.6 0.1 9271.2 2372.4 0.2

2031 2116.4 541.6 0.1 7752.1 1983.7 0.2 2179.3 557.7 0.1 8305.4 2125.3 0.2

2032 1767.8 452.3 0.0 6944.6 1777.0 0.2 1820.3 465.8 0.0 7440.3 1903.9 0.2

2033 1476.6 377.8 0.0 6221.2 1591.9 0.2 1520.4 389.1 0.0 6665.3 1705.6 0.2

2034 1233.3 315.6 0.0 5573.2 1426.1 0.1 1270.0 325.0 0.0 5971.0 1527.9 0.1

2035 1030.2 263.6 0.0 4992.6 1277.5 0.1 1060.8 271.4 0.0 5349.0 1368.7 0.1

2036 860.5 220.2 0.0 4472.6 1144.5 0.1 886.0 226.7 0.0 4791.8 1226.2 0.1

2037 718.7 183.9 0.0 4006.7 1025.3 0.1 740.1 189.4 0.0 4292.7 1098.4 0.1

2038 600.3 153.6 0.0 3589.3 918.5 0.1 618.2 158.2 0.0 3845.5 984.0 0.1

2039 501.4 128.3 0.0 3215.4 822.8 0.1 516.3 132.1 0.0 3445.0 881.5 0.1

2040 418.8 107.2 0.0 2880.5 737.1 0.1 431.3 110.4 0.0 3086.1 789.7 0.1

2041 349.8 89.5 0.0 2580.4 660.3 0.1 360.2 92.2 0.0 2764.6 707.4 0.1

2042 292.2 74.8 0.0 2311.6 591.5 0.1 300.9 77.0 0.0 2476.7 633.7 0.1

2043 244.1 62.5 0.0 2070.9 529.9 0.1 251.3 64.3 0.0 2218.7 567.7 0.1


b assumes gas is combusted in an engine with 30% efficiency to produce electricity

cabbreviation for megajoule per hour


C


Appendix C: Project Feasibility Evaluation Using LMOP

LFGcost-Web

Leachate Evaporation (Input and Output)

Direct Use (Output Only)

Small Engine-Generator Set (Output Only)

Copy of Copy of LFGcost-Web V2 2.xls 12/17/2012

LFGcost-Web Model (Version 2.2)

Go to Important Notes

Table 1. Glossary of Input Parameters

Required Input

Determines whether costs for vertical well collection and flaring equipment are included in the total LFG energy project cost. Enter Y (for yes) if the landfill does NOT have collection and flaring equipment installed. Enter N (for no) if the landfill already contains a collection and flaring system or you do not want to include collection and flaring costs in the total LFG energy project cost.

Indicates which of the 10 types of LFG energy project types you want to analyze. Enter the bolded letter in parentheses to select the project type.

Amount of leachate collected (for leachate evaporator projects only)

Average annual tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) accepted each year the landfill is open.

Acreage of the landfill that contains waste and generates LFG to be collected and utilized by the LFG energy project. The model assumes one well per acre to determine well, wellhead, and pipe gathering system costs for the collection and flaring system. Acreage should represent area of landfill for gas collection to feed project, not total landfill area.

Year landfill opened Four-digit year that the landfill opened or is planning to open.Four-digit year that the landfill closed or is expected to close.

Waste-in-place

Will LFG energy project cost include collection and flaring costs?

Year representing waste-in-place

LFG energy project type

Go to Table 1. Glossary of Input Parameters

Go to Table 2. Glossary of Output Parameters

Area of LFG wellfield to supply project

Average annual waste acceptance rate

Go to Inputs/Outputs

Go to Table 3. LFG Energy Project Types and Recommended Sizes

Year of landfill closure

Annual waste disposal history

Waste acceptance rate calculator:

Distance between landfill and direct end use, pipeline or CHP unit (for direct use, high Btu and CHP projects only)

Year LFG energy project begins operation

Distance between CHP unit and hot water/steam user (for CHP projects only)

Four-digit year that the LFG energy project will be installed and begin operating.

The waste disposal history should be used only when year-to-year waste acceptance is known for each year that the landfill operates. The annual waste acceptance rate, in short tons, should be entered for all years beginning with the landfill open year and ending with the landfill closure year.

Four-digit year that corresponds to the waste-in-place tonnage.Total tons of MSW accepted and placed in the landfill.

If you do not know the average annual waste acceptance rate, then you can use the calculator to estimate this rate.

Gallons of landfill leachate that is collected and treated annually.

Number of miles between the CHP engine, turbine, or microturbine and the end user of the hot water/steam. To maintain integrity of the cost estimates, the distance should be limited to 1 mile or less. The CHP unit and the hot water/steam user are typically co-located, which would be a distance of zero (0) miles.

For direct use projects, the number of miles between the landfill, where the LFG is collected, and the end user of the LFG. For high Btu projets, the distance between the landfill, where the LFG is collected, and the natural gas pipeline or the end user of the high Btu gas. For CHP projects, the distance between the landfill, where the LFG is collected, and the CHP engine, turbine, or microturbine. To maintain integrity of the cost estimates, the distance should be limited to 10 miles or less.

Definition

LFGcost-Web is a spreadsheet tool developed for EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) to estimate the costs of a landfill gas (LFG) energy project. The tool is designed for parties interested in obtaining an initial economic feasibility analysis for a specific type of LFG energy project. These project types include electricity generation, direct use, combined heat and power, leachate evaporation, and high Btu production. Analyses performed using LFGcost-Web are considered preliminary and should be used for guidance only. LFGcost-Web also provides an estimate of the local and state-wide economic benefits and job creation resulting from the installation of a direct use or recriprocating engine project. LFG energy projects generate benefits for the communities and states in which they are located, as well as for the United States. These benefits include new jobs and expenditures directly impacting the local and state-wide economies as a result of the construction and operation of an LFG energy project. In addition, there are indirect economic benefits when the direct expenditures on an LFG energy project flow through the economy resulting in increased overall economic production and economic activity within the local, state, and national economies. This tool consists of 10 required inputs to characterize the age and size of the landfill, the type of LFG energy project, and other input parameters relating to the project. Fifteen additional optional inputs are available to incorporate more site-specific data about the landfill and LFG energy project. LFGcost-Web also documents several default model inputs used to conduct the economic analysis. These default parameters should provide a reasonable economic evaluation of the project. However, you may wish to contact LMOP to run the model with different defaults based on site-specific circumstances (see For Further Assistance section below). The model provides the economic analysis and environmental benefits based on your inputs. Descriptions of the required and optional user inputs are in Table 1, and descriptions of the model outputs are listed in Table 2. You should use Table 3 when selecting the type of LFG energy project appropriate for the size of your project. Within these size ranges LFGcost-Web is estimated to have an accuracy of ± 30-50%. Using LFGcost-Web to evaluate projects outside of these recommended ranges will likely provide cost estimates with a greater uncertainty.

INSTRUCTIONS - 1 of 11

http://www.epa.gov/lmop/contact.html

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/


Optional Input

Initial year product price:

LFG energy project size:

Loan lifetime

Landfill gas collection efficiency

Down payment

Discount rate

Marginal tax rate

Methane content of landfill gas

High Btu Gas production

CHP hot water/steam production

Electricity generation

Landfill gas production

Interest rate

Methane generation rate constant, k

Design flow rate (for user-defined project size only)

Potential methane generation capacity of waste, Lo

As stated above, the Department of Energy Annual Energy Outlook 2009 forecasts a 2010-2011 natural gas price of $6.50 per mmBtu. Given that high Btu gas contains 90 to 95 percent of the heating value of natural gas, it is expected to achieve similar prices as natural gas.

The average market price for hot water/steam sold by LFG CHP projects is estimated to be $7.5/million Btu. This price is calculated from the $6/million Btu natural gas price divided by a boiler efficiency of 80%.

Quotes from the Department of Energy Annual Energy Outlook 2009 indicated industrial electricity prices were close to $0.075 per kWh. A call to a LFG energy project developer confirmed that recent contracts are getting 6 cents per kWh in states without a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), and 11 cents per kWh in states without an RPS. The default price in LFGcost-Web was set to 6 cents per kWh to reflect a base price excluding the premium from an RPS.

Quotes from the Department of Energy Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (released March 2009) forecast a natural gas price of $6.50 per mmBtu in 2010-2011. The current natural gas price is depressed by the economy and potentially subject to an increase when industry ramps up in 2010. Based on previous experience with LFG energy contracts, LFG pricing is typically pegged to 70-75% of natural gas prices, giving a rounded value of $5.00 per mmBtu for LFG.

Definition

The design flow rate, in cubic feet per minute, entered for projects sized manually by users. The letter “D” must be entered for LFG energy project size to indicate the project size is user-defined.

The methane generation constant (k) used to determine the amount of LFG generated generally varies depending on the climate of the area surrounding the landfill. There are three k values to choose from: 0.04 per year for areas that receive 25 inches or more of rain annually; 0.02 per year for drier (arid) areas that receive less than 25 inches of rain annually; or 0.1 per year for bioreactors. The suggested default is 0.04 per year for typical climates. The k value entered should equal one of these suggested values unless site-specific data are available.

Initial year product prices are suggested for the sale of energy from the project. These prices represent the initial year of project operation. The model applies a 2 percent annual escalation factor to each initial year product price.

The down payment on the project loan. The suggested default is 20 percent, which is based on recent LFG energy project experience with commercial projects.

The discount rate, or hurdle rate, is used to determine the present value of future cash flows. This rate represents the internal time-value of money (on an actual or “nominal” basis) used by companies to evaluate projects. The suggested default is 10 percent, which is based on recent LFG energy project experience with commercial projects. Corporate discount rates are commonly 2% to 3% higher than interest rates and 7% to 8% higher than inflation rates.

The tax rate used to estimate tax payments; this item is not applicable to projects funded and developed by local governments. The suggested default tax rate is 35 percent for projects funded and developed by private entities, which is based on recent LFG energy project experience with commercial projects.

Inidicates whether the minimum, average, or maximum LFG flow rate over the project life is used to design the LFG energy project. Users can also define a specific LFG flow rate for sizing the project. Enter the bolded letter in parentheses to select the size of the project. The default is M, for minimum LFG generation. However, the optimum project size will vary for different project types. For direct use projects, the optimum size is often based on the maximum gas flow, whereas the optimum size for engine, microturbine, and turbine projects (including CHP) is often based on the average flow. The user is encouraged to try multiple size options to determine the optimum size for their project conditions.

The actual or “nominal” interest rate of the project loan. The suggested default is 8 percent. Interest rates fluctuate with economic conditions and many unforeseen factors, making them very difficult to forecast. The default interest rate is based on the 5-year average value of the Moody Corporate AAA and BAA bond rates published by the Federal Reserve. The 5-year average rate of 7.4% for 1998-2002 is rounded to 8% for the default rate. Users can obtain up-to-date interest rates from the

The period over which the project loan will be repaid. The loan lifetime is assumed to begin during the year of project design and construction. It is common for project loan periods to be limited to half or two-thirds of the equipment lifetime to assure that the loan is repaid before the project ends. Since much of the equipment used in LFG energy projects has a projected lifetime of 15 years, the default loan lifetime is set to 10 years. However, this value should not exceed the lifetime of the project.

The equipment used to collect LFG normally operates at efficiencies between 70 and 95 percent. The suggested default is 85 percent.

The methane content of LFG generally ranges between 45 and 60 percent. This parameter is used to calculate environmental benefits and normalize LFG production. The default of 50 percent should be used unless site-specific data are available.

The potential methane generation capacity of the waste (Lo) in cubic feet per ton. This parameter primarily depends on the type of waste in the landfill. The default of 3,204 cubic feet per ton should be used to represent municipal solid waste (MSW) unless site-specific data are available.

Federal Reserve.





Table 2. Glossary of Output Parameters

Economic Output

Average annual carbon dioxide from avoided energy generation*

GHG value of average annual amount of methane utilized by the project*

Total lifetime amount of methane collected and destroyed

GHG value of total lifetime amount of methane utilized by the project*

Average annual amount of methane collected and destroyed

Total lifetime carbon dioxide from avoided energy generation*

Net present value at year of construction First year monetary value that is equivalent to the various cash flows, based on the discount rate. In other words, the difference between the costs and revenue over the lifetime of the project calculated at the present time based on a selected discount rate.

Return on investment based on the total revenue from the project and construction grants, minus down payment (i.e., cash flow). More simply, the rate that balances the overall costs of the project with the revenue earned over the lifetime of the project such that the net present value of the investment is equal to zero.

Net present value payback (years after operation begins)

Internal rate of return

Total capital cost of the installed LFG energy project.

Average project size for projects NOT generating electricity

Environmental Benefit Output Definition

Years required for the total present value to exceed zero. An output of “None” means there is no return on investment or no payback in the LFG energy project lifetime.

Average project size for projects generating electricity

Average project size for CHP projects producing hot water/steam For CHP projects, average project size represents the average annual amount of hot water/steam produced in units of million Btu per year.

For turbine, microturbine, engine, and CHP projects, average project size represents average annual kilowatt-hours of electricity generated (net).

Total installed capital cost for year of construction

Annual costs for initial year of operation Equipment operating and maintenance cost for the initial year of the LFG energy project.

*Note: These output values are presented in scientific notation. This format is used because these outputs are smaller values, typically less than 0.1. An output value of 1.23E-02 is equivalent to 1.23 x 10 -2 or 0.0123.

For direct use, high Btu production, and leachate evaporation projects, average project size represents the average amount of actual LFG utilized over the lifetime of the LFG energy project. This output is presented in units of million cubic feet per year and cubic feet per minute.

Definition

Average annual emissions that are avoided because LFG is utilized instead of combusting fossil fuels. This output is presented in units of MMTCO2E per year and MMTCE per year. For direct use and high Btu projects, the LFG is assumed to offset the combustion of natural gas. For projects that generate electricity (turbines, microturbines, and engines), the electricity produced is assumed to offset the collective combustion of fossil fuels in U.S. power plants.

Total emissions that are avoided because LFG is utilized instead of combusting fossil fuels. This output is presented in units of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2E) and million metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE). For direct use and high Btu projects, the LFG is assumed to offset the combustion of natural gas. For projects that generate electricity (turbines, microturbines, and engines), the electricity produced is assumed to offset the collective combustion of fossil fuels in U.S. power plants.

Average annual million metric tons of methane (represented by MMTCO2E per year) that is utilized by the LFG energy project on a yearly basis. This output takes into account the operating schedule and gross capacity factor of the project. Flared gas is not included in this value.

Total million metric tons of methane (represented by carbon dioxide equivalents, or MMTCO2E) that is utilized by the LFG energy project. This output takes into account the operating schedule and gross capacity factor of the project. Flared gas is not included in this value.

Average annual million cubic feet of methane that is collected and either destroyed by the flare (assuming 100 percent destruction efficiency) or utilized by the LFG energy project on a yearly basis.

Total million cubic feet of methane that is collected and either destroyed by the flare (assuming 100 percent destruction efficiency) or utilized by the LFG energy project.





Table 3. LFG Energy Project Types and Recommended Sizes

Recommended Project Size

Direct Use (Boiler, Greenhouse, etc.) Available for any sizeStandard Turbine-Generator Sets Greater than 3 MWStandard Reciprocating Engine-Generator Sets 800 kW and greaterHigh Btu Processing Plant 1,000 scfm to 10,000 scfmMicroturbine-Generator Sets 30 kW to 750 kWSmall Reciprocating Engine-Generator Sets 100 kW to 1 MWLeachate Evaporators 5,000 gallons/day and greaterCHP Reciprocating Engine-Generator Sets 800 kW and greaterCHP Turbine-Generator Sets Greater than 3 MWCHP Microturbine-Generator Sets 30 kW to 300 kW

IMPORTANT NOTES

LFG Energy Project Type

Software Requirements: The LFGcost-Web model was created in Microsoft® Excel and must be operated in a Microsoft® Excel 2000, 2002 (XP), 2003 or 2007 environment. Earlier versions of Microsoft® Excel are not able to properly run the model due to embedded macros. Microsoft® Excel 2000, 2002 (XP), and 2003 users should set their Macro Security Level to “Medium” (menu select Tools…Macro…Security…Security Level) prior to opening LFGcost-Web to allow the “Enable Macros” option to be selected. Model users should select “Enable Macros” when prompted (immediately after opening the file) to allow the LFGcost-Web software to use the embedded macros. Microsoft® Excel 2007 users must set their Macro Security Level to “Disable all macros with notification” (menu select Developer…Macro Security). If the Developer menu is not displayed, click the Microsoft Office Button, click Excel Options, and then in the Popular category, under Top options for working with Excel, click Show Developer tab in the Ribbon. LFGcost-Web has been specified as a “Read Only” file. The “Read Only” restriction is intended to protect the original file from being accidentally over-written by users. We recommend users save a copy of LFGcost-Web under a new file name when running each economic analysis. Cost Estimates: The cost estimates produced by LFGcost-Web include all direct and indirect costs associated with the project. In addition to the direct costs for equipment and installation, LFGcost-Web includes indirect costs associated with: engineering, design, and administration; site surveys and preparation; permits, right-of-ways, and fees; and mobilization/demobilization of construction equipment. Since these costs are estimated for an average project site, individual sites will experience variations to these costs due to unique site conditions. Uncertainty of the cost estimates is ± 30-50%. The costs and economic parameters, such as net present value (NPV), are based on actual or “nominal” rates and include the effects of inflation. For example, if a project was constructed in 2009 and began operation in 2010, then installed capital costs in the year of construction are in 2009 dollars, operating costs for the initial year of operation are in 2010 dollars, and NPV at year of construction is in 2009 dollars.

For Further Assistance: EPA's LMOP is available to provide further assistance in interpreting model results, adjusting the model to incorporate tax credits or other site-specific parameters, or answering questions about LFGcost-Web. If you would like assistance using LFGcost-Web, or would like LMOP to run a more detailed model using site-specific parameters customized for your LFG energy project situation,

Disclaimer: LFGcost-Web is a landfill gas energy project cost estimating tool developed for EPA's LMOP. LFGcost-Web estimates landfill gas generation rates using a first-order decay equation. This equation is used to estimate generation potential but can not be considered an absolute predictor of the rate of landfill gas generation. Variations in the rate and types of incoming waste, site operating conditions, and moisture and temperature conditions may provide substantial variations in the actual rates of generation. The costs that are estimated by LFGcost-Web are based on typical project designs and for typical landfill situations. The model attempts to include all equipment, site work, permits, operating activities, and maintenance that would normally be required for constructing and operating a typical project. However, individual landfills may require unique design modifications which would add to the cost estimated by LFGcost-Web. Analyses performed using LFGcost-Web are considered preliminary and should be used for guidance only. A detailed final feasibility assessment should be conducted by qualified landfill gas professionals prior to preparing a system design, initiating construction, purchasing materials, or entering into agreements to provide or purchase energy from a landfill gas project.

please contact LMOP.





INPUTS / OUTPUTS Enter Landfill Name or Identifier:

Select State of Project for Job Creation Analysis:

Go To Instructions

Required User Inputs:

Type of Input Required Input Data

Year landfill opened 1944Year of landfill closure 2011

43

Go to WASTEGo to WASTE

N18,250,000

0.5

2014

Optional User Inputs:

Type of Optional Input

Suggested

Default

Value Input Data

--- 250Methane generation rate constant, k (1/yr) [0.04 for typical climates, 0.02 for arid climates, 0.1 for bioreactors or wet landfills]

3,204 3,204Methane content of landfill gas (%) 50% 50%Landfill gas collection efficiency (%) 85% 85%Loan lifetime (years) 10 10Interest rate (%) 8.0% 8.0%Marginal tax rate (%) 35.0% 35.0%Discount rate (%) 10.0% 10.0%Down payment (%) 20.0% 20.0%Initial year product price: Landfill gas production ($/million Btu) $5.00 $5.00(based on initial year of operation) Electricity generation ($/kWh) $0.0600 $0.0600

CHP hot water/steam production ($/million Btu) $7.50 $7.50High Btu production ($/million Btu) $6.500 $6.500

The outputs are based on the average annual waste acceptance rate obtained from the waste acceptance rate calculator.Outputs:

Type of Output Output Data

Economic Analysis:

2.741[based on actual LFG use] (ft3/min) 5.215

00

$0$575,363

Internal rate of return (%) 0%($4,540,632)

NoneEnvironmental Benefits:

1,13376

8.28E-035.52E-040.00E+00

(MMTCE) 0.00E+000.00E+00

(MMTCE/yr) 0.00E+00* "None" = no return on investment or no payback in LFG energy project lifetime

0.11

Average project size for projects generating electricity (kWh/yr)

For CHP projects only: Distance between CHP unit and hot water/steam user (miles)

Ordot Dump

Move cursor over red triangles for guidance on some required user inputs.

Area of LFG wellfield to supply project (acres) [assumes 1 well/acre]

Waste acceptance rate calculator (in WASTE worksheet)Average annual waste acceptance rate (tons/yr)

LFG energy project type: (D)irect use, (T)urbine, (E)ngine, (H)igh Btu, microtu(R)bine, small en(G)ine, lea(C)hate evaporator, CHP engine (CE), CHP turbine (CT), or CHP microturbine (CM)?

Total lifetime carbon dioxide from avoided energy generation: (MMTCO2E)

Method for entering waste acceptance data[CHOOSE ONLY ONE METHOD]:

The size of this landfill indicates that it may be subject to EPA's New Source Performance Standards/Emissions Guidelines. Please see 40 CFR part 60 for more information.

C

Average project size for CHP projects producing hot water/steam (million Btu/yr)

M

Annual waste disposal history (in WASTE worksheet)

M

0.04

Potential methane generation capacity of waste, Lo (ft3/ton)

Net present value payback* (years after operation begins)

Total installed capital cost for year of construction ($)Annual costs for initial year of operation ($)

Net present value at year of construction ($)

GHG value of average annual amount of methane utilized in project (MMTCO2E/yr)

Average annual amount of methane collected and destroyed (million ft3/yr)GHG value of total lifetime amount of methane utilized in project (MMTCO2E)

Total lifetime amount of methane collected and destroyed (million ft3)

Hawaii

Average annual carbon dioxide from avoided energy generation: (MMTCO2E/yr)

Will LFG energy project cost include collection and flaring costs? (Y)es or (N)o

Year LFG energy project begins operation

Average project size for projects NOT generating electricity: (million ft3/yr)

For direct use, high Btu, and CHP projects only: Distance between landfill and direct end use, pipeline or CHP unit (miles)

For leachate evaporator projects only: Amount of leachate collected (gal/yr)

LFG energy project size: Gas rate = (M)inimum, (A)verage, ma(X)imum, or (D)efined by user (must enter design flow rate below)?For user-defined project size only: Design flow rate (ft3/min)

INP-OUT - 5 of 11


INPUTS / OUTPUTS Enter Landfill Name or Identifier: Ordot DumpDefault Model Inputs:

Type of Default Input

Suggested

Default Data

Average depth of landfill waste (ft) 50Utilization of CHP hot water/steam potential (%) 100%Expected LFG energy project lifetime (years) 15Operating schedule: Hours per day 24(does not apply to Days per week 7leachate evaporators) Weeks per year 52General inflation rate (% - applied to O&M costs) 2.5%Equipment inflation rate (%) 1.0%Energy tax credits: Landfill gas utilization or high Btu production ($/million Btu) $0.000

Electricity generation ($/kWh) $0.000Direct credits: Global warming potential of methane 21.00

Greenhouse gas reduction credit ($/MTCO2E) $0.000Are direct methane reductions included in GHG credit? YRenewable electricity credit ($/kWh) $0.000Avoided leachate disposal ($/gal) ** $0.000Construction grant ($) $0

Royalty payment for landfill gas utilization ($/million Btu) $0.000Cost uncertainty factor (entered as % adjustment) 0.0%Annual product price escalation rate (%) 2.0%Electricity purchase price for projects NOT generating electricity ($/kWh) ** $0.075Annual electricity purchase price escalation rate (%) 2.0%

** Based on initial year of operation

Please contact LMOP if you are interested in running the model with different defaults.

Disclaimer: LFGcost-Web is a landfill gas energy project cost estimating tool developed for EPA's LMOP. LFGcost-Web estimates landfill gas generation rates using a first-order decay equation. This equation is used to estimate generation potential but can not be considered an absolute predictor of the rate of landfill gas generation. Variations in the rate and types of incoming waste, site operating conditions, and moisture and temperature conditions may provide substantial variations in the actual rates of generation. The costs that are estimated by LFGcost-Web are based on typical project designs and for typical landfill situations. The model attempts to include all equipment, site work, permits, operating activities, and maintenance that would normally be required for constructing and operating a typical project. However, individual landfills may require unique design modifications which would add to the cost estimated by LFGcost-Web. Analyses performed using LFGcost-Web are considered preliminary and should be used for guidance only. A detailed final feasibility assessment should be conducted by qualified landfill gas professionals prior to preparing a system design, initiating construction, purchasing materials, or entering into agreements to provide or purchase energy from a landfill gas project.

INP-OUT - 6 of 11





WASTE CALCULATOR / DISPOSAL HISTORY Landfill Name or Identifier:

Annual Waste Disposal History:

Year

Annual Waste

Acceptance

(tons/yr)

Waste-In-Place

(tons)Waste Acceptance Rate Calculator: 1944Waste-in-place (tons) 5,000,000 1945 0

2011 - OR - 1946 0Resulting average annual waste acceptance rate (tons/yr) 74,627 1947 0

1948 01949 01950 01951 01952 01953 01954 01955 01956 01957 01958 01959 01960 01961 01962 01963 01964 01965 01966 01967 01968 01969 01970 01971 01972 01973 01974 01975 01976 01977 01978 01979 01980 01981 01982 01983 01984 01985 01986 01987 01988 01989 01990 01991 01992 01993 0

Ordot Dump


Year representing waste-in-place

WASTE - 7


WASTE CALCULATOR / DISPOSAL HISTORY Landfill Name or Identifier:

Annual Waste Disposal History:

Year

Annual Waste

Acceptance

(tons/yr)

Waste-In-Place

(tons)

Ordot Dump


1994 01995 01996 01997 01998 01999 02000 02001 02002 02003 02004 02005 02006 02007 02008 02009 02010 02011 02012 02013 02014 02015 02016 02017 02018 0

WASTE - 8

LFGcost-Web Model (Version 2.2) - Landfill Gas Energy Project Cost Estimate

Disclaimer:

Summary Results

Landfill Name: Ordot Dump

Project Start Year: 2014

Project End Year: 2028

Project Type: Leachate Evaporator

Annual Average Landfill Gas Utilized by Project (ft3/min): 5

Financial Results:

Net Present Value: ($4,540,632) (at year of construction)

Internal Rate of Return: 0%

Net Present Value Payback (yrs): None (years after operation begins)

Installed Capital Costs:

Total Capital Costs: $0

O&M Costs: $575,400 (for initial year of operation)

These financial results DO NOT include the costs associated with the LFG collection and flaring system.

LFGcost is a landfill gas energy project cost estimating tool developed for EPA's LMOP. LFGcost estimates landfill gas generation rates using a first-order decay equation. This equation is used to estimate generation potential but can not be considered an absolute predictor of the rate of landfill gas generation. Variations in the rate and types of incoming waste, site operating conditions, and moisture and temperature conditions may provide substantial variations in the actual rates of generation.

The costs that are estimated by LFGcost are based on typical project designs and for typical landfill situations. The model attempts to include all equipment, site work, permits, operating activities, and maintenance that would normally be required for constructing and operating a typical project. However, individual landfills may require unique design modifications which would add to the cost estimated by LFGcost.

Analyses performed using LFGcost are considered preliminary and should be used for guidance only. A detailed final feasibility assessment should be conducted by qualified landfill gas professionals prior to preparing a system design, initiating construction, purchasing materials, or entering into agreements to provide or purchase energy from a landfill gas project.

SBatiste

Highlight

To view the economic benefits and job creation analysis, ensure that you have:--Selected a state for the project in cell D2 of the 'INP-OUT' worksheet;--Selected either a direct use (D) or reciprocating engine (E) project type in cell D12 of the 'INP-OUT' worksheet; and,--Selected a project start year in cell D19 of the 'INP-OUT' worksheet.

LFGcost-Web Model (Version 2.2): Cash Flow Analysis

15

Cash Flow Inputs: Construction YearYear 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Total installed capital cost ($) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total annual cost ($) - 575,400 589,400 603,800 618,500 633,600 649,000 664,800 681,100 697,700 714,700 732,100 750,000 768,300 787,100 806,300 Landfill gas sold to direct use (ft3) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Net electricity produced (kWh) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHP hot water/steam produced (million Btu) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - High Btu gas produced (million Btu) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Leachate disposed (gallons) - 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 17,337,500 Landfill gas utilized (ft3) - 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 2,741,100 Direct methane reductions (MMTCO2E) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Avoided CO2 emissions (MMTCO2E) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Economic Analysis:

Year of Operation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Revenue Direct of High Btu Gas sales - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electricity sales - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHP hot water/steam sales - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Operating Costs 575,400 589,400 603,800 618,500 633,600 649,000 664,800 681,100 697,700 714,700 732,100 750,000 768,300 787,100 806,300 Greenhouse gas credit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Renewable electricity credit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Leachate credit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gas royalty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Capital CostsDown payment - Construction grant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Loan (principle) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Loan (interest) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Equity payment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Principle remaining - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TaxesDepreciation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tax liability (575,400) (589,400) (603,800) (618,500) (633,600) (649,000) (664,800) (681,100) (697,700) (714,700) (732,100) (750,000) (768,300) (787,100) (806,300) Tax before credit (201,400) (206,300) (211,300) (216,500) (221,700) (227,200) (232,700) (238,400) (244,200) (250,100) (256,300) (262,500) (268,900) (275,500) (282,200) Tax credit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Net tax - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Net income - (575,400) (589,400) (603,800) (618,500) (633,600) (649,000) (664,800) (681,100) (697,700) (714,700) (732,100) (750,000) (768,300) (787,100) (806,300) Cash flow - (575,400) (589,400) (603,800) (618,500) (633,600) (649,000) (664,800) (681,100) (697,700) (714,700) (732,100) (750,000) (768,300) (787,100) (806,300) Internal rate of return 0%Cumulative cash flow - (575,400) (1,164,800) (1,768,500) (2,387,000) (3,020,600) (3,669,600) (4,334,400) (5,015,500) (5,713,200) (6,427,900) (7,160,000) (7,910,000) (8,678,300) (9,465,400) (10,271,700) Simple payback (years) NonePresent value of cash flow (at project discount rate) - (475,500) (442,800) (412,400) (384,000) (357,600) (333,000) (310,200) (288,800) (269,000) (250,500) (233,300) (217,300) (202,300) (188,400) (175,500) NPV (at project discount rate) (4,540,600) Cumulative PV - (475,500) (918,300) (1,330,700) (1,714,700) (2,072,400) (2,405,400) (2,715,600) (3,004,400) (3,273,400) (3,523,900) (3,757,200) (3,974,400) (4,176,700) (4,365,200) (4,540,600)

Expected LFG energy project

lifetime (years)

Operating Years

Landfill Name or Identifier: Ordot Dump

Project Type: Leachate Evaporator


Disclaimer:

Summary Results




Project Type: Direct Use


Financial Results:

Net Present Value: ($830,236) (at year of construction)

Internal Rate of Return: -35%



Skid-mounted Filter, Compressor, and Dehydration Unit: $800,600

Pipeline to convey gas to project site: $173,400

Total Capital Costs: $974,100






SBatiste

Highlight

LFGcost-Web v2.2: Economic Benefits and Job Creation Summary



State of Project:

Construction Phase (one-time impacts)

Number of jobs created within the state directly from project: 1.0Total number of jobs created within the state including economic ripple effects: 4.0Direct state-wide expenditures on project ($000): 217Total state-wide economic output resulting from ripple effects ($000): 530

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Phase (annual impacts)

Number of jobs created within the state directly from project: 0.1Total number of jobs created within the state including economic ripple effects: 0.3Direct state-wide expenditures on project ($000): 19Total state-wide economic output resulting from ripple effects ($000): 40

Hawaii

LFG energy projects generate benefits for the communities and states in which they are located, as well as for the United States. These benefits include new jobs and expenditures directly impacting the local and state-wide economies as a result of the construction and operation of an LFG energy project. In addition, there are indirect economic benefits when the direct expenditures on an LFG energy project flow through the economy resulting in increased overall economic production and economic activity within the local, state, and national economies.

The total employment and output impacts summarized below represent the state-wide impacts considering ripple effects of the expenditures and employment directly related to the LFG energy project. The economic “ripple” effect has three components: direct, indirect, and induced. Direct effects result from on-site jobs and new purchases from local businesses that are required to build and operate the project. Indirect effects occur as those local businesses spend their new revenue to re-stock and pay their employees. Induced effects result when employees spend their paychecks within the state. Each layer of spending generates new income to firms and families in the state, and eventually to the overall national economy.

The cost of large or specialized components, or specialized engineering and design labor likely to be manufactured or hired outside of the state is not included in the state-wide impacts estimates.

While in the construction phase, an LFG energy project provides a one-time boost to the local and state economies, and the operation and maintenance of the project generates ongoing economic activity throughout the lifetime of the project. The annual impacts use the estimated expenditures during the first year of the project operation to estimate the annual economic benefits during the O&M phase.


15


Total installed capital cost ($) 974,100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total annual cost ($) - 34,600 35,500 36,400 37,300 38,200 39,100 40,100 41,100 42,100 43,100 44,200 45,300 46,400 47,500 48,700 Landfill gas sold to direct use (ft3) - 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 Net electricity produced (kWh) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHP hot water/steam produced (million Btu) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - High Btu gas produced (million Btu) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Leachate disposed (gallons) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Landfill gas utilized (ft3) - 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 17,152,800 Direct methane reductions (MMTCO2E) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Avoided CO2 emissions (MMTCO2E) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Economic Analysis:


Revenue Direct of High Btu Gas sales 43,400 44,300 45,100 46,100 47,000 47,900 48,900 49,800 50,800 51,900 52,900 54,000 55,000 56,100 57,300 Electricity sales - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHP hot water/steam sales - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Capital CostsDown payment 194,800 Construction grant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Loan (principle) 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 116,100 - - - - - -

Loan (interest) 62,300 58,000 53,400 48,400 42,900 37,100 30,800 23,900 16,600 8,600 - - - - - - Equity payment 53,800 58,100 62,700 67,800 73,200 79,000 85,400 92,200 99,600 107,500 - - - - - - Principle remaining 779,200 725,500 667,400 604,600 536,900 463,700 384,600 299,300 207,100 107,500 - - - - - -

TaxesDepreciation 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 64,900 Tax liability (114,200) (109,600) (104,500) (99,100) (93,200) (86,900) (80,100) (72,700) (64,800) (56,200) (56,200) (56,300) (56,300) (56,300) (56,400) Tax before credit (40,000) (38,300) (36,600) (34,700) (32,600) (30,400) (28,000) (25,500) (22,700) (19,700) (19,700) (19,700) (19,700) (19,700) (19,700) Tax credit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Net tax - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Net income (62,300) (114,200) (109,600) (104,500) (99,100) (93,200) (86,900) (80,100) (72,700) (64,800) (56,200) (56,200) (56,300) (56,300) (56,300) (56,400) Cash flow (310,900) (107,400) (107,400) (107,400) (107,400) (107,300) (107,300) (107,400) (107,400) (107,400) 8,700 8,700 8,700 8,600 8,600 8,500 Internal rate of return -35%Cumulative cash flow (310,900) (418,300) (525,700) (633,100) (740,400) (847,800) (955,100) (1,062,500) (1,169,800) (1,277,200) (1,268,500) (1,259,800) (1,251,100) (1,242,500) (1,233,900) (1,225,300) Simple payback (years) NonePresent value of cash flow (at project discount rate) (282,700) (88,700) (80,700) (73,300) (66,700) (60,600) (55,100) (50,100) (45,500) (41,400) 3,100 2,800 2,500 2,300 2,100 1,900 NPV (at project discount rate) (830,200) Cumulative PV (282,700) (371,400) (452,100) (525,400) (592,100) (652,700) (707,800) (757,800) (803,400) (844,800) (841,700) (838,900) (836,400) (834,200) (832,100) (830,200)


lifetime (years)

Operating Years




Disclaimer:

Summary Results




Project Type: Small Engine-Generator Set


Financial Results:

Net Present Value: ($37,574) (at year of construction)

Internal Rate of Return: 1%



Gas Compression/Treatment, Engine/Generator, Site Work, Housings, and Electrical Interconnect Equipment:

$146,100

Total Capital Costs: $146,100






SBatiste

Highlight

To view the economic benefits and job creation analysis, ensure that you have:--Selected a state for the project in cell D2 of the 'INP-OUT' worksheet;--Selected either a direct use (D) or reciprocating engine (E) project type in cell D12 of the 'INP-OUT' worksheet; and,--Selected a project start year in cell D19 of the 'INP-OUT' worksheet.


15


Total installed capital cost ($) 146,100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total annual cost ($) - 13,700 14,000 14,400 14,800 15,100 15,500 15,900 16,300 16,700 17,100 17,500 18,000 18,400 18,900 19,400 Landfill gas sold to direct use (ft3) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Net electricity produced (kWh) - 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 453,000 CHP hot water/steam produced (million Btu) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - High Btu gas produced (million Btu) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Leachate disposed (gallons) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Landfill gas utilized (ft3) - 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 17,724,600 Direct methane reductions (MMTCO2E) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Avoided CO2 emissions (MMTCO2E) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Economic Analysis:


Revenue Direct of High Btu Gas sales - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electricity sales 27,200 27,700 28,300 28,800 29,400 30,000 30,600 31,200 31,800 32,500 33,100 33,800 34,500 35,200 35,900 CHP hot water/steam sales - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Capital CostsDown payment 29,200 Construction grant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Loan (principle) 17,400 17,400 17,400 17,400 17,400 17,400 17,400 17,400 17,400 17,400 - - - - - -

Loan (interest) 9,300 8,700 8,000 7,300 6,400 5,600 4,600 3,600 2,500 1,300 - - - - - - Equity payment 8,100 8,700 9,400 10,200 11,000 11,900 12,800 13,800 14,900 16,100 - - - - - - Principle remaining 116,900 108,800 100,100 90,700 80,500 69,500 57,700 44,900 31,100 16,100 - - - - - -

TaxesDepreciation 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 Tax liability (5,000) (4,100) (3,100) (2,100) (1,000) 100 1,400 2,700 4,100 5,600 5,800 6,100 6,300 6,500 6,800 Tax before credit (1,700) (1,400) (1,100) (700) (400) 100 500 900 1,400 2,000 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 Tax credit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Net tax - - - - - 100 500 900 1,400 2,000 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400

Net income (9,300) (5,000) (4,100) (3,100) (2,100) (1,000) 100 900 1,800 2,700 3,700 3,800 3,900 4,100 4,200 4,400 Cash flow (46,600) (3,900) (3,700) (3,500) (3,300) (3,100) (3,000) (3,200) (3,400) (3,700) 13,400 13,500 13,700 13,800 14,000 14,100 Internal rate of return 1%Cumulative cash flow (46,600) (50,600) (54,300) (57,900) (61,200) (64,300) (67,300) (70,500) (73,900) (77,600) (64,200) (50,700) (37,000) (23,200) (9,200) 5,000 Simple payback (years) 14 Present value of cash flow (at project discount rate) (42,400) (3,300) (2,800) (2,400) (2,100) (1,800) (1,500) (1,500) (1,500) (1,400) 4,700 4,300 4,000 3,600 3,300 3,100 NPV (at project discount rate) (37,600) Cumulative PV (42,400) (45,700) (48,500) (50,900) (53,000) (54,700) (56,200) (57,700) (59,200) (60,600) (55,900) (51,600) (47,600) (44,000) (40,600) (37,600)


lifetime (years)

Operating Years


Project Type: Small Engine-Generator Set

Ordot Dump Gas Collection and Control System Plan

B

Appendix B: Manufacturer’s LFG Control Device Operations and Maintenance Manual

ordot dump gas collection and control system plan … d/2. gas collection an… · gccs compliance...

Documents